“In Islam there is a line between let’s say freedom and the line which is then transgressed into immorality and irresponsibility and I think as far as this writer is concerned, unfortunately, he has been irresponsible with his freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It’s got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again.”

Later on BBC:

” 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.
[Some minutes later, Robertson on the subject of a protest where an effigy of the author is to be burned]
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

The New York Times also reports this statement from the program: [If Rushdie turned up at my 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.”

He later claimed it was a joke in poor taste and his web site claimed that he never supported the fatwa of Khomeini, very much in contrast to what he said earlier.

Peace.

There are dozens of videos out there with him saying this over and over again. He addresses this repeatedly on his website, in interviews, and has for many years.

This is yet one more case of whitey freaking out over Muslims. Why do the ignorant insist on citing rumor and bullshit as fact.

Yusuf is a man of Peace, Islam is a religion of Peace.

And no, I’m not a Muslim…I’m an Atheist, one who has followed Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam ‘s life and his music for nearly forty years.

It would take a person all of 2 minutes with google to verify what I’m saying, but if you’d rather regurgitate hate speak for the sake of furthering further ignorance and hatred, just know that you will only garner further ignorance and hatred.

So while the existence of a death-sentence fatwa may indeed be taken as a tacit admission of being unable to defend Islam via logic or evidence, it’s a misconception that “fatwa” generally means that sort of thing.

What this Australian parliamentarian is asking for is completely ridiculous. Either you let someone in or you don’t based on some kind of legal framework that applies to all.

You don’t arbitrarily start asking some visitors to sign disclaimers or loyalty oaths or whatever.

You’ve put it more concisely than I did. It’s easy to get lost in the specifics of who Stevens is, what he advocated, and all that. A free society is not going to restrict the travel of certain people for the things they say or the ideas they express. You honor the rights and privileges of even those whose views you find repugnant. If Stevens committed a crime, or conspired to commit a crime—then charge him! If not, then stop the grandstanding. I would have no problem if the Australian legislature simply did what most impotent legislatures do: Pass a resolution that says you condemn Cat Stevens and abhor the ideas he expressed. Done and done.

Recall that President Ahmadinejaad has advocated for, among other things, the violent annihilation of Israel, not to mention the execution of gay people. Nonetheless, he was allowed a platform at Columbia University to give a speech. And what happened when he got there? He was roundly booed and ridiculed by a crowd who, for the most part, showed up to do exactly that. Cat Stevens is just going to sing some songs—and I’m sure there will be a contingent of Australians there who will jeer at him. Why deprive them of that opportunity?

>>political assassination is not necessarily a crime.

Even if this indeed true (something that is highly debatable at least with regards to the US), by the same token what Yusuf Islam said is not illegal either.

What this Australian parliamentarian is asking for is completely ridiculous. Either you let someone in or you don’t based on some kind of legal framework that applies to all.

You don’t arbitrarily start asking some visitors to sign disclaimers or loyalty oaths or whatever.

Incidentally I’m against all restrictions of Cat Stevens to travel.

This is political gamesmanship. It only even exists because YI is a prominent figure. Hence there are points to be made.

I think one does much better by arguing ones case rather than trying to arm-wrestle another by coercion into making statements or admissions.

I think it’s wrong on principle. Do we really want political litmus tests for people who travel internationally? I don’t.

If political assassination advocacy is enough to get someone barred from going down under we’d see some interesting people being stopped.

Mind you, this is the same Autralian immigration authorities that detained and harrassed the founder of wikileaks for holding information on the sites that the Australian government was trying to censor. So they’re hardly in a position to claim some kind of moral higher ground.