"Dear Specialist Inayat-Chisti:
"Thank you very much for writing The Stars and Stripes.
"We appreciate the courage it took to sign your name to your letter. We wanted to use it - as a matter of fact it already was on a page, on the presses. But in light of current events we decided that it would be more prudent not to run this letter, especially not with your name on it. We are concerned for your safety and the safety of those around you.
"Please understand our decision not to print your letter at this time.
"Thank you for your commnets. We hope to hear from you again some time.
"Sincerely,
MERT PROCTOR
Managing Editor
March 31, 1989"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I doubt you will have ever seen a letter of this nature coming from an editor to a mere reader, explaining why the latter's missive will not go to press.
My criticism of Islam goes back, in stages of course, farther than the present generation of college students and "SJW"s have been alive, if that is what they still are, in their present brain-numbed state. In 1980 I'd written Khomeini directly, challenging him concerning the hostages and his State-of-mind. It was indeed conveyed to him via one of the known North African delegates negotiating the hostage release, who had confirmed as much and added his own comment to me in short personal memo, handwritten and with State letterhead.
Later in Berlin I was outraged at Khomeini's Feb. 14th fatwa of 1989 declaring open season on Salman Rushdie's life. I was at this time a Military Intelligence analyst, with duties directed specifically at international and domestic (German, e.g., RAF) terrorism, left and right extremism, East/West histories and confrontations in Berlin, German and European affairs.
I was at this time also addressing Islam, though critically, still from the standpoint of my background in Sufism and its influence on my sentiments and approach. This shows in my heated and confrontative "letter to the editor" of the European U.S. Military "Stars & Stripes", addressign Khomeini directly, as it still reads rather much like today's overrated "moderate Muslim". I had vastly underestimated the real Muslim world on matters of humor, satire, objectivity, maturity - to name four.
I never actually was a Muslim, as I never would have considered recognizing Shari'a - but if for the reader I so appear, as I intentionally used that to address this bastard, then one may write me off today as an "Ex-Muslim", as the case may be. (As for Sufism, well, Sufis have been traditionally chased out or executed marvelously by Muslims carrying out Shari'a over many centuries, but who's counting.)
One thing is certain, and alone of relevant consequence: I had the audacity at all times, no less this, to put my name and location on that statement - to put my ass on the line in print, via "The Stars & Stripes" which didn't, and via the Stateside "Army Times" which did. Can anyone guess why my sharing all this becomes starkly relevant all over again today, hmm?
The originals of all three are still in my possession. The following is my letter to the editor, addressing Khomeini in full, as I'd sent it, showing in parentheses where the "Army Times" chose to edit for space and value as they saw fit. (Note: at this same time there was an uproar over "Last Temptation" hitting the cinemas - no death threats, just some boycotting here and there.)
Re: KHOMEINI VS: RUSHDIE
Speaking as an American Muslim, I'm often asked my perspective concerning the Rushdie publication. Actually two points must be understood separately: Why the banning campaign, and how far should this thing go?
As regards Mr. Rushdie's novel, I haven't read it yet. Nor have I seen the film, "The last Tempatation of Christ", although I read the book years ago. I understand perfectly well, in both cases equally, why, in both cases, the sensitivities of so many were offended, as I'm familiar with other banned works in the Islamic world and why they were banned or censored. Censorship is a civil matter against which we have a constitutional safeguard. Fine for us. We also can boycott books or films if so desired - which I don't, by the way.
(No self-respecting newspaper or magazine would keep either a book- or film-reviewer on its payroll, who reviewed books or films he had not read or viewed intheir entirety. We ought to apply the same objectivity to ourselves, whethr with Mr. Rushdie's "Verses" or Mr. Scorcese's "Temptation". That would be to weigh in our minds the inherently controversial nature of a thing with its actual merit.
I am pointing out that,) if people wonder why Rushdie's novel antagonized the Muslim nerve, it is precisely for the same reason that Scorcese' film antagonized the American Chistian nerve. An often-overlooked fact is that Jesus Chrsit is reverently esteemed and beloved in the real Muslim heart and mind. So is freedom of literary expression. Violence and arrogance are not.
The second point is the really serious issue here. Behind the self-righteous facade of censorship looms the question: Who does Khomeini think he is? I demand this as a muslim. I confront him as a believer formt he land of "The Great Satan". This raving, blood-soaked inheritor of the Shah's regime purports to represent Islam or the Islamic world. He represents neither, and if I were the last Muslim on earth to say it, he does not represent one shred of me. He is an embarrassment to the Iranian Majlis (parliament) anda murderer by any standards.
That he appears to influence multitudes only makes him a godfather, but no Muslim. God knows the truth. And I think all of us can stand a little more faith in our lives, a stronger sense of humor, and a good deal less emotionality.
Spec. Samuel Inayat-Chisti
HHC Berlin Brigade
Berlin
No comments:
Post a Comment