Get Back, Honky Cat

Okay, I’m sure I don’t have the correct transcription of this. I was on a crosstrainer at the gym this morning, watching a closed-captioned broadcast of the Today show. So I’m relying on my sponge-sharp memory of someone typing as fast as they can to represent a person’s remarks.

They were talking about Cat Stevens – or Yusuf Islam, as he’s called today – being denied entrance into the country, sent back to England once his rerouted plane touched down in Maine. The show cut to someone they identified as a “security expert.” I don’t know if he was a representative of the government or what, but I’m pretty sure he had some authority. It’s not like he was the night watchman of a shopping mall. At the same time, it seems like he was criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for letting Stevens onto the plane in the first place.

So here’s what he said, in essence: “Sure, we can all laugh about it being Cat Stevens, but the next time it could be a real terrorist.” Yeah, that’s a laugh. If Cat Stevens is no threat, why was he on the no-fly list? Innocent people being detained and restricted is a hoot!

Now, Cat Stevens is no saint. The man endorsed the fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, years ago. Or did he?

Over at catstevens.com, he addresses the question. His comments were made during a lecture, when someone questioned him on the topic of the book. According to Cat, this is what he said:

After confirming that Islamic Law considers Blasphemy without repentance as a
capital offence, I stated clearly, “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 fulfill 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, thieves and
murders. 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 does not 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.”

In essence: Yeah, it’s a capital crime under Islamic law, but that’s not the law that has jurisdiction in this case. We need to work within British law to get justice.

As far as I know, writing a novel is not a capital offense in England – so Cat isn’t advocating killing anyone. He just wants redress for what he perceives as blasphemy.

Now, this is Cat’s version of events, so it’s not a disinterested account. But I don’t find it hard to believe that the media distorted what is a fairly complicated position into an attention-grabbing soundbite. At the same time, Cat may be distorting what he originally said, after the fact. I looked on Snopes to get the real story, but they had nothing on it.

Either way, I think he’s wrong about Rushdie’s book–blasphemy is a religious offense, not a legal one. Stevens is within his rights to get offended, but any decent legal system will look at the evidence and wonder where the crime is. Freedom of speech supercedes the anyone’s “right” to not be offended.

(And strangely enough, the offensive passages of The Satanic Verses might not even correlate with Rushdie’s opinion. There has to be a conflict of ideas – and the stronger, more worthy the conflict, the better the novel’s potential to be good. No decent novel has all its characters parroting the same philosophy. Robert Heinlein, I’m looking at you.)

Arrgh – but this was a huge digression. What prompted me to write this in the first place is: either Cat Stevens is a threat or he isn’t. If he’s not, why can’t he fly here? But if he is, a) it’s no laughing matter, and b) why the hell was he let on that plane in the first place?

Which may have been the “security expert”’s point, at that.

Rob