Editing right

Each newspaper or magazine has legally accepted editing rights before publishing a piece of writing in the form of articles or letters. In a way, the editing right is not bad. It protects the image of the newspaper concerned, especially when an article's contents involve censored or taboo issues. In the same way, unedited articles and letters, if published, may sometimes implicate the writer himself and may, in some cases, become perilous.

However, despite all the positivities, the editing right is sometimes frustrating and misleading. This, in fact, discourages a number of people who are interested in writing for newspapers.

How can the editing right frustrate a writer? This happens in a number of ways; one of which is the editing of the language itself in an unnecessary manner, probably in order to claim language superiority over the writer. For example, the expression "natives of Indonesia" may unnecessarily be edited to "Indonesian natives". In this case, editing is unnecessary as long as both give the same meaning and even carry the same message in most cases.

One other way the editing right frustrates us is in terms of the ideas themselves which we intend to convey. In this case, negative effects of unnecessary editing are even more frustrating.

Recently, I became an unfortunate victim of unnecessary editing. Just refer to my letter to the Post of July 10, 1996. In it, the law professor at University of Indonesia was presented as the Imam, according to the editing, whereas in my original script to the Post I didn't call him the Imam because he only read the sermon but a different person led the audience in the prayer.

I, as an Arabic speaker, must tell the Editor that when a man delivers a sermon, then he is called khatib in the Arabic language (Indonesian pronunciation khotib). Further, when a man leads people in a prayer then he is Imam. For the benefit of readers, let me clearly explain this basic problem.

There are various Islamic schools of jurisprudence with millions of followers all over Moslem world. Four of them, i.e. Malikiyyah, Sahfi'iyyah, Hanafiyyah and Hanbaliyyah, are the most famous. Jurisprudentially, some of them permit a different khatib and Imam for the Friday prayer, whereas others discourage it. Those who discourage it prefer the same person for both the sermon and leading the prayer.

As a graduate of a famous international Islamic University, I am always keen to read better Islamic articles which the Post often publishes.

BUHARI ABDU

Jakarta