posted
I think it is a shame that we don't pay attention to the profiling of moderate and law-abiding Muslims unless he or she is a celebrity.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, he's on there for specific reasons tied directly to him.
This isn't one of the many cases of similarly-named people getting caught up. He is the guy they meant to have on that list. I don't know if the reasons for him being there are any good, though.
posted
A number of charities have been blacklisted for channeling money to terrorist groups - whether or not the donors knew that prior to giving money is a little harder to prove.
posted
When Salman Rushdie was being targeted for death by Muslims, I remember the Former Cat Stevens was on that bandwagon. He has also been fairly anti-American since his conversion.
I don't know many details other than those, but I do not think he is being targeted just because he is a Muslim.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I have been looking for a good link. He seems to be accused of that, but denies it. Even so, it would be enough to get him under the radar.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His comments in 1989 concerning Salman Rushdie after the publication of Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses provoked controversy. During this time period an Islamic fatwa (religious ruling) was issued, holding that it was an obligation of Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie. Yusuf Islam publicly stated that Rushdie was indeed guilty of blasphemy against Islam, and Rushdie deserved to be killed. This led to a public outcry, and a drop in record sales. In response to this criticism, Yusuf Islam has since clarified that he believes that a death sentence can only be carried out by the authority of a court in an Islamic society, and that he is opposed to anyone taking the law into their own hands by murdering Rushdie.
quote:Yusuf Islam Issues A Formal Statement On The Rushdie Affair By Yusuf Islam March 2nd, 1989
Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.
On 21st February, I was speaking to a group of students at the Kingston Polytechnic, and in response to a question, I simply stated the Islamic ruling on the Rushdie affair. Suddenly. my picture was splashed on the front page of newspapers all over the world next to the headline: 'Kill Rushdie says Cat Stevens (Bio)'. It is very sad to see such irresponsibility from the 'free press' and I am totally abhorred.
My only crime was, I suppose, in being honest. I stood up and expressed my belief and I am in no way apologizing for it. I expressed the Islamic view based on the Qur'an, the Prophet's sayings (peace and blessings be upon him) and the rulings of the Caliphs and renowned schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
However, that is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it. 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, theives and murderers. 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 don't 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.
The fundimental issue which has put the non-Muslim world at loggerheads with Islam, is not that of the book or attempts to ban it. Indeed it is encouraging that many non-Muslims, including the Archbishop of Canterbury endore the request of Muslims that the Blasphemy Law be extended to cover the Islamic faith. When Jim Allen's play 'Perdition' was harassed out of existance by angry jews - some of whom burned an effigy of the writer - the British reaction was muted. The present attitude of the Government and press is obviously as a result of their opposition to the Islamic legal ruling that Rushdie should be executed and the fact that it has come from an Islamic country.
The fact is that as far as the application of Islamic Law and the implementation of full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the situation and presenting the Islamic viewpoint wherever and whenever possible. That is the duty of ever Muslim and that is what I did.
It's clear he supports government censorship and execution by an Islamic court for the book. Maybe it's not murder, but it's not a whole lot better.
posted
Jinx, my foot. I was there first, it was not simultaneous. Plus, you said my name, so the jinx would be removed anyway.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, but I hereby declare that you cannot go back and edit out my name, and then call down a Retroactive Jinx.
Back to Cat, though. While I do not think he is a dangerous type, I am sure he has been watched for years, even before the Rushdie incident.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
When does free association become abetting criminal activity? Do we have any reasonable criteria, or do we just know it when we see it. I'm not an advocate of any measures, I'm curious, though.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with the do not fly list precisely because it limits freedom with no finding of culpability. I haven't reached a suitable balance in my mind.
Association in and of itself does not currently give rise to criminal liability, at least as far as I know. The closest is RICO, but it requires some measure of control or receiving ill-gotten gains, so some act besides mere membership is required.
posted
I just want to say that his statements about Rushdie do not erase many of his otherwise noble words and actions that he made for the exact same reasons--he's a Muslim. If you go to his website, it's very clear that his statement is not representative of his attitude towards the rest of the universe.
This is not to say that he does not believe in censorship or that his statements regarding Rushdie should have been made. In light of an attitude amongst many people of many religions that one's religion should be followed without thought, they are understandable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Storm, you are right. I am just saying that this is the reason why he might be under the microscope a bit, and that he was not picked randomly just because he is Muslim.
(oh heavens, typos are just getting worse and worse. Just wrote "pickled" instead of "picked.")
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Cat's name was on the list, right? And he was allowed to get on the airplane, the plane took off and was in flight?
If he was on the list, why wasn't he stopped before getting on the plane? If he had been a real threat, wouldn't this have been way, way too late to stop him maybe?
As to Cat's need to be on the list. Well, he has made the statements in the past, only to recant them later on. And it is apparent that he holds Koranic laws above other laws ( i. e. the Rushdie deal). And he'll espouse those views in front of young Muslim students, only to retract the statements if they hit the media.
Let's face it, on the Rushdie thing, what he told the students wasn't that far from what the most radical Muslim clerics are telling their followers.
Perhaps, Mr. Islam doesn't see some kind of duality in his actions. Most outside observers, however, can spot it easily. He's made some beautiful music during his life, but that doesn't give him a pass to not be held responsible for the less beautiful things in his life. Heck, even Zsa Zsa Gabor had to serve a bit of time for slapping a cop. And now, Mr. Islam has to stay out of the US during this time of worry.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wont discuss the affiliations or ideas of Cat Stevens. I'd only like to know your opinion about the following:
Don't you think that barring his entrance into the U.S. will only foster more anti-americanism in the muslim world (and the world at large)? I know, I know...I'm a foreigner, and can't possibly understand everything that's happening out there, but still...
The man is an artist. He has controversial ideas, yes, but still I think banning his entrance makes U.S. gov the "bad guy" in the eyes of the world.
Just my opinion, folks.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ed, if other nations are going to get all worked up because we kept some potentially dangerous people out of the country, I don't know that we stand much chance of ever making them happy. What's next? Economic sanctions because our police have actual guns instead of just nightsticks?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are places where police uses only nightsticks?
About "potentially dangerous"...hmm...well, I guess law enforcers know a lot more about this than me. Hey, I'm not even saying that I'm totally against keeping him out of the country (although I feel he should have been warned before entering his plane to the U.S.)
I'm only stating that I think this incident will foster more anti-americanism over the world.
Here in Brazil we have plenty of "horror stories" about tourists mistreated in American Airports, kept in custody for many hours and forced to go back to Brazil. I'm sure most of those are just urban myths ("If you go to the U.S., Federals will lock you up at the airport, question you harshly, acuse you of being an illegal imigrant or a terrorist and deport you back to Brazil"), but you can see how the cultural meme is evolving...
posted
Basically, if Cat Stevens hadn't been a celebrity once upon a time, we wouldn't have even noticed this.
But, the rules need to be applied equally, and if Mr. Stevens is on the list, then he should be kept out, whether he was celebrity or not. His previous musical work shouldn't necessarily give him a pass on the regulations that travelers to the US, or even US citizen travelers, have to abide by.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When all is said and done Ed, there's not a lot we can do to eliminate all possible rumors and ill feelings about the US.
Have some immigrations agents overstepped their bounds? Sure. I argue the same thing happens when someone has a bad incident with the police - whether the cop was actually at fault or the "victim" is embellishing a story, the story spreads and the audience has no reason to dispute it or call the accuracy into question.
I'll go one further and marvel at why anyone comes to the US for vacations or travel because we are not a tourist friendly country, certainly not compared to other countries that have a heavier tourism base.
posted
And yes, I think British patrol officers are not armed with handguns as part of their daily kit, but I cannot confirm that as fact.
With respect, anti-Americanism is going to run rampant regardless for various reasons and I'd rather be disliked for protecting national security than to risk national security to pander to the audience.
Not that Cat Stevens (or the artist formerly known as) is by himself a massive, critical threat to afore-mentioned national security as far as I am aware, but someone felt strongly enough to add him to the watch list and deny him access.
posted
The actual problem is not the list itself. Obviously we need one. The problem, as this episode demonstrates, is that no one has any proof as to why people are on the list. You have the problem of who's watching the watchers?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, why aren't they offering proof, then, to shut people up? Security? O.K. Catch-22 situation, then, and you're right back to square one. If the people and the reasons for them being on the list can never be revealed by anyone for security reasons, no watchdog over that list can ever be held accountable for anything that happens regarding the list.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that assumes that there are watchdogs, that they have made the requests, and checked to make sure everything is on the up and up. Where is proof of that, at least?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess Storm Saxon addressed the main issue here. It's not that the list exists, but how it's drawn, and who oversees it.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do not think so. I am pretty sure he gave that part of his life up completely when he converted. Funny, i had it in my head that he had gone to India, and joined an ashram. Did he ever go into seclusion? Is there a monastic-style order of Islam?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is we don't know who/what/where/or how the list is made up.
It is either, A)In the midst of a buearocratic nightmare of confusion and cross departmental CYA denial, B)Part of a well orchestrated secret cabal that has plans of its own that are not to our advantage or C)run by a well organized secret organization with excellent skill and top secret knowledge whom we can trust completely to be honest and unbiased.
My money is on A.
However, the country seems determined to pick B or C and scream and yell to each other about it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually he spoke out against what happened on 9/11. He's also been denied entry to Israel on at least two occasions due to possible connections with Hamas.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
here is what he said,(also a press release): Press Release 17th September 2001 Press Release
quote: As a Human Being belonging to the Noble Faith of Islam I have personally been shattered by the horror of what I've seen in the United States; last week the indiscriminate spectacle of death we all witnessed changed the world, perhaps forever. Terror on this scale effects everybody on this small planet of ours and no-one is free from the fallout.
Along with the majority of the world’s Muslim opinion, I feel it a duty to make clear that such orchestrated acts of carnage as these have nothing to do with Islam or the beliefs of most Muslims. The Qur’an that I read specifically declares, ‘If anyone murders an (innocent) person…it will be as if he has murdered the whole of humanity. And if anyone saves a person it will be as if he has saved the whole of humanity.’
Yet we should remember, this kind of event is almost an everyday occurrence in some Muslim lands. It should not be exasperated by revenge attacks on more innocent families and communities. We must also warn of the hazards that this terrifying event could produce as a tool for some dangerous ideologists to promote increased intolerance and hostility against more innocent civilians; this again equals the mentality which caused the awful tragedy in the first place. Patience, therefore, is called for by all influential quarters - the media especially.
The perpetrators of this atrocity, regardless of what their religious, ideological or political background may be, stand outside the pale of moral Islamic values. They should know God will certainly call them to account for all that they did. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ‘Ruined are those who insist on hardship in Faith’ and ‘A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn’t kill another person illegally’. Such knowledge and words of guidance are desperately needed at this time to separate fact from falsehood; and to recognize the Last Prophet’s own definition of that which makes a person representative, or otherwise, of the Faith he taught and the one we try to follow.
posted
I saw part of an interview with him the other day. I did not realize that he had his young daughter with him, and that she had to board the plane alone because he was arrested.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
