f/k/a . . .

September 22, 2004

30 Comments »

1. I would normally be skeptical of the government’s allegations, except that I remember with great clarity how shocked I was years ago when I learned that Cat Stevens supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s “order” to murder author Salman Rushdie for “blaspheming” Islam, which is referenced at the bottom of the article. As someone who read the offending book Rushdie wrote, which ruined his life because of these death threats, I don’t believe anyone but a militant, radical fanatic would believe Rushdie to have blasphemed anyone in that book. Setting aside, of course, the absurd notion that blasphemy of a religion is punishable by death.

   Comment by UCL — September 22, 2004 @ 8:03 pm

2. I would normally be skeptical of the government’s allegations, except that I remember with great clarity how shocked I was years ago when I learned that Cat Stevens supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s “order” to murder author Salman Rushdie for “blaspheming” Islam, which is referenced at the bottom of the article. As someone who read the offending book Rushdie wrote, which ruined his life because of these death threats, I don’t believe anyone but a militant, radical fanatic would believe Rushdie to have blasphemed anyone in that book. Setting aside, of course, the absurd notion that blasphemy of a religion is punishable by death.

   Comment by UCL — September 22, 2004 @ 8:03 pm

3. The Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam story is an interesting one, albeit hard to judge without more of the facts. He did indeed support the Rushdie fatwa [and what a treat it is, UCL, to read a comment from someone else who has actually read "The Satanic Verses"], but he has been vocal lately in opposition to the sort of mass violence that has spread so much misery and marred the good name of his chosen faith. Who can say where the truth lies?

   The main impact of this story for me has been the same as for you, David: a reminder of the pleasure that was and is to be had from listening to Georgiu/Stevens/Islam’s music in those faraway 70’s. So let’s all listen to a few of those tunes while reading some Rushdie — perhaps the book he wrote while under fatwa, the delightful “Haroun and the Sea of Stories,” which has much of the whimsy of a Stevens tune — and the world will be a more pleasant place for a few moments at least.

   Comment by George Wallace — September 23, 2004 @ 3:43 pm

4. The Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam story is an interesting one, albeit hard to judge without more of the facts. He did indeed support the Rushdie fatwa [and what a treat it is, UCL, to read a comment from someone else who has actually read "The Satanic Verses"], but he has been vocal lately in opposition to the sort of mass violence that has spread so much misery and marred the good name of his chosen faith. Who can say where the truth lies?

   The main impact of this story for me has been the same as for you, David: a reminder of the pleasure that was and is to be had from listening to Georgiu/Stevens/Islam’s music in those faraway 70’s. So let’s all listen to a few of those tunes while reading some Rushdie — perhaps the book he wrote while under fatwa, the delightful “Haroun and the Sea of Stories,” which has much of the whimsy of a Stevens tune — and the world will be a more pleasant place for a few moments at least.

   Comment by George Wallace — September 23, 2004 @ 3:43 pm

5. I hardly thought that I’d be so focused on this when I started the day, but I feel obliged to report back in.

   Apparently it is still true that Any Publicity is Good Publicity: “The Very Best of Cat Stevens” sits comfortably at #14 at Amazon this afternoon. (Not that he’ll see any direct benefit from that. I seem to recall that he directs the entirety of the royalties from the old music to Islamic charities.)

   Comment by George Wallace — September 23, 2004 @ 6:04 pm

6. I hardly thought that I’d be so focused on this when I started the day, but I feel obliged to report back in.

   Apparently it is still true that Any Publicity is Good Publicity: “The Very Best of Cat Stevens” sits comfortably at #14 at Amazon this afternoon. (Not that he’ll see any direct benefit from that. I seem to recall that he directs the entirety of the royalties from the old music to Islamic charities.)

   Comment by George Wallace — September 23, 2004 @ 6:04 pm

7. Thank you for covering Cat’s tale while I’ve been distracted by my darling niece and nephew (talk about little terrorists!).  The world press is having a picnic with the deportation of Mr. Islam.  It’ll be interesting to see if we ever learn the substance of the Administration’s complaints/fears about the Cat Man. 
   In the Christian Science Monitor, Mansoor Ijaz opines (”One way to alienate moderate Muslims: deport Cat,” Sept. 24, 2004):

   “He has also spoken out repeatedly against terrorism since Sept. 11. Soon after terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Mr. Islam wrote “No right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action. The Koran equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity.” Words of an Islamist fanatic, or genuine sympathy for innocent life taken by those who have hijacked his, and my, religion? He expressed similar sentiments when the children of Beslan were slaughtered, and has been engaged since the horror two weeks ago in bringing relief to those families as well.
   “Oh, and he also so happened to re-record his 1970s hit, ‘Peace Train,’ last year to protest the Iraq war. Which is why Thursday’s events reek of political retribution of the very worst kind.”

   Comment by David Giacalone — September 23, 2004 @ 8:18 pm

8. Thank you for covering Cat’s tale while I’ve been distracted by my darling niece and nephew (talk about little terrorists!).  The world press is having a picnic with the deportation of Mr. Islam.  It’ll be interesting to see if we ever learn the substance of the Administration’s complaints/fears about the Cat Man. 
   In the Christian Science Monitor, Mansoor Ijaz opines (”One way to alienate moderate Muslims: deport Cat,” Sept. 24, 2004):

   “He has also spoken out repeatedly against terrorism since Sept. 11. Soon after terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Mr. Islam wrote “No right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action. The Koran equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity.” Words of an Islamist fanatic, or genuine sympathy for innocent life taken by those who have hijacked his, and my, religion? He expressed similar sentiments when the children of Beslan were slaughtered, and has been engaged since the horror two weeks ago in bringing relief to those families as well.
   “Oh, and he also so happened to re-record his 1970s hit, ‘Peace Train,’ last year to protest the Iraq war. Which is why Thursday’s events reek of political retribution of the very worst kind.”

   Comment by David Giacalone — September 23, 2004 @ 8:18 pm

9. So Mansoor Ijaz doubts that Mr. Islam is a “fanatic” given that he condemns the 9/11 attacks. The bar for avoiding the label of fanaticism is apparently lower than ever. Nowadays, you may very well call for the murder of innocent novelists, but if you actually tell the world what we already know–that murdering 3000 innocent civilians is wrong–then suddenly you’re immune from being called a fanatic.

   Comment by UCL — September 23, 2004 @ 9:00 pm

10. So Mansoor Ijaz doubts that Mr. Islam is a “fanatic” given that he condemns the 9/11 attacks. The bar for avoiding the label of fanaticism is apparently lower than ever. Nowadays, you may very well call for the murder of innocent novelists, but if you actually tell the world what we already know–that murdering 3000 innocent civilians is wrong–then suddenly you’re immune from being called a fanatic.

    Comment by UCL — September 23, 2004 @ 9:00 pm

11. I do not know what is in Mr. Islam-Stevens heart, UCL.  But 9/11 came a dozen years after the “Satanic Verses” was written, and it is possible that he had a change of heart — a growth of spirit, or of understanding about the ugliness of terrorism.  
    It is a lot harder and riskier, I would suppose, for a well-known Muslim to come out publically condemning the actions of terrorists, than it is for an anonymous weblogger.
     

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 23, 2004 @ 9:24 pm

12. I do not know what is in Mr. Islam-Stevens heart, UCL.  But 9/11 came a dozen years after the “Satanic Verses” was written, and it is possible that he had a change of heart — a growth of spirit, or of understanding about the ugliness of terrorism.  
    It is a lot harder and riskier, I would suppose, for a well-known Muslim to come out publically condemning the actions of terrorists, than it is for an anonymous weblogger.
     

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 23, 2004 @ 9:24 pm

13. None of us know what is in his heart because he has refused to apologize and expresses no regret about it. Such a person is not worthy of forgiveness, or worthy of receiving the benefit of the doubt. The threat to Rushdie’s life was very real and very tangible. That reality was exacerbated by the endorsement of a celebrity.

    It is neither “hard” nor “risky” for a well-known Muslim to condemn the actions of terrorists. I know many Muslims who would take extreme offense to that comment.

    Comment by UCL — September 23, 2004 @ 9:54 pm

14. None of us know what is in his heart because he has refused to apologize and expresses no regret about it. Such a person is not worthy of forgiveness, or worthy of receiving the benefit of the doubt. The threat to Rushdie’s life was very real and very tangible. That reality was exacerbated by the endorsement of a celebrity.

    It is neither “hard” nor “risky” for a well-known Muslim to condemn the actions of terrorists. I know many Muslims who would take extreme offense to that comment.

    Comment by UCL — September 23, 2004 @ 9:54 pm

15. I don’t know where all this anger is coming from, UCL, nor do I understand your logic about offending Muslims.  Like all true believers, Muslim fanatic-terrorists believe that members of their own faith who disagree with their interpretations of the Koran are especially worthy of condemnation and punishment.  It seems logical, then, that it is risky for a well-known Muslim — especially one very active in establishing Islamic education centers in the West — to make strong statements disagreeing with acts of terrorism by the fanatics.
    We do not know all the facts about the Administration’s conclusion that Mr. Islam/Stevens is now a danger to the USA.  Nor do we know what was/is in his heart.  I am not willing to say that he is not worthy of forgiveness.
    I went to Cat Stevens.com and searched <Satanic Verses>.  Five articles were returned from various media sources.  Below are the relevant excerpts, which I hope can shed some light on the subject.  More information will be forthcoming from the Administration, I hope.  You might also want to check in at the official Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam website to see Cat’s thoughts as the situtation unfolds.
     
    First, is a Statement by Yusuf Islam on the CatStevens.com website (March 12, 2003):

    Yusuf Islam Talks about the Satanic Verses ControversyBy Yusuf Islam, CatStevens.Com (March 12th, 2003)Firstly, it is very difficult to educate people in the midst of a political battlefield of smoke and antagonization, which is what I believe represented the atmosphere between the West and Iran back in the early 1990’s when I simply attempted to answer a question presented to me during a lecture. Sadly, 14 years later and right up to today, some people still try to connect me to this issue, whereas I had nothing really to do with it; I was tricked and foolishly fell for the trap. My view today with regard to respect for treaties and international law has obviously developed since those early days of ‘fire and brimstone’; the keeping of the peace and respect for the sacred is to me at the heart of Islam’s and other Religion’s prohibition against Blasphemy. But there are deep legalistic questions connected to this subject of which there can be many views, this is not necessarily the subject of this particular essay. So…back in February 1989 I was delivering a talk about my journey to Islam at Kingston University in London, when somebody (probably a disguised journalist) mischievously posed a question about Islam’s view on apostates and blasphemers. As a student who had studied the issue for the first time, I simply did my best by answering direct from legal texts which I had read. Instead of reporting my response in context, which I naively expected, suddenly the headline in next day’s paper read “Cat Says Kill Rushdie!” Well, needless to say, all hell then broke loose and my political education had really begun. Thank God the newspaper responsible, Today, has since folded and is now out of circulation; unfortunately the monstrous myth it created still survives. What I actually tried to do at the lecture in Kingston, and subsequently during other interviews, was to quote ‘from the book’ what Islam says about the legal consequences for someone who commits blasphemy within the context of Islamic law where it is adopted and applied, I never ever sanctioned people taking the law in their own hands or overstepping the laws of the Britain which is what the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini proposed. The truth is I never once stated support for the ‘Fatwa’ I was simply a new Muslim who had stated something which I considered quite plain and obvious and if you were to ask a bible student you know what the Ten Commandments were you would expect him to repeat them honestly, you wouldn’t blame him for doing so; the Bible is full of similar headlines if you’re looking for them. On reflection, the Satanic Verses question was another glaring case of journalistic malice, a chance for someone to distort and damage another person’s character or faith – in this case, me and Islam. Today the myth that I supported the edict of Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie still perpetuates. Even when music journalists review a record of mine occasionally, a few can’t help regurgitating the same old story as if I have done nothing else of worth in my fifty odd years on earth! As for my actual statements, forget it! They would never make news. Following the fake headline printed on 23rd February 1989, I immediately sent out an official Press Release explaining my true position – one of abiding by the law and letting the legal process deal with such offences – was wholly ignored, and was only printed in a local paper in Willesden, North London. After confirming that Islamic Law considers Blasphemy without repentance as a capital offence, I stated clearly, “Under the Islamic law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (Fard ‘Ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn’t mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, thieves and murders. If we can’t get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, ‘Satanic Verses’ which insults God and His Prophets – including those Prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims – this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying does not work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us.” I would also like to quote a letter I sent to the Viking, the publishers, on 8th October, five months prior to that lecture after I had been sent a preview of the Text of Satanic Verses, “I wish to express my deepest outrage at the insensitivity of Penguin Books in Publishing Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘Satanic Verses’, This book is clearly blasphemous in nature and so deeply offensive to the Muslim Community…I urge you to give the contents of this letter your most urgent attention and take a responsible decision.” It is not my intention to say things did not become heated later during the debate, certainly there were times when I felt it necessary to speak out, emphasising the need to respect Muslim beliefs which must have sounded abrasive to liberal ears and which must have confirmed to them their image of me and my ‘apparent’ position; however, as can be seen from the foregoing, the true reality of my actual statements is light years away from the myth which has been projected. One of the benefits - if we can consider it as such - is the motivation the whole issue gave in driving me back into the studio again. It was obvious to me that the subject of Islam was never going to be represented fairly by non-Muslim journalists and authors; it was really up to us, to help people understand some of the treasures this faith has to offer humanity, hidden as it has been by the smoke of political controversy over the years, particularly since the Iranian Revolution.. In the text of a Press Release during the launch of my first album, The Life Of The Last Prophet (Album), made after 17 years of absence from the Studio, in 1995, it read: “The Satanic Verses was Salman Rushdie’s view of the Prophet of Islam; The Life Of The Last Prophet (s) is mine! Rushdie’s book, by his own confession, is based on fiction - mine is based on facts! Therefore people are free; they now have a choice, so let them listen and see who they are more inclined to believe. That is all I wish to say on that matter.” On VH1’s Cat Stevens (Bio): Behind the Music documentary aired in October 200, again I was asked about the controversy. Below is a transcript of the response: Narrator: BY THE MID 1980′S POP STAR CAT STEVENS HAD VANISHED INTO THE SHADOWS. NOW Yusuf Islam (Bio) EMERGED INTO THE LIGHT. HE WORKED TIRELESSLY FOR MUSLIM CAUSES AROUND THE WORLD. AND BY THE END OF THE DECADE HE HAD FOUND HIS VOICE AGAIN… AS A SPOKESMAN FOR THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY. THEN IN FEBRUARY 1989 HE WAS DRAWN INTO A CONTROVERSY WHICH - FOR A TIME - WOULD ECLIPSE A DECADE OF GOOD DEEDS. WHEN BRITISH AUTHOR SALMAN RUSHDIE WAS ABOUT TO PUBLISH HIS NOVEL ‘SATANIC VERSES’, IT CAUSED AN OUTRAGE IN MUSLIM COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD. THEY ALLEGED THAT THE AUTHOR COMMITTED BLASPHEMY BY INSULTING GOD AND HIS PROPHETS. Yusuf: I was contacted by someone saying there’s a book coming out (er) and will you join a petition to write to the publishers, and that’s what we did you know it was very simple. Narrator: THE PETITION TO STOP THE BOOK’S DISTRIBUTION FAILED. THEN, THE ALREADY VOLATILE SITUATION WAS IGNITED. IRAN’S ISLAMIC LEADER, THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI ISSUED A JUDGEMENT - OR A FATWAH - CALLING FOR THE DEATH OF SALMAN RUSHDIE. Yusuf: I found myself somehow being pushed up to the front of the vanguard of this kind of struggle (um) and being asked to comment. Yusuf (TV clip): Our aim is an ideal society…. Narrator: WITHIN DAYS OF THE CONTROVERSY ERUPTING, YUSUF ISLAM FOUND HIMSELF IN THE HOTSEAT… PRESSED TO EXPLAIN THE QUR’AN’S POSITION ON BLASPHEMY. YUSUF - A RECENT CONVERT - SAID THAT THE QUR’AN - LIKE THE BIBLE - TEACHES THAT THE PENALTY FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH. Yusuf: I’d done enough studying at that point to be able to actually sort of more or less quote you know (er) chapter and verse the commentary of religious texts based on the Qur’an (um) of which there are different opinions, I said, “…well yes it says this…” Next day, you know, the headline read, ‘Cat says kill Rushdie’. I was horrified! Narrator: BUT YUSUF SAYS THE NEWSPAPERS HAD IT WRONG…. HE NEVER ENDORSED THE FATWAH ON RUSHDIE’S LIFE. Yusuf: I was simply a new Muslim who had stated something which I thought was quite simple and if you were to ask a bible student you know what the Ten Commandments were you would expect him to read that, you wouldn’t blame him for that. Narrator: APPALLED BY THE MEDIA’S INTERPRETATION OF HIS COMMENTS, YUSUF IMMEDIATELY RELEASED A STATEMENT TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION. IT READ, “That is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it.” Narrator: IT WENT ON TO SAY: “Under Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep with in the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfill their basic religious duties.” Yusuf: In other words you can’t take a rule in Islam even it is right from the Qur’an or the sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and suddenly apply it yourself. You know, I think I was a little bit na

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 24, 2004 @ 12:57 am

16. I don’t know where all this anger is coming from, UCL, nor do I understand your logic about offending Muslims.  Like all true believers, Muslim fanatic-terrorists believe that members of their own faith who disagree with their interpretations of the Koran are especially worthy of condemnation and punishment.  It seems logical, then, that it is risky for a well-known Muslim — especially one very active in establishing Islamic education centers in the West — to make strong statements disagreeing with acts of terrorism by the fanatics.
    We do not know all the facts about the Administration’s conclusion that Mr. Islam/Stevens is now a danger to the USA.  Nor do we know what was/is in his heart.  I am not willing to say that he is not worthy of forgiveness.
    I went to Cat Stevens.com and searched <Satanic Verses>.  Five articles were returned from various media sources.  Below are the relevant excerpts, which I hope can shed some light on the subject.  More information will be forthcoming from the Administration, I hope.  You might also want to check in at the official Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam website to see Cat’s thoughts as the situtation unfolds.
     
    First, is a Statement by Yusuf Islam on the CatStevens.com website (March 12, 2003):

    Yusuf Islam Talks about the Satanic Verses ControversyBy Yusuf Islam, CatStevens.Com (March 12th, 2003)Firstly, it is very difficult to educate people in the midst of a political battlefield of smoke and antagonization, which is what I believe represented the atmosphere between the West and Iran back in the early 1990’s when I simply attempted to answer a question presented to me during a lecture. Sadly, 14 years later and right up to today, some people still try to connect me to this issue, whereas I had nothing really to do with it; I was tricked and foolishly fell for the trap. My view today with regard to respect for treaties and international law has obviously developed since those early days of ‘fire and brimstone’; the keeping of the peace and respect for the sacred is to me at the heart of Islam’s and other Religion’s prohibition against Blasphemy. But there are deep legalistic questions connected to this subject of which there can be many views, this is not necessarily the subject of this particular essay. So…back in February 1989 I was delivering a talk about my journey to Islam at Kingston University in London, when somebody (probably a disguised journalist) mischievously posed a question about Islam’s view on apostates and blasphemers. As a student who had studied the issue for the first time, I simply did my best by answering direct from legal texts which I had read. Instead of reporting my response in context, which I naively expected, suddenly the headline in next day’s paper read “Cat Says Kill Rushdie!” Well, needless to say, all hell then broke loose and my political education had really begun. Thank God the newspaper responsible, Today, has since folded and is now out of circulation; unfortunately the monstrous myth it created still survives. What I actually tried to do at the lecture in Kingston, and subsequently during other interviews, was to quote ‘from the book’ what Islam says about the legal consequences for someone who commits blasphemy within the context of Islamic law where it is adopted and applied, I never ever sanctioned people taking the law in their own hands or overstepping the laws of the Britain which is what the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini proposed. The truth is I never once stated support for the ‘Fatwa’ I was simply a new Muslim who had stated something which I considered quite plain and obvious and if you were to ask a bible student you know what the Ten Commandments were you would expect him to repeat them honestly, you wouldn’t blame him for doing so; the Bible is full of similar headlines if you’re looking for them. On reflection, the Satanic Verses question was another glaring case of journalistic malice, a chance for someone to distort and damage another person’s character or faith – in this case, me and Islam. Today the myth that I supported the edict of Ayatollah Khomeini on Salman Rushdie still perpetuates. Even when music journalists review a record of mine occasionally, a few can’t help regurgitating the same old story as if I have done nothing else of worth in my fifty odd years on earth! As for my actual statements, forget it! They would never make news. Following the fake headline printed on 23rd February 1989, I immediately sent out an official Press Release explaining my true position – one of abiding by the law and letting the legal process deal with such offences – was wholly ignored, and was only printed in a local paper in Willesden, North London. After confirming that Islamic Law considers Blasphemy without repentance as a capital offence, I stated clearly, “Under the Islamic law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (Fard ‘Ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn’t mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, thieves and murders. If we can’t get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, ‘Satanic Verses’ which insults God and His Prophets – including those Prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims – this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying does not work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us.” I would also like to quote a letter I sent to the Viking, the publishers, on 8th October, five months prior to that lecture after I had been sent a preview of the Text of Satanic Verses, “I wish to express my deepest outrage at the insensitivity of Penguin Books in Publishing Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘Satanic Verses’, This book is clearly blasphemous in nature and so deeply offensive to the Muslim Community…I urge you to give the contents of this letter your most urgent attention and take a responsible decision.” It is not my intention to say things did not become heated later during the debate, certainly there were times when I felt it necessary to speak out, emphasising the need to respect Muslim beliefs which must have sounded abrasive to liberal ears and which must have confirmed to them their image of me and my ‘apparent’ position; however, as can be seen from the foregoing, the true reality of my actual statements is light years away from the myth which has been projected. One of the benefits - if we can consider it as such - is the motivation the whole issue gave in driving me back into the studio again. It was obvious to me that the subject of Islam was never going to be represented fairly by non-Muslim journalists and authors; it was really up to us, to help people understand some of the treasures this faith has to offer humanity, hidden as it has been by the smoke of political controversy over the years, particularly since the Iranian Revolution.. In the text of a Press Release during the launch of my first album, The Life Of The Last Prophet (Album), made after 17 years of absence from the Studio, in 1995, it read: “The Satanic Verses was Salman Rushdie’s view of the Prophet of Islam; The Life Of The Last Prophet (s) is mine! Rushdie’s book, by his own confession, is based on fiction - mine is based on facts! Therefore people are free; they now have a choice, so let them listen and see who they are more inclined to believe. That is all I wish to say on that matter.” On VH1’s Cat Stevens (Bio): Behind the Music documentary aired in October 200, again I was asked about the controversy. Below is a transcript of the response: Narrator: BY THE MID 1980′S POP STAR CAT STEVENS HAD VANISHED INTO THE SHADOWS. NOW Yusuf Islam (Bio) EMERGED INTO THE LIGHT. HE WORKED TIRELESSLY FOR MUSLIM CAUSES AROUND THE WORLD. AND BY THE END OF THE DECADE HE HAD FOUND HIS VOICE AGAIN… AS A SPOKESMAN FOR THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY. THEN IN FEBRUARY 1989 HE WAS DRAWN INTO A CONTROVERSY WHICH - FOR A TIME - WOULD ECLIPSE A DECADE OF GOOD DEEDS. WHEN BRITISH AUTHOR SALMAN RUSHDIE WAS ABOUT TO PUBLISH HIS NOVEL ‘SATANIC VERSES’, IT CAUSED AN OUTRAGE IN MUSLIM COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD. THEY ALLEGED THAT THE AUTHOR COMMITTED BLASPHEMY BY INSULTING GOD AND HIS PROPHETS. Yusuf: I was contacted by someone saying there’s a book coming out (er) and will you join a petition to write to the publishers, and that’s what we did you know it was very simple. Narrator: THE PETITION TO STOP THE BOOK’S DISTRIBUTION FAILED. THEN, THE ALREADY VOLATILE SITUATION WAS IGNITED. IRAN’S ISLAMIC LEADER, THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI ISSUED A JUDGEMENT - OR A FATWAH - CALLING FOR THE DEATH OF SALMAN RUSHDIE. Yusuf: I found myself somehow being pushed up to the front of the vanguard of this kind of struggle (um) and being asked to comment. Yusuf (TV clip): Our aim is an ideal society…. Narrator: WITHIN DAYS OF THE CONTROVERSY ERUPTING, YUSUF ISLAM FOUND HIMSELF IN THE HOTSEAT… PRESSED TO EXPLAIN THE QUR’AN’S POSITION ON BLASPHEMY. YUSUF - A RECENT CONVERT - SAID THAT THE QUR’AN - LIKE THE BIBLE - TEACHES THAT THE PENALTY FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH. Yusuf: I’d done enough studying at that point to be able to actually sort of more or less quote you know (er) chapter and verse the commentary of religious texts based on the Qur’an (um) of which there are different opinions, I said, “…well yes it says this…” Next day, you know, the headline read, ‘Cat says kill Rushdie’. I was horrified! Narrator: BUT YUSUF SAYS THE NEWSPAPERS HAD IT WRONG…. HE NEVER ENDORSED THE FATWAH ON RUSHDIE’S LIFE. Yusuf: I was simply a new Muslim who had stated something which I thought was quite simple and if you were to ask a bible student you know what the Ten Commandments were you would expect him to read that, you wouldn’t blame him for that. Narrator: APPALLED BY THE MEDIA’S INTERPRETATION OF HIS COMMENTS, YUSUF IMMEDIATELY RELEASED A STATEMENT TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION. IT READ, “That is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it.” Narrator: IT WENT ON TO SAY: “Under Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep with in the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfill their basic religious duties.” Yusuf: In other words you can’t take a rule in Islam even it is right from the Qur’an or the sayings of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and suddenly apply it yourself. You know, I think I was a little bit na

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 24, 2004 @ 12:57 am

17. I don’t see a modicum of regret in any of the nuanced paraphrases (and they are just that, which is regrettable) of his actual words you have quoted. The most important paraphrase I see, to the contrary, states, “While he supports the Muslim idea of supreme punishment for blasphemy, he said, he didn’t think it was right to hunt someone down and kill them.” What he’s attempting to pull off is a classic evasive witness trick that any litigator worth 2 cents would have caught on to, but none of the journalists you quote bothered to ask him appropriate follow-up questions. For example: so Cat, you don’t think it’s right to “hunt someone down and kill them,” so what DO you believe? Should Rushdie be given a proper trial with all due process on the issue of whether he blasphemed Islam, and then executed?

    This is really a very simple issue. First, Cat Stevens believes that blasphemy of Islam is punishable by death. Second, Cat Stevens believes that Salman Rushdie blasphemed Islam (read your last quote). Third, he refuses to NOW elaborate on what his position at the time was, or whether his position has changed as of today (which I don’t think it has).

    As for your suggestion that it is difficult for Muslims to criticize terrorism, I simply think the falsity of that suggestion speaks for itself and it would be futile to try and persuade you, personally, in any case.

    Comment by UCL — September 24, 2004 @ 7:54 pm

18. I don’t see a modicum of regret in any of the nuanced paraphrases (and they are just that, which is regrettable) of his actual words you have quoted. The most important paraphrase I see, to the contrary, states, “While he supports the Muslim idea of supreme punishment for blasphemy, he said, he didn’t think it was right to hunt someone down and kill them.” What he’s attempting to pull off is a classic evasive witness trick that any litigator worth 2 cents would have caught on to, but none of the journalists you quote bothered to ask him appropriate follow-up questions. For example: so Cat, you don’t think it’s right to “hunt someone down and kill them,” so what DO you believe? Should Rushdie be given a proper trial with all due process on the issue of whether he blasphemed Islam, and then executed?

    This is really a very simple issue. First, Cat Stevens believes that blasphemy of Islam is punishable by death. Second, Cat Stevens believes that Salman Rushdie blasphemed Islam (read your last quote). Third, he refuses to NOW elaborate on what his position at the time was, or whether his position has changed as of today (which I don’t think it has).

    As for your suggestion that it is difficult for Muslims to criticize terrorism, I simply think the falsity of that suggestion speaks for itself and it would be futile to try and persuade you, personally, in any case.

    Comment by UCL — September 24, 2004 @ 7:54 pm

19. I think the Unonymous Commenting Litigator doth protest way too much.    The 2000 Rolling Stone piece was an interview, so these are Mr. Stevens/Islam’s actual words, responding to David Wild’s prompt ”I wonder what lessons you’ve learned from the “Satanic Verses” controversy“:

    “One of the unfortunate things was that because I was well-known and I’d become a Muslim, any kind of issue in the Muslim world, they’d come to me and ask my comment. And I’m [was] just a novice. I’m a new Muslim. When the Satanic Verses issue came up, the first thing that happened was I was contacted by someone saying there was a book coming out, and will you join a petition to write the publishers? That’s what we did. Then this whole other thing happened from Iran, and the fatwas were suddenly being made. I was giving a lecture, I think in London, and somebody asked me, “Well, what is the situation in Islam regarding blasphemy?” I’d done enough studying to know that I could quote religious texts based on the Koran, of which there are different opinions. But I said, “Well, yes, it says this.” “Next day, the headline read, CAT SAYS KILL RUSHDIE. I was horrified. I made a statement to try and correct it, but nobody would listen. Everybody wanted to see this distorted picture of what I’d said. I didn’t know how to respond. I didn’t have a publicity agent to protect me. I just had a whole lot of Muslims who were frustrated along with me at what was being said. I think I was a little bit naive. Perhaps I should have thought a little bit more before answering.” (emphasis added) 

    UCL, I hope that politics, or personal pride, or self-righteousness, aren’t keeping you — or me – from being open to learning new facts about this situation.  I want to see if the Administration has information that justifies deporting Mr. Islam.  Meanwhile, macho declarations of what cross-examination could do to Cat Stevens on the witness stand are meaningless (I think we all know that good lawyering can do a great job of distorting any quote or explanation of intent.).  And, frankly, until you come out from behind the veil of anonymity when you make statements condemning other people, your opinion about when it might take courage, or be risky, to take a public position against fanatical murderers is far from probative to me.
    update (Sept. 25, 2004):  UCL, after reading Evan Schaeffer’s piece on lawyer bullies this morning, I want to apologize for any bullying that I have done in replying to your comments.

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 24, 2004 @ 8:58 pm

20. I think the Unonymous Commenting Litigator doth protest way too much.    The 2000 Rolling Stone piece was an interview, so these are Mr. Stevens/Islam’s actual words, responding to David Wild’s prompt ”I wonder what lessons you’ve learned from the “Satanic Verses” controversy“:

    “One of the unfortunate things was that because I was well-known and I’d become a Muslim, any kind of issue in the Muslim world, they’d come to me and ask my comment. And I’m [was] just a novice. I’m a new Muslim. When the Satanic Verses issue came up, the first thing that happened was I was contacted by someone saying there was a book coming out, and will you join a petition to write the publishers? That’s what we did. Then this whole other thing happened from Iran, and the fatwas were suddenly being made. I was giving a lecture, I think in London, and somebody asked me, “Well, what is the situation in Islam regarding blasphemy?” I’d done enough studying to know that I could quote religious texts based on the Koran, of which there are different opinions. But I said, “Well, yes, it says this.” “Next day, the headline read, CAT SAYS KILL RUSHDIE. I was horrified. I made a statement to try and correct it, but nobody would listen. Everybody wanted to see this distorted picture of what I’d said. I didn’t know how to respond. I didn’t have a publicity agent to protect me. I just had a whole lot of Muslims who were frustrated along with me at what was being said. I think I was a little bit naive. Perhaps I should have thought a little bit more before answering.” (emphasis added) 

    UCL, I hope that politics, or personal pride, or self-righteousness, aren’t keeping you — or me – from being open to learning new facts about this situation.  I want to see if the Administration has information that justifies deporting Mr. Islam.  Meanwhile, macho declarations of what cross-examination could do to Cat Stevens on the witness stand are meaningless (I think we all know that good lawyering can do a great job of distorting any quote or explanation of intent.).  And, frankly, until you come out from behind the veil of anonymity when you make statements condemning other people, your opinion about when it might take courage, or be risky, to take a public position against fanatical murderers is far from probative to me.
    update (Sept. 25, 2004):  UCL, after reading Evan Schaeffer’s piece on lawyer bullies this morning, I want to apologize for any bullying that I have done in replying to your comments.

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 24, 2004 @ 8:58 pm

21. Your site is realy very interesting. http://www.bignews.com

    Comment by Mishel — August 24, 2005 @ 3:38 pm

22. Your site is realy very interesting. http://www.bignews.com

    Comment by Mishel — August 24, 2005 @ 3:38 pm

23. Cooking Measurement

    Comment by Crock Pot Cooking — September 9, 2005 @ 4:52 am

24. Cooking Measurement

    Comment by Crock Pot Cooking — September 9, 2005 @ 4:52 am

25. Cat Fancy Magazine

    Comment by Nature Magazine — September 26, 2005 @ 9:41 am

26. Cat Fancy Magazine

    Comment by Nature Magazine — September 26, 2005 @ 9:41 am

27. Stockholm Hotels

    Comment by Melbourne Hotels — January 23, 2006 @ 6:43 pm

28. Stockholm Hotels

    Comment by Melbourne Hotels — January 23, 2006 @ 6:43 pm

29. Cologne Hotels

    Comment by San Diego Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

30. Cologne Hotels

    Comment by San Diego Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

• OUR RESOURCES
  • ABOUT f/k/a
  • Access RECENT POSTS (RSS)
  • CURRENT COMMENTS (RSS)
  • David Giacalone’s haiku
  • EthicalEsq - LEGAL ETHICS
  • GUEST POET INDEX
  • HAIKU Resources
  • Haiku Topic & Event List
  • Implied Disclaimers
  • Prof. YABUT’s favorites
  • The Baseball Haiku Page
  • The Inadvertent Searchee
  • Weblog Culture
  • What is “real” haiku? senryu?
  • Why Lawyers & Haiku?
• Categories:
  • Book Reviews
  • Haibun
  • haijin-haikai news
  • Haiku or Senryu
  • law news
  • pre-06-2006
  • Procrastination Punditry
  • q.s. quickies
  • Schenectady Synecdoche
  • Uncategorized
  • viewpoint
• Search:
  
  
• Archives:
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
• Meta:
  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Valid XHTML
  • XFN
  • WP