In response to steven's question if Yusef was a fundy and was going around advocating killing, then I would support a ban, however before making these important decisions all the facts should be ascertained. That was my point in the last post.

In democratic and free societies we don't shoot first and ask questions later.

Here is a link to a contemporaneous account in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-cat.html?_r=3

QUOTE

LONDON, May 22 -- 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.

END QUOTE

I do not know whether Stevens / Islam still feels that way.

According to other contemporaneous newspaper accounts Stevens was not alone in voicing such desires. Iqbal Sacranie (Now "Sir Iqbal") had this to say:

'Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him .. his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah.'

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/1989/feb/15/salmanrushdie

And here's what the Bishop of Manchester had to say:

"And the Bishop of Manchester in the Church of England, the Rev. Stanley Booth-Clibborn, said the British blasphemy law is indefensible because it protects only the established Christian church. Other clerics have suggested that the law be extended to other faiths so Muslim objectors could stop offensive books through court order. Government Defenders"

(See NY Times link above)

CJ Morgan's relativism never ceases to amuse me.
<<Obviously, he's not a fundy religious hater now, if indeed he ever really was. Unlike some :)>>
Yusuf Islam's sins are immediately forgiven or even denied because Yusuf is a Muslim and therefore a victim of the haters;
ie anybody who criticises Islam and its obvious predisposition toward violence.
In other words, you can be a Muslim and call for the death of blasphemers and CJ will be your ally but if you are a non-Muslim warning of the danger of Muslims calling for the death of blasphemers then you are a hater.
CJ Morgan is your quintessential quisling.

Proxy, please don't cherrypick my comments to misrepresent me. I originally said "If Yusuf Islam still expresses those views, he's obviously a fundamentalist religious hater who shouldn't be allowed into Australia, on the basis that he's inciting violence."

On the basis of information supplied by pelican, it's clear that he no longer holds those views, which is why I posted the subsequent comment that you quoted in isolation.

I'm no fan of any religion, and probably least of all Islam. However, I don't fear and loathe Muslims as you apparently do, nor do I vilify them the way you do so often. I can sort of understand why fundamentalist Christians and even secular Jews hate Islam and Muslims, but you've professed not to be one.

Why do you hate Islam and Muslims?

Let's face it.There is not a shortage of religious lunatics no matter which religion is espousing their devine right to truth.They all believe in the one god, but their god has more gonads than anyone elses' god.

Religion is all about controlling people for the ego of mortal beings,who are too insecure to face the reality of their own finality.

I say we should ban him based on the views he expressed so far- and specifically cite his Fatwa against Rushdie as the reason why to the media.

It would send a very good message that we are NOT neutral ground for violent anti-free-speech/religious-blasphemy extremists (anymore that is).

Of course, chances are regardless of who our government is, they'll not give a toss and would rather not the headache of having to do something.