Sunday, October 31, 2010

Jihadi Yusuf Islam (AKA Cat Stevens) Featured At Jon Stewart Rally

The “Restoring Sanity” rally on the National Mall yesterday put on by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert was a travesty in many respects, but one of its featured guests underlined that in a unique way.

Appearing as a featured guest at the rally was none other than Yusuf Islam, AKA 'Cat Stevens' before he converted to Islam. Stevens was actually barred from coming to America during the Bush Administration because of his radical views, but has had no problem getting visas since the Obama Administration took over.

Among other things, Yusuf Islam was an enthusiastic endorsee of the death sentence fatwa pronounced by the Ayatollah Khomeini on writer Salman Rushdie, as shown here on British television in 1989 :

Robertson: You don’t think that this man deserves to die?

Y. Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?

Robertson: Yes.

Y. Islam: Yes, yes.

Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?

Y. Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act – perhaps, yes..

Robertson: Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam, would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy was going to be burned?

Y. Islam: I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.

Yussuf reiterated those sentiments in the New York Times after the interview:

The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.”

The singer, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam, made the remark during a panel discussion of British reactions to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s call for Mr. Rushdie to be killed for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his best-selling novel ”The Satanic Verses.” He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.”

”I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,” said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments.

In other words, Yusuf Islam hopped off the peace train he used to sing about when he became a Muslim.

Of course, Yusuf's story now is that he was only joking and his comments were taken out of context.

I don't think so, do you? And neither does Salman Rushdie.

I don't mind confessing that I frequently find Jon Stewart laugh-out-loud funny, even if I don't particularly care for his politics most of the time. But to give a platform to Yusuf Islam? That took some real chutzpah, especially from someone like Stewart who champions freedom of expression. How would Yusuf Islam react to a fatwa against Jon Stewart?

And I wonder, given Stewart's ethnicity - did he ever ask Yusuf Islam how he felt about what the Qu'ran says about Jews?

Appalling. There's no other word for it.

(via memeorandum. hat tip Cap'n Ed at Hot Air)

please helps me write more gooder!


Independent Patriot said...

Jon Stewart stopped being funny along time ago. his politics infects his jokes and quite frankly while a successful entertainer he is a political moron.

Anonymous said...

I am totally, utterly and completely disgusted by these immoral people who have no problem endorsing this treacherous sleazebag.

Shame on them.

I used to like Jon Stewart, but I detest him now because of his disgusting stance on Islam.

What an absolute idiot.

louielouie said...

i thought jon stewart was a dumm mass, when others thought he was funny.

Patrick said...

For your enlightenment - maybe you should read the Qur'an or at least this section of Wikipedia:

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Patrick,
Wikipedia, LOL! The 'authority' anyone can edit?

Patrick, not only have I read the Qu'ran,but many of the Hadiths and the Sirah. All are rife with Jew hatred.

For that matter, one of Mohammed's first acts as Islam's leader was to put together an army from Mecca to plunder, murder and enslave the Jews of Medina(formerly Yathub), a city they founded after they gave him and his followers refuge after the Hejira, when he was forced out of Mecca.he then ethnically cleansed every Jew he could find from the Arabian Peninsula.

Here's a little tidbit from the hadiths, the life and sayings of Mohammed as reported by his followers: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour[of the last days] will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Pickthal translation)

There's plenty more..Qu'rannic verses 5:60, 5:64 and 5:78, as just a small example.

And if you have any doubts, one merely needs to look at how Islamic countries have treated Jews over the centuries and how ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations in modern times - after plundering their wealth, of course, just like Mohammed.

Not all Muslims are Jew haters, but the basis for it is legitimized in their scriptures..which is why I wondered if Stewart had asked Yusuf Islam how he felt about the matter, since I have a pretty good idea of what his answer would be.


Patrick said...

As an ordained clergy person - I too can cherry pick sacred texts to prove just about anything! And yes, even though Wikipedia can be edited by anyone - it has some valuable information - and represents the point of the Rally - we can work together, so take it down a notch.

No one needs a history lesson about the abuses cast down on others in the name of religion! As a Christian - I stand as guilty as anyone else of a murderous religious history.

Please - just chill the divisive rhetoric and look for things that we agree on - for the sake of our country and world.

Patrick said...

I see that you choose not to post my first comment and I doubt that you will post my third or fourth comments without adding a dismissive comment. Why not try to engage in real dialogue? Why not see the good and bad that exists in everyone - to err on the side of charity or grace?

You came close - you acknowledged that "not all" (the vast majority) "Muslims are Jew Haters"

You could simply substitute Christianity in your statement: Not all "Christians" are Jew haters, but the basis for it is legitimized in their scriptures... as it was for many years.

I have a question for you - why do you fight against freedom? And more importantly, why do fight so vilely against fellow USA citizens who just don't happen to vote the way you do?

I wish you had come to the Rally.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Patrick,
I didn't post your first comment because it was partisan crap..'chill, people like you are the reason we needed the rally'? LOL.

And I also doubt that that you're 'an ordained clergy person'. A Jew would have referred to himself as a Rabbi, a Christian as a minister,priest or pastor depending on denomination and a Muslim Imam would have quoted the Qu'ran directly instead of 'wikipedia'. And the more honest imams or sheiks would have admitted the Jew hatred in Muslim scriptures. A number of them have, and some have actually attempted to evolve beyond it.

Christianity does indeed have a bloody history. But (a) it's in the past, as compared with Islam (b) The death toll pales when compared to Islam's 1400 year jihad and (c) there is no direct endorsement of hatred of 'the other' or forced conversions in Christian scriptures (I defy you to show me where) although it definitely has happened nor is it a modern, everlasting imperative as it is in the Qu'ran and hadiths.

As far as I'm concerned, having a jihadi like Yusuf Islam at the rally is the ultimate in 'divisive rhetoric.' It underlines the lie in the whole premise.Di d he or his pals give a @!!# about Salman Rushdie's freedom? Or yours?

And that's exactly my point. I notice that you respond based on feelings rather than fact. The divisive rhetoric you''re so concerned with is simply an effort to bring some facts and truth into the conversation. The very fact that you consider what I have to say 'vile' says a lot more about you and those of your mentality than it says about me.

Totalitarianism has almost always come from the Left, Patrick. Always. Even Hitler's party was the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Worker's Party. They were called Nazis for short, and if that's not enough of a tip off, the Nazi banner - bright red, with a swastika in the middle and most of Hitler's rhetoric and subsequent legislation ought to clue you in.


Patrick said...

Ah yes - thank you for following the pattern - attack and discredit those who don't agree with you. Quite frankly, I don't feel the need to show you my diploma from Princeton Theological Seminary nor my ordination papers, but if you want to see them I'd be happy to show them to you.

The whole point of the Rally was that it wasn't partisan "crap" as you so nicely put it - it was fun, in fact it was so not partisan that it was disappointing to those who had hoped that it would be!

You have some fairly tiny definitions for what qualifies things as "valid" or "truth" or "clergy."

Okay - some resources for you, take time to read "Text of Terror" by Phyllis Trible to give you another perspective of Christian Scripture. Then if you want to we can also engage in a discussion on a theological level about a faith tradition that has at its core the belief in blood sacrifices as redemptive.

What is held in common to all major religious traditions is a version of the Golden Rule. Now, in practice, this might actual mean being willing to tolerate the presence of someone even as different in belief as you and Yusuf at a Rally to Restore Sanity.

We can go toe to toe hitting each other over the head with facts - but until we see the face of the other person as one who is just as valued, just as full of passion and opinion, just as worthy of the opportunities available in this world - then we fail to "evolve" (as you noted is possible) beyond the limits of our perspectives, understandings, and definitions.

That goes for all of us Rob -

Freedom Fighter said...

Obviously Princeton - assuming you went there- didn't teach you critical thinking or how to absorb what you read properly.

I didn't say the rally was partisan crap..that statement referred to your first comment, when you whined about how I hadn't published it.

As for your other statements, it's obvious you have no real facts behind what you're trying to contribute, and I think I've wasted more than enough time on you.

Let me know when the shuttle lands, OK?


Patrick said...

Again why do you choose personal attacks?

I have given you concrete resources to turn to - Facts about Scripture - but instead of being willing to enter into a meaningful and deep discussion on the issues - you decide to call it quits.

Is it too much for you to put in the effort, to go beyond name calling, and talk with someone who holds a different opinion?

Please, I value your time. Let's take a single issue, you pick the topic, and we can try a open dialogue. We can follow the basic ground rules as cited by Viewpoint Learning:

* The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. (You cannot "win" a dialogue.)
* All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or special interests.
* Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal: leave role, status and stereotypes at the door.
* Be open and listen to others even when you disagree, and suspend judgment. (Try not to rush to judgment).
* Search for assumptions (especially your own).
* Listen with empathy to the views of others: acknowledge you have heard the other especially when you disagree.
* Look for common ground.
* Express disagreement in terms of ideas, not personality or motives.
* Keep dialogue and decision-making as separate activities. (Dialogue should always come before decision-making.)
* All points of view deserve respect and all will be recorded (without attribution)

What say you Rob?

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way."


Freedom Fighter said...

"Let's all sing kumbayah!"

we've already discusseda few issues Patrick - I'll summarize:

First you cited wikipedia (LOL!) because you felt I was mistaken about the Jew hatred rife in Islam, and said I should read the Qu'ran. When I actually cited Qu'ran and hadith to prove you wrong, you started whining about personal attacks.

It's not you personally I dislike Patrick, since I don't know you - it's your ideas and your sloppy mode of thinking.

I'll summarize this for you simply.

Yusuf Islam is a jihadist who endorsed a death sentence fatwa on author Salmon Rushdie because of his thoughts.

Are you or are you not hypocritical to defend his appearance as 'diversity' at a rally supposedly dedicated to free speech and free expression?

Patrick said...

Great - you seem game.

First off - you assumed that I thought you were mistaken about the "Jew hatred" in the Qu'ran. Where I never wrote that - what I did write was a reference to a source (which you may or may not agree with - although I think it may be worth you time to see how it is monitored for content) that points out how the Qu'ran displays both a tolerance for Jewish People is some areas and a disdain (in particular when they have wronged you) in other areas. Infidels (basically all of us not Islamic) - get lumped together in many instances - (which by the way is the same in all of religious texts as well).

As for personal attacks and whining - hmmmm - since you cannot see nor hear emotions in my text you have made another assumption.
There is no connection between your cherry picking of Islamic text and my questioning of your willingness to post my comments.

But let's review your personal comments:

1) "And I also doubt that that you're 'an ordained clergy person."
Why? What is it to you? And as I said before - one this count I have the documents to support my statement.

2)"you respond based on feelings rather than fact."
My factual citation are too long - which is why I referenced them and provided resources. But, I am happy to note a few of the facts:
"According to Bernard Lewis and other scholars, the earliest verses of the Qur'an were largely sympathetic to Jews. Mohammed admired them as monotheists and saw them as natural adherents to the new faith and Jewish practices helped model early Islamic behavior, such as midday prayer, prayers on Friday, Ramadan fasting (modelled after the Jewish Yom Kippur fast on the tenth of the month of Tishrei), and most famously the fact that until 623 Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca. After his flight (al-hijra) from Mecca, where religious intolerance reigned, in 622 Mohammad with his followers settled in Yathrib, subsequently renamed Medina al-Nabi (‘City of the Prophet’) where he managed to draw up a ‘social contract’, widely referred to as the 'Constitution of Medina'. This contract, known as the Leaf (ṣaḥīfa) upheld the peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, defining them all, under given conditions, as constituting the umma, or community of that city, and granting the latter freedom of religious thought and practice." (yes, this from wikipedia but it is all referenced there for one to check out).

[cont. in next post]

Patrick said...

"Let's all sing kumbayah!"

You aren't attacking my faith tradition are you? Is there no room for tolerance?

Now - let's move on to the meat of your post about a rally you did not attend: The appearance of Yusuf Islam.

We all do stupid things sometimes. What if Yusuf admitted that he was naive and never intended to endorse the Fatwa - then we would have to decide if we are willing to believe him or not, yes? Well, here are his own words:

"I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini – and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.
When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that – like both the Torah and the Gospel – the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[1] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole.
The accusation that I supported the Fatwa, therefore, is wholly false and misleading. It was due to my naivety in trying to answer a loaded question posed by a journalist, after a harmless biographical lecture I gave to students in Kingston University in 1989."

Obviously - I am willing to take him at his word - particularly if he is willing to participate in public displays of tolerance, rationality and calls for peace.

Blessings on you brother Rob.

Freedom Fighter said...


(a) I suggest you read the links in the story RE: Yusuf Islam, and do a search on his jihadist beliefs, including his support of Hamas. Not only did he 'slip up' once, but reiterated his desire to see Rushdie killed several times. As for his non-apology, I'm certain that was taqiyah to enable him to get a US visa again.

(b) re: Early verses versus late verses - You're obviously not familiar with the Islamic doctrine of abrogation accepted by all four fiqhs(Muslim schools of jurisprudence) for centuries. The Qu'ran is not written in chronological order and the later verses take precedent.

(c) Mohammed's 'contract' with the Jews in Yathrib was similar to the later 'Peace of Hubidiyeh' - a convenience until he was able to get the forces to destroy, loot and enslave.In Mo's own words 'War is deception.'

(d)I find your attempt to compare Islam to Judaism or Christianity astounding. respectfully, are you sure you actually have a degree in divinity? I suggest you do some honest research on Islam. Shortcuts include comparing the life and deeds of Mohammed to that of Moses and Jesus.

Patrick said...

Ah see, we are getting somewhere - I sense an agreement on Islamic history building - yes, I am familiar with abrogation but it doesn't change the fact that there was a time (any many who still hold to this previous understanding) that tolerance between the faith traditions are preferable to holy war. Yes?

Now is there a recent citation of Yusuf's 1989 statement - since you don't believe his current stated position on the issue - should we use abrogation in this instance? :)
Or should we all be held accountable for the things we said twenty-one or more years ago?

Not arguing the incredible violence that occurred between the Faith traditions - we agree on that - and it does indeed continue to this day. My recent visit to the Middle East causes me to doubt seriously if any peace solution is possible. When people are unable to come together for honest dialogue - what hope is there?

So here we are - finding some common ground.

As far as the three Abrahamic traditions having commonalities - well - how could they not.

But one issue as a time - that's what I asked for. Your main question and point was "Are you or are you not hypocritical to defend his appearance as 'diversity' at a rally supposedly dedicated to free speech and free expression?"

Let's first look at the issue of free speech and free expression - if we take that seriously, don't we have to allow for speech and expression that not only differs from us but may seem to be coming from someone who would prefer to limit others free speech? It's kind of like "catch 22" isn't it? Ironic even - to limit someone's free speech to protect free speech.

Now to the term "diversity" - I am not even sure why you used this term - I never mentioned it and I don't remember you using it in your post? I do not defend his presence on the basis of "diversity"

For me - this was a rally to restore "Sanity." Sanity in conversations, discourse and dialogue. In that sense, what better person to have - someone who said something dumb that he has retracted (whether or not you believe his retraction).

They also had flight attendant Steven Slater - give an apology for his actions.

Oh and yes - my degree is called a Master's of "Divinity" and yours?

Peace Rob

Freedom Fighter said...

Thank for providing me and my readers with a superb example of why it is normally - thank G-d, not always - a waste of time to engage the Left in any kind of dialog.

I asked you a direct,yes or no question - Are you or are you not hypocritical to defend his appearance as 'diversity' at a rally supposedly dedicated to free speech and free expression?

Instead of answering it, or refuting any of the facts I presented, you're simply dancin'.

Yussuf Islam did not 'apologize' at your rally for his past actions - in fact, he's NEVER apologized, merely said he was taken out of context, which he obviously was not. And who cares about some wacko flight attendant who forgot his job responsibilities and jumped ship?

Nor did you address Yussuf Islam's fondness for a genocidal terrorist group named Hamas.

Since you defend Yusuf Islam's appearance, we obviously have no common ground, and I find your attempts to paste over such obvious differences ridiculous.