THE decision to award a knighthood to Salman Rushdie is open to debate and we join those who doubt whether he has truly earned the honour.

That said, we understand why there is such a strongly held view across the country that Britain has every right to make that decision and to defend it in the face of threats of an escalation in terrorism.

Indeed, it would be entirely wrong to reverse the decision in response to al Qaida's warning of retaliation against Britain for "defying the Muslim world". We should not be seen to be backing down to terrorists once the decision has been made.

But we believe there is a distinction between that position and the question of whether it was wise to bestow a knighthood on the controversial author in the first place.

Those who made the decision must have done so in that knowledge that it would inflame an already highly sensitive situation. If they didn't, they are incredibly naïve.

If there was an overwhelming justification for the author to be knighted, it would be easier to understand. But how many people would have been walking around saying: "I cannot believe that Salman Rushdie didn't get a knighthood?"

Very few would have questioned his omission from the honours list, so why pour fuel on the flames?

Days after he took over as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown talked of the need to win hearts and minds if the war on terror was ever to be won.

We question whether the decision to give Salman Rushdie a knighthood was consistent with that line of thought.