Alenka Puhar
129
Alenka Puhar
»Merci pour avoir distribué notre presse; si tu ne l’as pas fait, merci de l’ 
avoir lue; si tu ne l’ as pas lue, merci pour ce que tu as dit; si tu t’es tu, merci 
pour ce que tu as pensé.«
»Thank you for delivering our press; if you didn’t deliver it, thank you for
reading it; if you didn’t read it, thank you for speaking; if you were quiet, thank 
you for everything you were thinking.«
This was the Christmas missive of Solidarity, which spread among the
Polish people at the end of 1982, in the sad time after the declaration of the
state of emergency and the suppression of Solidarity. I quote it in French be-
cause I didn’t read it in the Yugoslav press – a press which has plenty to be 
ashamed of – but in the French magazine Le point. The reason for the quota-
tion is not merely to repeat beautiful words, but to state the following. I have 
kept this paper for more than a quarter of a century. It has been waiting for its 
time to come. Together with many similar papers – papers with extraordinary 
contents, with poignant truths; small pieces of paper with sentences showing 
some audacity and brain. I’m sure many people know this kind of collector’s 
passion.  
However, let’s return to the contents. The author from Solidarity was com-
municating to people: »I know it’s hard, I understand why you’re quiet. Only 
a few among us have the courage to tell the truth ... Fine, let it be so. Be quiet. 
What you are thinking will suffice ...«
Yes, we were often quiet. In fact, I could say that we Eastern Europeans
(which of course includes Central Europeans) are excellent at being quiet. We 
DIALOGUES ABOVE THE BLACK 
HOLE
Phainomena xviii/68-69 Alenka Puhar
130
know a lot about that, so I, as a person who has been an Eastern European for 
quite some time, can deal with the question of dialogue at the other end, at 
silence. By claiming we have difficulty holding dialogues because we prefer to
be quiet, because we do not wish to speak, we cannot, we are not able to, we 
are not allowed to, we are afraid ... We even have difficulty with monologues,
let alone dialogues. Why? 
Mainly because we were raised and taught so. For Eastern Europeans, the 
reign of the Communist Party was a period when one party severely restricted 
all fundamental rights and freedoms. It was also the period of »scientific Marx-
ism«, when only one point of view was acknowledged, which was owned by a 
group of well-organized people that had the capacity to prevent any other or 
different thought about anything at any time. In addition, they were convinced
that only they knew what the people want, so they actively enlightened the 
»masses« and cultivated the »terrain«.  To have been part of such a society 
meant – in terms of mutual dynamics and atmosphere – exactly the same as 
living in a violent, abuse-plagued family. The children in such a family are
assigned subordinate places. They show their subordination by being quiet,
humble, not mentioning particular things, not accusing anybody; the scope of 
their words is strictly limited.
Concealed things are very bad. They are avoided like big black holes, on tip-
toe. Everyone pretends there’s nothing there, that everything is all right ... Those
who decide to break the silence and tell the truth have to have a lot of courage. 
When the writer, Ervin Šinko (a Jew, Hungarian and a Yugoslav), was leav-
ing Moscow in April 1937 (which he experienced as a successful escape – and 
it was in fact an escape from deadly danger), his friend pulled him aside just 
before he got on the train and said: »You won’t discredit us out there, will you?« 
That was a silent threat that every abused child could recognize. The Com-
munist regime in the Soviet Union (the first and only one until the post-war
period) was also preserved by the total loyalty of its believers, who were silent 
as the grave about what was really happening. 
The Turkish writer, Orhan Pamuk, spoke about the massacres after World
War I for the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger: »Our relationship with the state 
can be compared to the relationship to your own family. You have to live with it. 
Both the state and the family silently confess that bad things have happened, but 
no one should know about them. But we have to speak about that! We slaugh-
tered thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians. And no one talks about 
it. So I’ll talk about it.« He thus committed the mentioned offence. He spoke
about something that was not to be spoken about back home. If one speaks 
Alenka Puhar
131
about it »outside«, in more democratic societies, this is regarded as an »insult 
against the family«, the »betrayal of the mother country« or of »our thing«. This
is, of course, a criminal offence. Pamuk experienced that himself (but the story
has a happy ending, since the main hero was by then a famous person). 
Bad things can happen in the grammatical present or past. To think about 
them, to put them into words, to compare different narrations and to create the
culture of dialogue is, or at least some believe so, a necessary component of a 
healthy society. All Communist societies have troubles on their way to a healthy 
state – to be precise, those who behave as Orhan Pamuk are the ones who have 
troubles. This can be illustrated in countless ways. One example: while in the
German-speaking world a proper literary genre is developing, where adults 
concern themselves with the life and work of their parents, mainly fathers, 
Slovenia respectfully keeps quiet about this subject. I’m talking about those 
books in German that are very autobiographical, that operate with material 
historical data and that intrepidly try to find out the truth – about one’s own
origin, family. These are authors such as Martin Pollack and Peter Petschauer
(I mention them, because they are partly Slovenian), who decided to explore 
the life stories of their fathers. In Slovenia, it is much more common for the 
sons of »interesting« parents to take their fathers’ and mothers’ side; to defend 
them publicly if someone happens to mention something slightly critical about 
them; to walk around the black hole of their actions on tiptoe, as if nothing 
special had happened ...
Of course, it is not just genocides or massacres that are hidden in a black 
hole.
In the light of the increasingly frequent questions related to Islam and to the 
integration of Muslims into western, democratic societies – for example ques-
tions regarding the freedom of speech, face saving, honour killings and the like 
– we are offered the challenge of comparison. Surprisingly similar rules govern
the group dynamics, even though at first glance the Communist utopia (and
its preservation, regardless of everything) does not have anything to do with 
the combativeness of Turks or the male dominance over women in Muslim 
cultures. This similarity is supported by interesting facts – for example that the
social system in Iran is called Islamic socialism and that the state is governed 
by a senior council, which is strongly reminiscent of the old Soviet politburo.
***
In Yugoslavia, which was a very diverse country (in terms of nations, re-
ligions and cultures), a lot should have been known about dialogue between 
Phainomena xviii/68-69 Alenka Puhar
132
different nations and religions, also between Christians and Muslims. After all,
this country existed from 1918 to 1991, which (including the war interval) is 
almost three quarters of a century. The inherited diversity was evident at first
sight, in people, customs, architecture ... People liked to talk about the special 
location, somewhere on the border between the East and the West. While the 
democracy of this country before the war can be disputed, it did enable peo-
ple to practice different beliefs and rites. This changed radically after the war,
when the Communist Party seized power.
Religion was viewed as something reactionary, as a remainder of the gloomy 
old days. These days will pass by, but there’s no harm in accelerating the proc-
ess a bit ... This took place in a combination of all possible procedures, from
the termination of basic politeness to brutal persecution. The first example
can be observed in the Yugoslav People’s Army, where joint cauldrons were 
introduced, which meant common – mainly Serbian – meals with pork meat. 
Before the war, in the old Yugoslav army, Muslims had the right to special 
adapted food and customs related to religious holidays were taken into ac-
count for Christians. After the war, a refusal to eat pork was laughed at and this
»sensitivity« was persecuted.
The time immediately after the war was also marked by the beginning of
police and legal persecutions. In the old Yugoslavia, freedom of association 
existed; also Muslims had several unions, which they wanted to renew in the 
new state. This desire was quickly suppressed in a series of prosecutions that
lasted several years and that especially affected students and intellectuals,
the so-called »young Muslims«. The most famous case became that of Ali-
ja Izetbegović, who was sentenced to three years in prison in 1946; most got 
much lighter sentences, but some were even sentenced to death. 
Much later, in 1983, Izetbegović was again imprisoned and prosecuted, to-
gether with twelve other persons (including one woman); they were no longer 
»young Muslims«, but »Islamic fundamentalists«. It was a typical staged po-
litical process that could be called Stalinist; but Yugoslavian communists were 
angry if their actions after 1948 were described as Stalinist and even very an-
gry if Stalinist features were observed after 1980, at a time when society was
supposedly liberalised and democratised. The distinguishable Stalinist features
of these events were: brutality of searches of apartments and arrests, illegal 
confiscation of all possible things, mobbing of relatives and lawyers, torture
and humiliation of arrested persons during the investigation, isolation, only a 
selected, reliable audience in the court rooms, nasty and immoral behaviour 
of the press, which constantly stirred up feelings against the accused and sup-
Alenka Puhar
133
ported the authorities ... Everyone tried to prove that the accused were terrible 
terrorists, that they were »demons of the past in a terrorist coat«, as one news-
paper headline put it.
Then there were sentences. They were drastic. Alija Izetbegović was sen-
tenced to fourteen years in prison, one of the twelve persons even got one 
year more, others some years less. After several appeals and proceedings, the
sentences were lowered, but they were still outrageous; at the final level of ju-
risdiction Alija Izetbegović was sentenced to nine years in prison.
What were they guilty of? They were charged under Article 133 of the Pe-
nal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which criminalized 
so-called »hostile propaganda«, together with »counterrevolution threat to 
the social order«. This was the legal classification of their act of reflecting on 
Islam and its place in a modern society, on the relationship between religion 
and social life, and on the situation and perspectives of Muslims in Yugosla-
via. In short, they took the liberty of reflecting on their own religion. The key
piece of evidence was the Islamic Declaration, which was allegedly written by 
Izetbegović. Among the opinions on this declaration, I present one that came 
from Great Britain, but from a former Yugoslav, a Serb: »When I read the texts 
for which Alija Izetbegović was convicted I was amazed that he could be con-
victed of Islamic fundamentalism. I can say that they were a totally decent 
thing. There was no fundamentalism. He pictures Islam as some sort of middle
way between the West and the East and this shouldn’t have been taken tragi-
cally.«
Something that should be natural in a democratic society – that could even 
be accepted as a welcome stimulation for the further Europeanization of the 
Muslim community – was considered to be extremely dangerous and was se-
verely punished. As was whispered then – there was very little loud objection, 
almost none – these were the most severe sentences for Muslims in Europe 
(and maybe remained such until the occurrence of actual terrorism performed 
by fanatic Muslims in the 21st century). 
The people who were convicted of being »Islamic fundamentalists« in the
summer of 1983 were not the only victims of repression. During the build-
up to the process and after the process many more people were controlled,
interrogated, ill-treated, arrested and intimidated. At least one person died. 
Repression was not only limited to Bosnia and Herzegovina, at that time one 
of the republics of the federation called the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugo-
slavia; »Muslim« enemies were sought all over the country; including Slovenia, 
the place of residence of more than ten thousand workers who had emigrated 
Phainomena xviii/68-69 Alenka Puhar
134
from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The police had to monitor all religious events,
detect and record »religious activists«, gather information about their contacts 
with foreign countries, record all visits from foreign countries, monitor the 
circulation of religious literature and prevent any illegal activities. One of the 
main goals was to detect possible initiators of the building of a mosque. 
The case of the book Človek na razpotju (Man at the Crossroads), written 
by Esad Čimić, published in 1975, shows a similar pattern of persecution. The
book was banned in the same year. From what can be deduced from the official
report, the author, a university professor of sociology, decided to deal with the 
question of whether members of different religions in Yugoslavia have a dif-
ferent relation to the social order, whether their activities are different and, if
so, in what way and how it can be explained in the light of the characteristics 
of particular faiths. The author was a Bosnian, a citizen of Bosnia and Herze-
govina; he was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, which means that he 
was in the right position to study these interesting and important questions. 
In a different society, his theoretical views and empirical researches would
soon have been translated, maybe he would have been asked to give lectures 
and offer advice – for example at symposiums on dialogue between cultures ...
However, the Yugoslav authorities were of the opinion that Čimić, merely by 
presupposing that differences exist and by thinking about them, approached
the unacceptable, insulted the honour and reputation of the nation, of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, of socialism and of self-management. At least this was what 
the District State Prosecutor thought when he banned the book.
These few illustrations should suffice to present the position of religion in 
Socialist Yugoslavia. Religion was of course allowed, it was even guaranteed 
by the constitution but, at the same time, each citizen knew very well that this 
freedom, permission for religion, should not be taken too seriously. Every-
one knew that freedom had its limits. If someone forgot or underestimated 
these limits, there was always public authority to remind him or her of them. 
A wide range of subjects, events and possibilities was like a black hole, which 
was known to all; a black hole that simultaneously exists and doesn’t exist. 
Something that should be quietly avoided.
In the 1980s, people in Slovenia increasingly began to reflect on the fact that
there were many immigrants among the population, immigrants who came 
from other republics of Yugoslavia and who were therefore marked by a dif-
ferent culture. However, explanations of these differences were always very
cautious and never included religion, its meaning and consequences for its 
members. Even when the difference was indicated very drastically, for example
Alenka Puhar
135
in the exclamation: »Only death can keep me in Slovenia!« – this was the title 
of a published study on the life of garbage collectors in Slovenia; all were sea-
sonal workers from Bosnia – it could not be suspected that this had anything 
to do with the problems of Muslims in a Christian environment, what these 
problems could be, how they could be bridged, denied, suppressed or dealt 
with in some other way. 
In 1986, the sociologist Silva Mežnarić published the book Bosanci -- a kuda 
idu Slovenci nedeljom? (Bosnians – where do Slovenians go on Sundays?). It was 
the result of fairly innovative research by means of interviews, which tried to 
make a connection with the immigrants and seasonal workers from Bosnia in 
their authentic environment. However, religion is not mentioned in the book, 
it is not even hinted that Bosnians are divided into Serbs, Croats and Muslims, 
what this means, if anything, and why.  This issue was, apparently under pres-
sure, omitted from interviews, from thought and words, as if it hadn’t existed ... 
Until the very end, Yugoslavia was suppressed by the Marxist ideology, which 
prescribed a fixed view on the world, development and the future – as regards
the reality: it will perish, if we pay it no heed long enough... 
By this I do not mean to say that nothing was done towards understanding 
and coexistence among different nationalities. Many efforts were very innova-
tive and decidedly contributed to the integration of immigrants into Slovenian 
society; numerous activities led by staff of the Higher Education Institute for
Social Work and by various »alternative groups« in the districts of Štepanjsko 
naselje and Fužine, may serve as an example. However, it was always clear that 
there was a boundary that should not be crossed, the boundary of religion – a 
tradition containing abstract and concrete components.
Many things began to be considered, introduced and developed only when 
democracy was established. Many initiatives came from unusual places. An 
idea thus came to Slovenia from Germany to study how immigrants from 
other countries, for example Muslims, are getting old, what are residences for 
the elderly like, do they meet the special needs of this part of the population, 
does this part of the population need religious care, how should this be im-
plemented ... Germans turned to Slovenians (as shown in the book by Alenka 
Kobolt Zdej smo od tu – a smo še čefurji? (Now we are from here – are we still 
Chavs?)) on the presumption that here, where there are many Bosnian gas-
tarbeiter (»guest workers«), the authorities know something about this, think 
about it, have experience ... what they didn’t know was that Slovenians had 
only recently begun to think about the role of religion and religious care for 
their Christian fellow citizens, let alone Muslims;  and that every step in this 
Phainomena xviii/68-69 Alenka Puhar
136
direction was accompanied by severe conflicts and accusations about the ag-
gressiveness of the church. Slovenians managed, after great struggle, to gain
the right to such innocent things as the celebration of Christmas (which was 
cancelled in 1952) as late as in 1989, and even this was accepted with a number 
of accusations of intolerance (!), aggressiveness and counter-revolution on the 
part of religious people and respecters of tradition. 
If we look around the world we see some interesting phenomena. What 
kind of conclusions can we reach if we view the problem in the light of some of 
the most notorious affairs in recent years?
The affairs I have in mind are: Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses; the 
Danish caricature depicting the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist with bombs; 
and finally, the affair of Ayaan Hirski Ali and Theo van Gogh, which can be 
described as the nature of Islam and the oppression of Muslim women.  
What kinds of black holes are these? None of the cases has to do with the 
question of a dictatorial political system, genocide or a large number of dead 
people. They have to do with much more subtle things that are hard to measure
and notice. 
 In the case of Salman Rushdie the problem was the so-called blasphemy 
that the novel contained.  Twenty years have passed since the scandal when a 
writer living in the West, in a democratic country, was threatened with fatwa 
by his fellow countrymen, fellow believers and their leaders; he was threat-
ened with death because he committed a crime according to »domestic«, »in-
ternal« rules. Rushdie was immediately offered help by the entire political
and intellectual circle.  He was given a hiding place and armed protection, he 
received mass and almost unanimous intellectual support, real outpourings 
of sympathy, the number of his published books, translations and appear-
ances grew immensely. What contributed to such a reaction was probably the 
fact that in the Western, European world, we view blasphemy as something 
very old-fashioned, an atavism even; another factor is that we’re dealing with 
a novel, an opinion expressed in a literary manner. The consensus also pre-
vailed in regard to the conviction (a false one, as we know today) that the real 
threat is far, far away. 
The issue of the Danish caricature, which began in winter 2005/06, met a dif-
ferent response. Opinions were at all times divided between those who were in 
favour of publication and those who were against it; many were neutral, since 
the dilemma was difficult. It is true that the caricature was insulting for many
Muslim believers, but people in the Western world have become accustomed 
to similar and much more severe insults, as satires and caricatures are a neces-
Alenka Puhar
137
sary part of the freedom of expression, without which the democratic world 
could not be formed and preserved.  Due to the outbursts of violence, threats 
and attempts at extortion, many people and also some governments pleaded 
for appeasement, conciliation and thus took a position against freedom of ex-
pression, when it »exaggerates« and becomes »impertinent«.  
The case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali differs in many aspects. It is not so much about
abstract, but rather purely physical things that are connected to human be-
ings. It is about a person who strives to achieve concrete changes. A. Hirsi Ali’s 
life story is astonishing: A Somali and a Muslim, who fled from her arranged
marriage, thus fled from her family, who wanted to give her away. She sought
asylum in The Netherlands, where she experienced her share of bitterness and
also several benefits offered by the modern Europe. She flourished and de-
veloped into a brave, educated, articulate and active young woman. She was 
elected to the Dutch parliament; she became a politician whose goal was to 
take an active part in improving the situation of the most repressed people and 
she took a vehement stance against torture. 
This would all probably have still been acceptable, if she wasn’t a woman
who stands up for women – and, of course, against everything that happens to 
them under Islam; against what men demand of women and what they cause 
them; what women allow and do to themselves and their children ... She was 
very clear in this matter including in relation to honour killings and to geni-
tal mutilation imposed on millions of girls. This is, of course, a very different
thing than philosophical debates about blasphemous words. Instead of pon-
dering, which is similar to guessing, how many angels can stand on the point of 
a needle, A. Hirsi Ali made the gory operations publically known. What is cut 
from the girls, how and where, how it hurts and what happens to it. Not only 
in Africa and Asia, but also in many countries in Europe, on modern kitchen 
tables and in bathrooms. 
A. Hirsi Ali decided to lead a political life mainly because she wanted to 
do something against this, against physical mutilation and all other kinds of 
subordination of women. This almost inevitably meant rebellion against Islam. 
Many people became afraid of this terrible and dangerous black hole. They
felt that this amazing woman expected too much from them. A. Hirsi Ali fled
from one party to another. She gained collaborators and sympathizers among 
people who were regarded as »controversial« and »extreme«, right-wing and 
conservative ... Theo van Gogh was murdered because of the film he made in
collaboration with her. She was threatened with death. She fled to the United
States. Then she requested protection in France.
Phainomena xviii/68-69 Alenka Puhar
138
This is just an outline of a fascinating story that began in Mogadishu – a
serious candidate for the most hopeless place in the world – and which is now 
unfolding between Europe and the United States, where Ayan Hirsi Ali is hid-
ing, seeking shelter from fanatical killers. What interests me – a person with a 
long history of being Eastern European – most, are the boundaries of freedom 
of expression with which she was faced and where she faced them. It is difficult
to avoid the impression that Ayaan Hirsi Ali ran into similar psychological 
obstacles as those Eastern European dissidents who came to the West from 
communist dictatorships and gained a lot, but also incurred deep resentment 
if they wanted to shed light on what really went on in their homelands. They
were constantly reproached with exaggeration, failing to consider this and that 
... it was said that workers needed dreams ... and objectively-speaking, such 
dreadful revelations only serve the opponent ... moreover, they’re actually in-
sulting to the victims ... besides, we’re currently involved in extremely delicate 
negotiations ... and where is the evidence for such unprecedented accusations?! 
– Wouldn’t it be better if these people showed some sense of reality instead of 
banging their heads against a brick wall? Wouldn’t it be better if they kept their 
mouths shut? 
I truly believe that a person such as Margarete Buber Neumann would get 
on very well with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although the black holes that these two 
women tried to illuminate are very different. If France offers Ayaan Hirsi Ali
a temporary place of residence, she will have ample opportunity to get ac-
quainted with the agitation against Margarete Buber Neumann that happened 
half a century ago, when she decided to expose Stalinism. This old story also
contains threats and mysterious murders – as a punishment for abandoning or 
changing religion, heresy... In both cases the pressure comes from two sides: on 
the one hand, there is the pressure of the family, who orders its members to be 
quiet and to conceal dirty family secrets. On the other, there is the pressure of 
the new, allegedly liberal environment, which tries hard to protect itself from 
hurtful truths, lest they disturb illusions and political calculations. 
Translated by Marina Štros and Peter Lamovec