Sunday, August 14, 2011

Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) on Salman Rushdie

Over the past few years, as Yusuf Islam has been making a comeback in the music world, I've heard several people claim that his comments on Salman Rushdie were taken out of context, or that he was merely joking. Here's the video:



Here's Yusuf singing "Peace Train" (when he was still "Cat Stevens"):

24 comments:

Mike A Robinson said...

I guess the "Peace Train" left the station after Steven's conversion to Islam.

Deleting said...

Anyone notice how sullen the guy is? I can understand the first question being uncomfortable when asked the question but the second question really showed his true colors.
Islam makes you evil.

simple_truth said...

So much for "Peace Train".

Kim said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKgp8Q_GV0c&feature=related

Is this the best argument against Islam? If it is I'm disappointed.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

David Wood said...

Hi Kim,

I wouldn't call this the best argument against Islam, but it is pretty airtight. If it's a bad argument, you shouldn't have difficulty pointing out a mistake. Here's a full argument based on the Satanic Verses. Which step would you reject?

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm

TPaul said...

Mike A Robinson said...
"I guess the "Peace Train" left the station after Steven's conversion to Islam."

I'd much rather say it was blown to smithereens .... ;)

minoria said...

The whole Cat Stevens affair is clear,he was,or still is,for killing a man for insulting Muhammad.

A Dead Historical Figure

Muhammad died a long time ago,it is part of freedom of speech to say what you want about him.Or about any historical figure,including Buddha,Jesus,Paul,etc.

Radical Moderate said...

Only Islam can take a peace loving hippy and turn him into a jack booted Islamic Nazi hell bent on killing anyone who leaves his demonic religion or critizes his prophet.

Kim said...

Ok, we know that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had a strict monotheistic belief ever since his youth, right? That's what I've read from his biography he would meditate in the Cave of Hira and would worship only Allah and he disliked the pagans' practices. The Satanic Verses story says that Satan took advantage of Muhammad's desires to bring his people in unity so he somehow used that to place a verse or two praising the 3 Goddesses.

I don't believe the story is true anyways after I read :

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_satanic_verses

and

http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/Mohar_Ali_-_Biography_of_Prophet_and_orientalist_2_1_.pdf




You said in your article:

Argument A—false gods and false prophets

A1. If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
A2. Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
——————————————————
A3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.

Argument B—false revelations and false prophets

B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.



It was Satan that delivered the verse supposedly not the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad always taught strict monotheism to his followers.

The Prophet Muhammad received only 1 verse from Satan supposedly, not more than that according to the story, the verse praising the goddesses, and that was a mistake i guess.


Both of your arguments are logical but it depends on how you wish to see them. If the Satanic story is true then yes the Prophet Muhammad did speak in the name of those 3 Goddesses but it was Satan's opportunistic attempt to somehow place that verse in the Quran, according to the story, not Muhammad.



It would be understandable to see a man claiming to be a Prophet of God talking about other Goddesses in his Message, that would be clear to us that he is false, but I'm not so sure it applies to the Prophet Muhammad =).

Deleting said...

Kim,
Pardon my interjection but I have a question. What is the definition of monotheism?

John said...

What you've got to consider is the effect of US aggression in Pakistan on Yusef's mind. It's only then that you understand how a rational man can come out and say he wouldn't bother to come out and protest if they were only burning and effigy, but would if it were the actual author.
(whisper in ear): What? before Pakistan?
Afghanistan then
(whisper in ear): Iraq
(whisper in ear): Troops in Saudi
(whisper in ear): First Gulf war
(whisper in ear): Ok Afghanistan
(whisper in ear): Oh, it was the Soviet Union.
O bugger. Perhaps then he's lost his marbles - but he speak calmly when he talks of slaughtering another human being so it can't be that.

Poisoned by hate it is then.
Probably from all the rock music he's listened to.
Yeah: America the great Satan poisons Yusef Islam's mind with Rock Music.
Whew, that's sorted then.

Hazakim1 said...

Kim,

I would argue that, if you are reading the relevant articles with an open mind (though I know it is agonizing to consider that you and your family may have been duped for 100s of years....trust me), in light of the evidence, you cannot continue defending Islam. Islamic arguements are convincing to those who have already made it up in their minds that Muhammad was a prophet. I pray you have the nerve to hear the arguements from the other side and truly internalize the gravity of the evidence....just as I've tried to do when hearing the arguements of Muslims. If what you believe is truth, it will stand against serious scrutiny in the end. But at this point I do not see you really "owning" the opposing arguement....just looking for a loophole to explain it away.

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
It was Satan that delivered the verse supposedly not the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad always taught strict monotheism to his followers.
end

How strict?
Enforced by death, perhaps?
Does strict mean virtuous?
Does strict mean right?
If someone kidnaps me and threatens me with death, I'd say that person was very strict.
So strict that to extricate myself, I would probably have to threaten and/or mortally wound or even kill outright said abductor.
Is that the kind of strict we are talking about?
Strict does not mean good or even right.
Strict, in people or in doctrines, is suspect.
If it's self-evident, it does not need to be strict.

goethechosemercy said...

But seriously, if you want to understand for yourself why we and others view Islam as profane, you would have to do something Islam forbids you to do.
That is, study the content of other religions and cultures in detail, both polytheistic and monotheistic.
How is it that a multi-faceted form of monotheism like Hinduism and a partially non-theistical religion like Buddhism have not gone away in the onslaught of Islam?
Why do Coptic Christians not revert?
Why is it that Islam has gained most of its following through force and coercion?
And if Islam is so profound and holy, they why do its apologists spend most of their time insulting other religions and the histories of other cultures instead of defending their own religion and culture on solely doctrinal, scriptural and theological grounds?
All I ever hear from Muslims is contempt for the other.
Exegesis?
Not today. Not ever before.

Fernando said...

Kim... you can try, as muslims normally do, to re-writte historie whenever you want, butt do not think others will eat the lies you all fabricate... all your position stands on a presuposition that is based on a text latter (muhamamds biografphy, or as I call them muhammad's lyiography) than the one you intend to dennie... things do not work that way, dear fellow... sorry... better luck next time...

Search 4 Truth said...

@ kim

"It was Satan that delivered the verse supposedly not the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad always taught strict monotheism to his followers."

Satan delivered the verse through what vehicle? MOHAMED! so Mohamed was used as the tool to deliver Satans message, therefore Mohamed is the Prophet of satan. Just as if you would conclude that if Allah was delivering his message through Mohamed you would have to conclude that Mohamed is Allahs Prophet.

Talk about inconsistency. Also he was bewitched which is another form of satanic control.

Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5428:
A'isha reported that a Jew from among the Jews of Banu Zuraiq who was called Labid b. al-A'sam cast spell upon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) with the result that he (under the influence of the spell) felt that he had been doing something whereas in fact he had not been doing that.


Why would Allah allow his final messenger to become influenced by a spell?

Narrated Aisha:
Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400)

Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660)

Heres what one must do to escape the grasp of the lies of Islam.

Think objectively, linearly, critically, and honestly.

Peace and love through truth!

TPaul said...

Kim Said "It was Satan that delivered the verse supposedly not the Prophet Muhammad."

Which contradicts critreia B:

"If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet."

Kim,
Who do you think Satan spoke through? Did he appear to the people and speak for himself?, OR ..... Did he USE Mohammed as his mouthpiece?

Kim says "The Prophet Muhammad received only 1 verse from Satan supposedly, not more than that according to the story, the verse praising the goddesses, and that was a mistake i guess..."


By your own admission, you agree that Satan did infact reveal the Satanic Verses through Mohammed, even if it were just ONE VERSE in praise of the Godesses of Mecca, now there is no turning back, you have to admit based on criteria "B" that Mohammed was indeed a fasle prophet...

See you are making some progress here...

Maintain your integrity in your search for the truth. Make no exceptions or excuses for any ideology.

Good Luck!

TheBereanSearch said...

Kim: "Ok, we know that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had a strict monotheistic belief ever since his youth, right? That's what I've read from his biography he would meditate in the Cave of Hira and would worship only Allah and he disliked the pagans' practices."

To say that Muhammad was "strict monotheist" all of his life is simply not accurate according to the sources. Here is an example of Muhammad engaging in idolatry through participating in meat sacrificing ceremonies to pagan gods:

Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering." (Sahih al-Bukhari 7:407)

Notice that Zaid, who is described as a monotheist, refuses to eat the meat because he says it's idolatry. There is further descriptions of this event in other sources and since you are already using Sira literature as a source for your information about Muhammad I recommend you consider:

The Prophet slaughtered an ewe for one of the idols (nusub min al-ansab); then he roasted it and carried it with him. Then Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl met us in the upper part of the valley; it was one of the hot days of Mecca. When we met we greeted each other with the greeting of the Age of barbarism, in'am sabahan. The Prophet said: "Why do I see you, O son of Amr, hated by your people?" He said, "This (happened) without my being the cause of their hatred; but I found them associating divinities with God and I was reluctant to do the same. I wanted (to worship God according to) the religion of Abraham..." The Prophet said, "Would you like some food?" He said, "Yes." Then the Prophet put before him the (meat of the ewe). He (that is, Zayd ibn Amr) said: "What did you sacrifice to, O Muhammad?"

"He said, "To one of the idols." Zayd then said: "I am not the one to eat anything slaughtered for a divinity other than God." (Al-Kharqushi, Sharaf al-Mustafa, cited in F. E. Peters, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1994], pp. 126-127)


Read a more detailed article here

Search 4 Truth said...

I forgot something one must do to escape the lies and deceit of Islam.

Pray to God, just pray, dont repeat the salah and the conditioned repetitive prayers. Talk to him, ask him to show and reveal the truth, regardless of what you have been conditioned to believe, Just ask for truth. And it will be revealed.

Peace and love to all in Christ!

minoria said...

I have been thinking about ecumenical dialogue.The mainstream churches,in other words the people who make assumptions,take it for granted the Muslim leaders have the same definitions.

Virtually all Muslims,even the most secular,non-religious ones,have this almost religious idea that Islamophobia is criminal.

Islam is just a set of ideas,if somebody has an irrational fear of it then in what way is it criminal to fear ideas?

It is like saying a real,authentic irrational fear of Capitalism,Communism,Atheism,Christianity,etc is to be legally punished and believe me,I have read absurd,irrational comments that show great fear of Christianity.

The first thing for a real ecumenical dialogue is for Muslim leaders to reject the "Islamophobia is a crime" slogan.

Ecumenical Dialogue of Races

Just like in an ecumenical dialogue of races BOTH groups have to agree that "all races are equal".In the same way the Muslim leaders have to scrap the Islamophobia slogan,reject it as legitimate,condemn its use as serious.
They can replace it with "muslimophobia".

minoria said...

One sure way,100%,that a specific Muslim is open to new ideas,open to changing his or her preconceptions is regarding if Jesus actually said he was God in the 4 gospels.

If you give them all the evidence,that from a Jewish cultural understanding,any Jew hearing Jesus would have known he was claiming Deity,and THEY STILL keep on saying,against all the evidence,that it is not so....then you know it is a closed mind.

Some time ago I read a new book by a religious Jew,it was on Hillel,and there the author said that Jesus claiming to forgive others sins was claiming he was God.

Now when Deedat,Shabir Ally,Badawi,etc,continue with their claim Jesus nowhere says in the Gospel he was God it shows a closed mind.Nothing we can do about it.It is very strange,I'll never understand it.

So then if something so simple is beyond their acceptance then they are in trouble.Others won't take them seriously but think of them as pseudo-intellectuals.

Dk said...

Kim said:

"It was Satan that delivered the verse supposedly not the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad always taught strict monotheism to his followers."

First read the argument correctly, "delivered" isn't referring from Satan to Muhammad, it's referring to Muhammad to his people. So the correction is erroneous.


"The Prophet Muhammad received only 1 verse from Satan supposedly, not more than that according to the story, the verse praising the goddesses, and that was a mistake i guess."

Receiving the verse isn't a mistake. Delivering it and passing it off as revelation from God is the *mistake*, the mistake proving he is not a prophet.


"Both of your arguments are logical but it depends on how you wish to see them."

Huh?

"If the Satanic story is true then yes the Prophet Muhammad DID SPEAK IN THE NAME OF THOSE 3 GODDESSES but it was Satan's opportunistic attempt to somehow place that verse in the Quran, according to the story, not Muhammad."

The non captialized information is irrelevant, it's irrelevant if Muhammad instigated the plan to distort the Qur'an or Satan did. The only CRITERION for the argument to be true is whether Muhammad SPOKE in the NAME of those pagan goddesses.

"It would be understandable to see a man claiming to be a Prophet of God talking about other Goddesses in his Message, that would be clear to us that he is false, but I'm not so sure it applies to the Prophet Muhammad"

Yes because without any argument provided Muhammad is the "magical exception", that we should all accept willy nilly.

Kim you said before you were "disappointed" in this argument. But just read your response, you shouldn't be trying to engage apologetics, just being honest.

And yes I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, I'm willing to publically debate with you (or any Muslim) why your religion is provably false and refute any supposed evidence for it. Are you?

cornholio said...

Thanks for digging this up David. You wouldn't believe how many liberal idiots refuse to believe me when I state their Peace Train hero affirmed the death fatwah pronounced by the Ayatollah Khomeni on Salman Rusdie. There is at least one other instance where Yusuf publicly affirmed the death fatwah on Salman Rushdie's head.

loveAndpeace said...

Ok, to be honest I have never heard of anything like that, where did you get this nonsens from ?
I'll tell you where. AMERICA the most racist ignorant country. Please mind your own business for instants the economic issues? do something about that. There are billions and billions of muslims in the world and about 1/12728418 of them are crazy like every other religion, And the mostly live in the east. Malcom x was a muslim, now was he evil. NO, this guy obviously did drugs and weed when he was known as "cat" so there it is. There is your answer.. he was delirious just a crazy one. There are man muslims in the USA, and when i read this i asked myself what would you do if you saw them? do you hate that boy/girl that just came to visit some relatives near you that much. Where is the Love, Where is the Love