Cat Stevens - Peace Activist?

[EmitFlesti]

In all the news stories about Cat Stevens having been denied entry into the United States, he is invariably described as a "peace activist".

In light of that, I have one simple question: Doesn't a man who supports the murder of novelists who write things he doesn't like thereby forefeit the right to be called a "peace activist"?

Cat Steven's disgraceful support of Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie and his blatant disregard for fundamental freedom of speech should forever put him beyond the pale of decent society and any consideration as a "peace activist".

[monetye]

Well, you know how Saddam Hussein had said at one point he was glad of the 9-11 thing, but made very clear he had nothing to do with it?

If you'll look very carefully at the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. in 2003, it was precipitated precisely and initiated solely by Bush's distaste for Saddam's comment.

Before the invasion that nation was cordoned for good
...they knew it.
Had a broken army
...they knew it.
Had no weapons that would escape the whole
cordoning presence or advent U.S. soil or air
...they knew it.
By these observations Iraq was no imminent or even
credible, physical threat to the U.S.
..."imminent or credible" being key phrases in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, case cites and stare decisis, which totally villify Saddam's comment as protected speech under the U.S. 1st amendment
...they knew it.

IOW's, under so called U.S. democracy, freedom, free speech, you can have everything destroyed just for a comment.

His comment should have been allowable speech under the 1st amendment.

The 10's of thousands of bloodied dead by Bush is now
history, though.

[Katmandu]

A little research by you would show that he never
endorsed Khomeni's fatwa. The media got it wrong.

[EmitFlesti]

Nothing the first response said above had anything whatsoever to do with my post, though it's not surprising that Cat Stevens fans would want to avoid the issue. Your post was incoherent in the extreme, and I would recommend you take some basic courses in grammar and logic.

Furthermore, freedom of speech and the First Amendment do not include the right to incite people to murder. Nevertheless, I was not saying that Stevens should be prosecuted or otherwise punished legally for saying that he supports the murder of Salman Rushdie (unless he takes actual steps to implement that support, either by himself or others). I was merely saying that decent people should not support him in any way or write encomiums lauding him as a great "peace activist". No genuine "peace activist" could support the murder of a novelist for writing books that he doesn't like. By the way, The Satanic Verses was a terrific novel that everyone should read!

[monetye]

Bush murdered 10's of thousands by just ignoring one man's right (Saddam's) to free speech. As coherent and logical as it gets, sorry.

[EmitFlesti]

Actually some basic research shows not that the media got it wrong, but that Stevens felt the need to give obfuscatory "clarifications" to his original statement in order to make it appear as though he didn't support the fatwa, tha latter obviously being more palatable to western ears.

His "clarification" states that he believes the fatwa was fundamentally correct according to Muslim law, and he also states that he believes the book should be banned, not just in Islamic countries, but in the West also, on grounds of "blasphemy". As to the former, he claims that he doesn't believe Muslims have the right to carry out the death sentence in countries that are not governed by Islamic law, but nowhere does he state that the death sentence itself is fundamentally wrong and a violation of basic human rights, nor does he say that he would not support carrying out the sentence if Rushdie lived in a country subject to Muslim law. Stevens' position on Rushdie is murky to say the least, and that murkiness probably has more to do with his desire to hide his true Islamist feelings from the Western media and album consumers than it does from any genuine feeling of outrage or disagreement with Khomenei's fatwa.

[EmitFlesti]

Monteye, if you really think the war in Iraq was based on denying Saddam Hussein's right to free speech, you are ignorant both of the war, of Saddam Hussein, and of the principle of freedom of speech.

I notice, however, that you still have not addressed the issue at hand here. Surprise, surprise. Irrational hatred of Bush trumps all, I guess.

[monetye]

EmitFlesti, nothing seems murkier and lurkier than Bush's "intelligence on WMD," 'your man' here who just
deported your "deplorable" Cat.

Dying to know if you're a patriotic American. Or, whether or not, approving of the U.S. "{self}righteous" turn away of the Cat.

Are you wont to suggest Bush OK, but Yusef the Cat not? I honestly wouldn't happen to know your personal stance on "American Activity" abroad, so please discuss it with us a little.

[monetye]

EmitFlesti said:

I notice, however, that you still have not addressed the issue at hand here. Surprise, surprise. Irrational hatred of Bush trumps all, I guess.

My belief: Cat is a man of VERY great peace...with one possible, rather difficult exception. And there is a FACT
winging onward that there is yet no body in the morgue over that exception.

Bush, mass murderer in a high place today, whose
murders were committed in denial of a
factual issue of "expressed speech"... well there is simply no way that Bush's mass murders for these reasons can hold a candle to anything Cat has done. Cat is far, far above he who would deport him now,
as a matter of fact, and, since Cat has produced not even 1 single dead body, as a matter of law, too.

So there may be a problem....

[EmitFlesti]

Neither my position on Iraq, or yours is of any relevance to the question I posed at the start of this thread, and I find it strange that neither you nor anyone else seems to want to answer it. You do not adequately address a question about Stevens' support for the fatwa against Rushdie by referring to Bush or Iraq. They are entirely unrelated issues.

[monetye]

EmitFlesti said:

Neither my position on Iraq, or yours is of any relevance to the question I posed at the start of this thread, and I find it strange that neither you nor anyone else seems to want to answer it.

I had answered yours just as you apparently were posting this (highlighted quote, you) without refreshing. If that suffices to you,
please answer mine. Let's discuss my question as relevant; after all, Bush and Co. are Cat's deporters. Are they somehow more righteous than he? You don't believe Bush took Saddam's comment as "intent," rather than "free speech and expression," even within the context of the occupation begun in 1991? You don't believe Bush is a mass murderer who's actual grounds
to commit these murders
devolves, per careful analyses, to usurping a man's right to free speech because he didn't like..."the
verse(s)" there? This is very relevant, I feel. This is exactly what happened. No more patriotic murk-makers for the Bush! Iraq was completely contained by 2003, their only crime ever having been the invasion of Kuwait. They were not invading other nations further. Bush was destined to sly killing off Saddam's nation and murdering 10's of thousands, solely for an instant act of free speech on top of that, later. Solely! Solely! Solely!

Relevant! Relevant! Relevant!

[EmitFlesti]

Again, you engage in a Bush-Saddam-Iraq diatribe, without answering my question about Cat Stevens: Does he, or does he not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and if so, can he still claim to be a "peace activist" while supporting the murder of novelists he doesn't like (along with supporting the banning of their novels, even in Western countries. This, more than anything, displays his contempt for free speech when it doesn't conform to his Islamist ideology)?

It's a simple question, and it has nothing to do with Bush, or Hussein, or Iraq. Your attempt to turn the Iraq war into a question of Hussein's freedom of speech is asinine and utterly ignorant.

[monetye]

EmitFlesti said:

Again, you engage in a Bush-Saddam-Iraq diatribe, without answering my question about Cat Stevens: Does he, or does he not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and if so, can he still claim to be a "peace activist" while supporting the murder of novelists he doesn't like (along with supporting the banning of their novels, even in Western countries. This, more than anything, displays his contempt for free speech when it doesn't conform to his Islamist ideology)?

It's a simple question, and it has nothing to do with Bush, or Hussein, or Iraq. Your attempt to turn the Iraq war into a question of Hussein's freedom of speech is asinine and utterly ignorant.

OK, how's this:

Cat: An instance of contempt for it (free speech), and
appears to have supported the fatwa; this would not allow for an unswerving, across all boards designation as a "peace activist," properly defined.
...but no dead bodies.

Bush: An instance of contempt for it (free speech), and
appears to have supported handing Iraq a "democracy"
he himself spits on or will not allow to humans whose
free speech doesn't suit him
...but 10's of thousands dead, maybe 8 times that
wounded.

Now answer all mine.

[EmitFlesti]

Again, I simply reiterate that your attempt to make the war in Iraq a "free speech" issue (Saddam's apparently) is inane, shallow, and ignorant. None of the convoluted questions you raised related to this (I say this because your grammar and syntax was so confusing that I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say) makes enough sense to require an answer.

[monetye]

I'm sorry, but I need to frisk people for American flags on them and have them deported from Heaven if finding.

Could you please at least cough up your patriotism? Among my many other questions?

[EmitFlesti]

These sentences illustrates my point exactly: "I'm sorry, but I need to frisk people for American flags on them and have them deported from Heaven if finding. Could you please at least cough up your patriotism?"

These sentences simply makes no sense. They are nonsensical from both a logical and a grammatical point of view. They say nothing relevant to the topic at hand.

[Katmandu]

Yusuf did not initiate any fatwa, he opposes violence.
He gives away millions to orphans. I think that
qualifies him as a peace activist.

[EmitFlesti]

I never said he "initiated" the fatwa. He supported it, albeit in a convoluted fashion designed to placate westerners. Whether he gives money to orphans is irrelevant to this question. Also, orphans have nothing to do with "peace" anyway.

[kabir]

EmitFlesti said:

Again, you engage in a Bush-Saddam-Iraq diatribe, without answering my question about Cat Stevens: Does he, or does he not support the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and if so, can he still claim to be a "peace activist" while supporting the murder of novelists he doesn't like (along with supporting the banning of their novels, even in Western countries. This, more than anything, displays his contempt for free speech when it doesn't conform to his Islamist ideology)?

It's a simple question, and it has nothing to do with Bush, or Hussein, or Iraq. Your attempt to turn the Iraq war into a question of Hussein's freedom of speech is asinine and utterly ignorant.

Actually, your original question didn't ask WHETHER Yusuf Islam supports the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or not, it stated as fact that he does support it, and then proceeded with the "peace activist" debate. Stated as such, it's a loaded question and the only conclusion to be drawn is the one that you have set up or "loaded" the "question" to draw. Yusuf Islam claims that he does NOT support the fatwa. In spite of that, you have made the assumption and the assertion that he really does support it, but is secretly soft soaping his views for his non-Muslim fans to consume.
Speaking of logic, the only motive for loading a question is because only one answer is being sought, so where is the logic in asking a question when one has already made up one's mind about the answer? Seems kind of silly don't you think?

jack
www.jackmctamney.com

[Vivian]

EmitFlesti said:

In all the news stories about Cat Stevens having been denied entry into the United States, he is invariably described as a "peace activist".

In light of that, I have one simple question: Doesn't a man who supports the murder of novelists who write things he doesn't like thereby forefeit the right to be called a "peace activist"?

Cat Steven's disgraceful support of Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie and his blatant disregard for fundamental freedom of speech should forever put him beyond the pale of decent society and any consideration as a "peace activist".

You obviously were never a cat fan, so why are you here? Oh yes, to cause trouble. And for the record, Yusuf IS a peace activist, who does countless work for humanitiarian efforts, which is more than I can say for you.

[Turan]

Most Catfans have to think about the Salmon Rushdie affair and come to some kind of terms. Yusuf Islam made and makes good music. Perhaps that is all that counts.

Personally I am and was dismayed that Yusuf supported censorship through the use of the Blasphemy laws of UK. I agree to disagree about this. However supporting censorship is not the same as supporting the Ayatollah's fatwa.

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!

catstevens.com/articles/00236/index.html

Yusuf has done a great deal else in his 50 odd years on this earth. If one reads his statements and articles and follows his activities in various endeavours one sees a person who is evolving, thinking, moving along a path. There are however certain constants. Yusuf has been continuously involved in charity for children especially from '70 on. He calls himself a contientious objector. He involves himself in projects that have the goal of building peace.

In 2001 Yusuf said about the Salman Rushdie affair -

At that time, I was still learning, ill prepared and lacking in knowledge and confidence to speak out specifically against forms of extremism. I wish to avoid making that same mistake again.

catstevens.com/articles/00231/index.html

I note that he has made good on that by speaking out numerous times.
I also know that Yusuf has inspired young men to not take up arms in conflict. That is perhaps the greatest accolade I can give him. He is indeed a peace activist by teaching peace and has thus fought terrorism in a way more effective than bombs.

I have concluded that Yusuf is some one worth admiring. I also enjoy his music.
Turan

[boneheadedwoman]

EmitFlesti said:

Actually some basic research shows not that the media got it wrong, but that Stevens felt the need to give obfuscatory "clarifications" to his original statement in order to make it appear as though he didn't support the fatwa, tha latter obviously being more palatable to western ears.

His "clarification" states that he believes the fatwa was fundamentally correct according to Muslim law, and he also states that he believes the book should be banned, not just in Islamic countries, but in the West also, on grounds of "blasphemy". As to the former, he claims that he doesn't believe Muslims have the right to carry out the death sentence in countries that are not governed by Islamic law, but nowhere does he state that the death sentence itself is fundamentally wrong and a violation of basic human rights, nor does he say that he would not support carrying out the sentence if Rushdie lived in a country subject to Muslim law. Stevens' position on Rushdie is murky to say the least, and that murkiness probably has more to do with his desire to hide his true Islamist feelings from the Western media and album consumers than it does from any genuine feeling of outrage or disagreement with Khomenei's fatwa.

I know other Cat fans will be shocked, but this is an issue which I have never fully resolved in my own mind. It seems to me that if it were all just a misunderstanding, or yellow journalism, Yusuf would have been able to clarify and put this issue to rest long ago. I keep hoping I'll hear/read that although he finds Satanic Verses an offensive novel (read FICTION), he acknowledges Salman Rushdie's right to create and earn money off ideas of his own choosing. The idea that any one should be put to death for blasphemy is medieval and sanctimonious. Yusuf has never come clean on these points (in my opinion). At some point, I just decided to move on, and let it go. The good he has done outweighs this foible. I don't mean to trivialize it, by calling it a foible, but I believe taking one's religion too seriously IS a foible, at the very least. As a muslim, he can't very well say he disagrees with the Koran, because he believes it's the Word of God! Anyway, in my personal life, I have tried to get past all that unpleasantness, but every time it comes up, I'm forced to admit that I don't like the way he handled it. As a consequense, I have a hard time buying CS CD's, except for the box set, since all royalties were donated to the Sept. 11th fund.

I hope we can either discuss this topic respectfully, or drop it, rather than diverting it to Bush and Iraq, or resorting to name-calling and ugliness.

Let the debate begin!

[Vivian]

I guess some people will never let the Rushdie issue go. As Yusuf said in a speech a couple years ago, there will always be those who think he never did anything worthwhile in his fifty some years on Earth. This is really sad. He cleared his name once, he'll do it again!

[faithfullight]

Vivian said:

You obviously were never a cat fan, so why are you here? Oh yes, to cause trouble. And for the record, Yusuf IS a peace activist, who does countless work for humanitiarian efforts, which is more than I can say for you.

Vivian,
You have no idea who EmitFlesti is to say, "which is more than I can say for you", or that he/she came here just to cause trouble. We all know how you defend Yusuf unrelentlessly no matter what, but it doesn't do any good to snap at new people whom you have no knowledge of their character and life works. You can't judge people like that just because you don't like their questions. People have a right to ask questions that they hadn't found satisfactory answers. We know that Yusuf denies ever knowing that he helped any terrorist related individuals or groups.

In the event of this situation, there will be new people coming to his fan sites to seek information about him. I think that it would be better for Yusuf's sake to answer their questions with intelligent, gentle responses. Responding to new people who ask questions about Yusuf and his works with scorn or negative assult doesn't do anything but hurt Yusuf. Surely you don't want people to go away with bad feelings about Yusuf because of the intolerance of some people to answer questions with tact and respect. You may not like the questions that people may ask, but surely you could demonstrate a peaceful nature in handling these concerns to help people find their answers.

I agree with EmitFlesti that monetyre's responses were "asinine and utterly ignorant" as he/she was evasive and side tracking his/her question. I feel disgusted to see Yusuf's so-called fans reacting in this way. What a poor show of kindness and understanding.

-----
Thank you Turan for trying to help answer EmitFlesti's question. That is a more tactful way to respond to questions by newcomers.

Faithfullight

[cristalina]

I'm afraid I've been off line for a while because my computer has been attacked by spyware, but I had to make a trip to the library to see what you'd all been posting after yesterday's news.

Yusuf is back in the UK now ( we all love him, anyway) and yes he is a peace activist. I cringed yesterday when I saw Sky News dig up the clip where Yusuf states that death is the sentance for any writer who abuses a phophet. He always claimed it was shown out of context. Then we saw the Americans smashing his records, the overall feeling was not good. The ITV News was completely different and clearly stated he was a peace activist , had never had any links to terror actively and ended with him singing a section of Peace Train.
On an interview with Alastair Stewart, Dr Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council for Britain said he felt this was something to do with Israel and questioned if America was in control of their own policies.

On his return today Yusuf said " half of me wants to smile and half of me wants to growl" he said he wants answers. His daughter was not shown although she was with him on the flight, I'm not sure if she was questioned also by the FBI.

This really is shocking, considering Yusuf was travelling freely in America only a few months ago.

[Vivian]

Faithfullight said:

Vivian,
You have no idea who EmitFlesti is to say, "which is more than I can say for you", or that he/she came here just to cause trouble. We all know how you defend Yusuf unrelentlessly no matter what, but it doesn't do any good to snap at new people whom you have no knowledge of their character and life works. You can't judge people like that just because you don't like their questions. People have a right to ask questions that they hadn't found satisfactory answers. We know that Yusuf denies ever knowing that he helped any terrorist related individuals or groups.

In the event of this situation, there will be new people coming to his fan sites to seek information about him. I think that it would be better for Yusuf's sake to answer their questions with intelligent, gentle responses. Responding to new people who ask questions about Yusuf and his works with scorn or negative assult doesn't do anything but hurt Yusuf. Surely you don't want people to go away with bad feelings about Yusuf because of the intolerance of some people to answer questions with tact and respect. You may not like the questions that people may ask, but surely you could demonstrate a peaceful nature in handling these concerns to help people find their answers.

I agree with EmitFlesti that monetyre's responses were "asinine and utterly ignorant" as he/she was evasive and side tracking his/her question. I feel disgusted to see Yusuf's so-called fans reacting in this way. What a poor show of kindness and understanding.

-----
Thank you Turan for trying to help answer EmitFlesti's question. That is a more tactful way to respond to questions by newcomers.

Faithfullight

Maybe if the "question" was ASKED in a gentle manner, instead of coming out accusing Yusuf of things he had no part of, my response would have been different. Yusuf HAS responded to this issue countless times in a gentle manner, yet, there are those who will not let it go.

[kareema113]

Yusuf is back in the UK now ( we all love him, anyway) and yes he is a peace activist. I cringed yesterday when I saw Sky News dig up the clip where Yusuf states that death is the sentance for any writer who abuses a phophet. He always claimed it was shown out of context. Then we saw the Americans smashing his records, the overall feeling was not good.

I will attempt to put a perspective on the dead horse that has been beaten by the media for years and shows no sign of ever abating.

I am NOT an expert. I just ask questions in Qur'an study class and do my own research. Islam instructs Muslims not to blindly accept anyone's word about anything.

1. A fatwa (religious edict) can only be issued by a qualified scholar of Islam with a degree to prove it... ie, NOT Osama Bin Laden, who is a contractor by trade. No Muslim who understands his faith listens to the blatherings of Osama. Unfortunately there are far too many easily swayed illiterates who don't know any better in the 'Muslim' world, a result of the self-serving and despotic regimes, kingdoms and emirates in the region and not Islam.

2. A fatwa is only binding on the followers of the particular scholar who issued it, ie, in the case of the Salman Rushdie affair, those who followed Khomeini. Muslims are not required to follow any school of thought. There is no intermediary necessary between a Muslim and Allah.

3. Br Yusuf was and is obviously not a follower of Khomeini. Therefore there is no reason to think that he would 'endorse' Khomeini's edict. He has stated repeatedly that he is grateful to have discovered the Holy Qur'an on his own and that he received no input from anyone regarding its Meaning before he chose Islam. Please note that no other scholar issued a fatwa regarding Rushdie.

4. According to Islamic Law, the penalty for blasphemy against Allah and His Prophets is death. This means ALL the Prophets that have been sent and there were either 124,000 or 144,000 of them, not just the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. (Please note that John Lennon invoked a similar album-smashing binge among the Christian community in the 60s by informing the media that the Beatles were 'bigger than Jesus', who is also a Prophet of Islam.)

5. The penalty is ONLY to be carried out if:
a. the person is tried in an Islamic court in a country
which has an Islamically valid government and duly convicted.
b. the person does not repent, whereupon he is forgiven by Allah.

6. There are no Islamically valid governments existing today, whether or not the country calls itself an 'Islamic republic', so how can Rushdie be legally convicted, provided he doesn't repent? Answer: he can't. Killing Rushdie would be the work of vigilantes.

7. Islam dictates that Muslims living in a non-Muslim country must abide by the laws of the country in which s/he resides. Murder is obviously illegal in the UK.

8. It is ridiculous to infer that Br Yusuf would instruct anyone to commit murder. He has been talking about peace for the entire 32 years that I have heard of him.

9. The Author of Islamic Law is Allah Only. Please don't shoot the messenger, in this case, Br Yusuf or me. If you don't understand, check out the Author's Reference Book, the Holy Qur'an.

My husband the journalist pointed out to me that although Br Yusuf is wearing Western clothes in the actual media coverage of the deportation debacle, every shot of him in Afghani dress with the longest beard possible has been dragged out to illustrate the 'if you are Muslim and you dress like this, you must be a terrorist' boogie monster stereotype.

You don't have to be a Muslim to wear a turban as was proven by the number of Sikhs killed after 9/11 by ignorants. Turbans are national as well as relgious dress, ie Afghani, also Omani. Where does/did Osama Bin Laden reside? That's right... Afghanistan. He is a Saudi. Crown Price Abdullah certainly doesn't wear a turban, but expatriated Osama does.

I hope that what occurs as a result of the Br Yusuf deportation incident is that more people actually read the Holy Qur'an. This is what happened after 9/11. I have met converts who became Muslim as a result of reading the Qur'an after 9/11 to try to understand for themselves what Islam teaches. One of them is a formerly practicing pastor who was attempting to figure out how to effectively approach Muslims about Christianity.

There is a song that goes:
"Too many people wear the title of a Muslim, but they don't practice Islam."

peace,
kareema

May Allah swt forgive me for any mistakes and lack of clarity in my feeble attempt to bury Br Yusuf's dead horse at long last.

[shelter]

why do you speak as if you know hes guilty?? you are innocent in this country until proven guilty. and if this intel was "so good and the evidence is so overwhelming" then why didnt he get arrested? This whole homeland security dir. is a joke. just one more foot soldier in bush's cabinet of hate.

[Grimm]

GO CAT GO!!! GO CAT GO!!!

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10888794%255E1702,00.html

Singer calls for hostage release

From correspondents in Baghdad
The Weekend Australian
September 26, 2004


BRITISH former pop star and Muslim convert Cat Stevens called 'in the name of Allah' on the kidnappers of British engineer Kenneth Bigley in Iraq to release him in a letter received in Baghdad today.

The letter, sent to the British embassy in Baghdad, said: "As a member of the Muslim Council I request you, in the name of Allah, the Rahman (the all merciful), to release British citizen Ken Bigley for the good name of our religion and according to the sayings of Allah in the glorious Quran."
Stevens, known as Yusuf Islam since he converted in the late 1970s, quoted two verses from the Muslim holy book: Verily! Allah commands you to do justice and be kind and No soul can bear the burden of another's sin.
He urged the Tawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War) group, which is holding Mr Bigley and has already beheaded his two US colleagues, to "do an act of mercy and show the world the justice and mercy which Islam teaches us".
Mr Bigley, 62, was seized 10 days ago at his home in central Baghdad. His kidnappers have threatened to execute him if the US-led coalition forces do not free women they are holding.
Last week, Stevens was denied entry into the US and deported by US authorities as a terrorist threat.

********************************************

Thank you, Ysuf! Now, GO CAT GO!!!

[Vivian]

Grimm said:

GO CAT GO!!! GO CAT GO!!!

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10888794%255E1702,00.html

Singer calls for hostage release

From correspondents in Baghdad
The Weekend Australian
September 26, 2004


BRITISH former pop star and Muslim convert Cat Stevens called 'in the name of Allah' on the kidnappers of British engineer Kenneth Bigley in Iraq to release him in a letter received in Baghdad today.

The letter, sent to the British embassy in Baghdad, said: "As a member of the Muslim Council I request you, in the name of Allah, the Rahman (the all merciful), to release British citizen Ken Bigley for the good name of our religion and according to the sayings of Allah in the glorious Quran."
Stevens, known as Yusuf Islam since he converted in the late 1970s, quoted two verses from the Muslim holy book: Verily! Allah commands you to do justice and be kind and No soul can bear the burden of another's sin.
He urged the Tawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War) group, which is holding Mr Bigley and has already beheaded his two US colleagues, to "do an act of mercy and show the world the justice and mercy which Islam teaches us".
Mr Bigley, 62, was seized 10 days ago at his home in central Baghdad. His kidnappers have threatened to execute him if the US-led coalition forces do not free women they are holding.
Last week, Stevens was denied entry into the US and deported by US authorities as a terrorist threat.

********************************************

Thank you, Ysuf! Now, GO CAT GO!!!

I am not the least bit surprised. Now, this is the kind of story we need to hear now, not the Rushdie garbarge, which Yusuf flat out denies. I don't care what that audio appears to say-its a tape, which can be altered. Yusuf denies any connection to that, and that is good enough for me. The Rushdie issue should be buried-unless one wishes to hurt Yusuf's chances to clear his name over this latest injustice.