4 ms·

Yes, I found that quite strange too. I would not consider him actually returned until he apologizes for his support for the death sentence on Rushdie.

e40 9y ago
There is this http://www.newshub.co.nz/entertainment/yusuf-islam-get-over-my-salman-rushdie-comments-2015010910 http://www.newshub.co.nz/entertainment/yusuf-islam-get-over-... where he doesn't seem to want to apologize. I'm not buying it, either.
coldtea 9y ago
Or, you know, whether he has returned or not (and dismissed his old beliefs or got over them), is orthogonal to whether he has the courage (or even the will) to apologize. He can return, but don't feel comfortable to apologizing. He can return, but feel like that's all behind and no apology is necessary, or that that was done by a different person. And several other possible cases -- a lot of which don't leave out the possibility of having regretted it. Like we can regret something in private and internally, the same holds true for famous people, artists etc. They are not moral playthings that the public has some right to demand of them public repentance and submission outside their creative roles.
- camus2 9y ago
  > Or, you know, whether he has returned or not (and dismissed his old beliefs or got over them), is orthogonal to whether he has the courage (or even the will) to apologize. Or you know, maybe he doesn't feel the need to apologize because he still believe people should be killed for writing books, especially when these books have very little to do with Islam and when the people calling for murder didn't even read the damn book. I bet Yusuf didn't even read the Satanic verses either.
- eastWestMath 9y ago
  The public certainly has the right to boycott an artist's work if they committed a morally reprehensible action without any sign of remorse. The public doesn't owe the artist anything.
  - philtar 9y ago
    You have the right to boycott his work just because he has a bad hair day. That's up to you. You do not have the right to demand public acts from him/her.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    I don't think we should boycott his work, though. Certainly we don't owe him anything, but the music he made as Cat Stevens is beautiful and it would be sad for the world to lose it. We'd impoverish our culture if we cut out all the art made by disagreeable people.
    - camus2 9y ago
      > I don't think we should boycott his work, though. Certainly we don't owe him anything, but the music he made as Cat Stevens is beautiful and it would be sad for the world to lose it. We'd impoverish our culture if we cut out all the art made by disagreeable people. Calling Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam "disagreeable" is a euphemism, he is a bigot and an religious extremist of the worse kind. He wants people to get killed for their ideas although I bet he didn't even read Rushdie.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The public certainly has the right to boycott an artist's work if they committed a morally reprehensible action without any sign of remorse. It has the right, it's just stupid to exercise it. It's not as if we should only consume art made by good people. Or that whatever bad things an artists does in their personal life has much bearing to wether their art is any good (not to mention most good and bad things in one's life improve art: they instill it with life experience. Boy scouts seldom produce interesting work.). If you want to punish the artist for something they did, put them in jail. Or don't be friends with them. If they produce good art, and you don't listen to it because they are bad, you lose too. >The public doesn't owe the artist anything Well, if they listen to his works, then they owe him on that.

e40 9y ago

There is this http://www.newshub.co.nz/entertainment/yusuf-islam-get-over-my-salman-rushdie-comments-2015010910 http://www.newshub.co.nz/entertainment/yusuf-islam-get-over-... where he doesn't seem to want to apologize. I'm not buying it, either.

coldtea 9y ago

Or, you know, whether he has returned or not (and dismissed his old beliefs or got over them), is orthogonal to whether he has the courage (or even the will) to apologize. He can return, but don't feel comfortable to apologizing. He can return, but feel like that's all behind and no apology is necessary, or that that was done by a different person. And several other possible cases -- a lot of which don't leave out the possibility of having regretted it. Like we can regret something in private and internally, the same holds true for famous people, artists etc. They are not moral playthings that the public has some right to demand of them public repentance and submission outside their creative roles.

camus2 9y ago
> Or, you know, whether he has returned or not (and dismissed his old beliefs or got over them), is orthogonal to whether he has the courage (or even the will) to apologize. Or you know, maybe he doesn't feel the need to apologize because he still believe people should be killed for writing books, especially when these books have very little to do with Islam and when the people calling for murder didn't even read the damn book. I bet Yusuf didn't even read the Satanic verses either.
eastWestMath 9y ago
The public certainly has the right to boycott an artist's work if they committed a morally reprehensible action without any sign of remorse. The public doesn't owe the artist anything.
- philtar 9y ago
  You have the right to boycott his work just because he has a bad hair day. That's up to you. You do not have the right to demand public acts from him/her.
- sevensor 9y ago
  I don't think we should boycott his work, though. Certainly we don't owe him anything, but the music he made as Cat Stevens is beautiful and it would be sad for the world to lose it. We'd impoverish our culture if we cut out all the art made by disagreeable people.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > I don't think we should boycott his work, though. Certainly we don't owe him anything, but the music he made as Cat Stevens is beautiful and it would be sad for the world to lose it. We'd impoverish our culture if we cut out all the art made by disagreeable people. Calling Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam "disagreeable" is a euphemism, he is a bigot and an religious extremist of the worse kind. He wants people to get killed for their ideas although I bet he didn't even read Rushdie.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The public certainly has the right to boycott an artist's work if they committed a morally reprehensible action without any sign of remorse. It has the right, it's just stupid to exercise it. It's not as if we should only consume art made by good people. Or that whatever bad things an artists does in their personal life has much bearing to wether their art is any good (not to mention most good and bad things in one's life improve art: they instill it with life experience. Boy scouts seldom produce interesting work.). If you want to punish the artist for something they did, put them in jail. Or don't be friends with them. If they produce good art, and you don't listen to it because they are bad, you lose too. >The public doesn't owe the artist anything Well, if they listen to his works, then they owe him on that.