Oh you heedless fool! Instead of wasting so much effort trying to twist the relationship between Shams and Mevlana into a sexual narrative in that video, if you had focused on your own sex life, perhaps you could have overcome this obsession and the contradictions you're trapped in.
Look, here are your contradictions:
- What allows you to analyze Mevlana and Shams are the vast works Mevlana left behind. Without those works, we wouldn't even be talking about a Mevlana. You're trying to do a so-called analysis by skipping over the essential historical reasons that enable your analysis—his works. It's like having an egg without a chicken. What are we supposed to do with the works?
- If you say, "I'm interested in the people, not their works," then why choose him and not someone else who lived a thousand years ago? Were his works too heavy? Did you have trouble understanding and grasping them? When in history have you seen such works produced by homosexual tendencies? If that were the primary drive, we should be seeing a Mesnevi and a Divan-i Kebir pop up everywhere today. Can you see that?
- If Mevlana were the person you claim, he wouldn't have needed an old man like Shams. His dervish lodge was full of boys. He could have easily satisfied that need in any way, and wouldn't have left behind works like the Mesnevi or Divan. Does this scenario sound familiar? How many Mesnevis and Divan-i Kebirs are coming out of today's communities? What are they doing, I wonder? Have you ever thought of researching that?
- What does it mean to call Mevlana "Our Master"? This man has passed the historical test of nearly a thousand years, been scrutinized and researched in every way, and still lives on as if he never died. How many homosexuals have you known like that? How many historical figures have you analyzed from this angle? Could you find any parallels?
Mevlana has crushed and pulverized people like you on the stage of history. His name still stands, what will become of yours? Do you think you'll remain in history by attaching yourself to Mevlana in this way?
Your obsession with a person's sexual urges reveals more about you than about that person. When you speak about perversion, you don't escape our notice. What is your real issue? What do we need to put you on the table with? Do you have any works of your own? If we put you on the table with your words, it's one problem; if we put you on the table with yourself, it's another.
Mevlana doesn't need my defense. Who is he, and who am I! I would love to write a Divan-i Kebir, even if I were to be accused of homosexuality by some heedless people from time to time!
The donkey dies, its saddle remains; the man dies, his works remain.