Jump to content

Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Untitled

It looks like this talk page has to be archived and the NPOV dispute discussions restarted from scratch. As it stands right now, the arguments are incoherent. AucamanTalk 09:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It would also help if people would stop making attacks and instead focused on rational arguments. SouthernComfort 13:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is absolutely revolting. "many of his political and religious ideas were considered by them to be progressive and reformist". Is this a joke? Khomeini was the prime-inventor of Totalitarianism's latest face. This article is in no way encyclopedic. It is pure hagiography on behalf of a rogue state. There is no academic value to it.

It does not outline the rise of Iranian fundamentalism in the 70's. The article completely omits how Khomeini came into the public eye or how his initial challenge to the Shah was presented.

The article's only facts are, at best, of anecdotal value. Who cares that he buried in a steel coffin? What historical significance does this add? I want to know what his economic legacy was? How did he reform the legal system? Agrarian reform?

About the Iran-Iraq war. I would like to know what document approved by the US Congress granted American support to Saddam. Making such an unbalanced and baseless statement ex-cathedra is embarrassing. It is supported by no historical methodology.

In short, this is a panegyric of one the 20th century's greatest pigs (but that is my purely personal opinion). The article is void of any academic substance and presents little or no irrefutable facts of notable significance. This is soft history.

Of course you are correct, but this is wikipedia, which is dominated by liberals. What do you expect? We can't tell the truth about this guy because it may make him look bad, and we must be sensitive to the cultural differences between us and him, therefore let's leave out some important facts! Anybody who takes this "encyclopedia" seriously in regards to anything even slightly political is a fool. "Liberal bias is the game, wikipedia is the name"
Liberal bias? Oh, how I wish! The NPOV police won't allow nary a criticism of the fascist pigs Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh to be injected into their articles, which read like neo-con fairy tales.

Hello, I would like the following quotation of this wonderful world leader who was elected, oh wait, he wasent, added to the article. He once said "Those who spread slogans of Reform, Liberty, Democracy, and Human Rights are against Islam"

me, once more. I changed the below mentioned links to pdf, because it's more conviniet for people, who usually don't use latin letters.

user:nogacki

I added few downloads of whole works of imam Khomeini in order to make this page at least a bit neutral. Downoloads come from my server so there is no question of bandwidth stealing.

user:nogacki

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seems to have been transformed into an unadulterated hymn of praise, and could probably use a bit of NPOV help. Including restoring the bits that are hidden in its history. To the author, we try to present all views, not only one, and especially where there's controversy -- Someone else 06:54 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

There are a few inaccurate statements in this article, they have been removed -- Alireza Hashemi

Roger Garaudy is considered more or less as an holocaust-denier. Ericd

Moved from the subject page by Graft

In the United States an article was written in the Washington Post stating that: "The professionals of the American military have compiled a modern record replete with failure and catastrophe."

And the point of the WP quote is? Anecdotal records of failures should be taken in context with the overwhelming military successes of the U.S. throughout history...Also the quote needs a specific attribution: who said it and exactly when/where was it published.

Khomeini warned Soviet officials that the U.S.S.R. was in danger of collapse, an observation obvious to many people at that time, and counseled them to "return to God". They failed to heed his advice.

What is the point here?...that Khomeini was making some sort of fulfilled prophecy?... If that is the point, consider this: The collapse of the U.S.S.R. was due directly to economic failure primarily because of an arms race with the U.S., not directly to cultural atheism and even less to do with Khomeini himself...the U.S.S.R. economically ran itself into the ground, trying to keep up in the arms race, and collapsed in the early 1990s. BoNoMoJo

That's a nice post-facto observation, and irrelevant, as hindsight is 20/20. The fact is, Khomeini was one of the VERY few globally significant figures to say out loud that the USSR would collapse, and commit himself to such a prediction. That was certainly not something US or UK analysts said in advance of the events. So, Khomeini's statement, and the fact that they DID fail to heed his advice, is noteworthy, and ought to be returned to the article. No implication that he caused the collapse was there, so this is irrelevant:

Khomeini had nothing to do with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Though the U.S was to him a country "in war with god", and if they were to strengthen their relationship with the U.S, he foretold that the nation would collapse.

Well that was more or less what happened - US 'economic advisors' ruined Russia during the Clinton administration, even after the collapse. -Anonymous

Infact there exists an entire book written on the subject matter, with quotes of head political figures in the U.S.S.R although his predictions remained obscurely prophetic to the Russians themselves. User:Alireza Hashemi

Obscurely and arguably. Alireza censored the fact: "an observation obvious to many people at that time," in reference to Khomeni's supposed prophecy about the failure of the USSR. Alireza deceptively mistated the quote as "an obvious observation" stating it was NPOV. 64.228.248.109 censored the fact "(for good or bad)" in reference to Khomeni's influence. B
Accurate prediction is not 'influence'. If Khomeini understood world affairs this well, that he was able to make a prediction few others dared to make or believed, then he deserves credit for that foresight - not for "causing it" or understanding the causes in economic terms. -Anonymous
No one is claiming that accurate prediction is influence (whatever that is supposed to mean). You are confusing two separate issues... B

"An observation to many people at the time is clearly a POV. It is also disputed. President Havel of the Czech Republic, a noted anti-communist, did not expect the collapse in that form so quickly (he expected it to take 50 years) [source: BBC 'Newsnight' interview. January 31, 2003.] 'Good or Bad' is an irrelevant qualification. It is sufficient to state that he was a significant figure. It is up to the reader to reach conclusions as to whether his significance was good or bad. These two lines weaken not strengthen the article and so have been removed, in an effort to introduce a NPOV to the article. JTD 20:46 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Censorship and praise of an arguably bad man is NPOV? "good or bad" is a fact; it is a fact that some people consider that his influence was good and some considered his influence bad. AND it is relevant because those who have an opinion on this person's influence tend to feel strongly about it one way or the other. The article should explicitly point out his controversial influence. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Pres Havel is not the arbiter of hat others expected. Just because Pres Havel didn't expect it (sooner) doesn't mean others did not. People in the U.S. saw the writing on the wall.
BUT THEY DID NOT PUBLICLY PREDICT IT - and that's what we must count. That's the ONLY THING WE *CAN* COUNT and stay NPOV. -Anonymous
I can see changing many to some, but "an observation obvious to some" is a fact whether you like it or not AND is relevant because the article suggests Khomeni had prophetic insight above the ordinary person when in fact ordinary persons could see the impending failure of the USSR.
Ordinary persons were not world figures publishing books on this! -Anonymous
Beyond that, the article doesn't begin to address this person's murdering, torturing and imprisoning of politicial or religious dissidents and rivals. B
And it should. This objection has nothing to do with the other one. -Anonymous
That's why the sentence is preceded with "Beyond that" indicating change of direction to make another point... B
"Jtdirl's change from this:
Khomeini warned Soviet officials that the U.S.S.R. was in danger of collapse, an observation obvious to other ordinary people at that time, and counseled them to "return to God". They failed to heed his advice.
to this:
Khomeini warned Soviet officials that the U.S.S.R. was in danger of collapse and counseled them to "return to God". His observation was not followed.
makes the article more POV. Assuming that that this bit of information is even important, it's primary purpose is to imply Khomeini's prophetic prowess which is disputable. B

That is a pretty weird interpretation of POV. B's version

  1. states as a fact that the collapse of the USSR was 'obvious to other ordinary people' . That contains 2 clear POVs, that the collapse was obvious, which was not the case to many people. Some thought it would happen. Others didn't. Secondly, it implies that Khomeini was one of the 'ordinary people'. That is a point of view. Some would agree. Many wouldn't. That sentence is clearly weighed down with implicit POVs. My version removes both those POVs and produces a NPOV sentence.
Agreed. -Anonymous
First, I did not intend to imply Khomeni was ordinary; I meant simply to refer to other people or ordinary people in contrast to Khomeni. I agree that was a ambiguity on my part and could have been phrased better. Second, OTHER does not mean MANY which is why I changed it from "MANY people" to "OTHER ordinary people"...You misquote the material. Third, an attributable, relevant POV accords with wiki's NPOV policy, for example: "God is a fantasy" is an unacceptable POV because it states an opinion as a fact; but "Other people believe God is a fantasy" is an acceptable POV because it states a fact by attributing the opinion to a person or persons. There's nothing weird about that...you can find the policy and similar examples right here --> [NPOV]. Maybe YOU should consider whether YOU need to understand the distinction between NPOV, POV, NPOV policy and attribution instead of jumping to conclusions and publishing a faulty analysis of my point of view... My version specifically states "that the U.S.S.R. was in danger of collapse [was] an observation obvious to other ordinary people at that time." That is a fact: it was obvious to some people (besides Khomeni) that the USSR was in danger of collapse. (What evidence do you have to the contrary?) And inclusion of some version of that statement accords with NPOV policy. Your patronizing acknowledgment even concedes this point with your explicit approval of my revision which states: "others perceived that the Soviet Union's collapse was already inevitable". B
  1. The sentence 'they failed to heed his advice, contains two words clearly judgmental. It presumes a 'failure' on the leadership of the USSR; that is a POV. And using the word heed is loaded with POV, a presumption that he was right, with the reason for the USSR's collapse being due to its failure to return to God.' Some people think that was the reason. Many disagree and judge other reasons as the cause of the breakup of the USSR. That sentence too is POV-laiden. 'His observation was not followed' does not express a POV on the validity or otherwise of Khomeini's analysis, merely states
  • that he offered advice;
  • the reason he gave for making the prediction he made;
  • the fact that the advice was not followed.
Jtdirl, I NEVER disagreed with you on this part of the material....I only referred to the preceeding sentence... You state well enough what was wrong with "failed to heed" and I agree with your reasons why it is POV... B

The NPOVed sentences avoid forming judgments and simply state facts. What they replace are sentences that are implicitly POV. While I don't doubt B's sincerity or ability, I think B needs to understand the distinction between NPOV and POV. JTD 22:18 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV?! It was NEVER NPOV one way or the other; it was always more or less POV because the whole problem was the POV implicit in the first sentence. I'm glad Zoe just deleted the whole thing. For the record, after this exchange, I do question at the least your patronizing tone and your understanding of NPOV policy. B 02:27 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed on ALL counts. -Anonymous
I fail to see how removing "an observation obvious to other ordinary people at that time" increases the POV of this article. That is an affirmative statement of fact and since even the CIA didn't see the collapse
Maybe they did, but they DIDN'T PUBLISH IT. That's ALL that matters. -Anonymous
That's not all that matters. You seem to think that repeating your point (like a broken record) makes it so. The point at issue isn't who went on record; the main point is that Khomeni claims some extraordinary insight--which is debatable--and which wiki should not take a position on. B
I don't see how that that statement can be anything other than POV. I'm glad it was removed. --mav
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, mav, but your comment is curious. You agree that the deleted material is a fact (i.e. NPOV), but if this fact is counter balancing POV material then its deletion would make POV material more POV...That the CIA didn't see a collapse is arguable and doesn't materially weigh on whether others from their subjective viewpoint believed that it was obvious that collapse was likely and near. B
No silly. "Statement of fact" does not mean that it was an actual fact. It means that the piece of information was stated as if it were a fact. I should have been more clear. It is highly debatable that many people at the time saw the collapse of the USSR. Sure many people were guessing based on some indicators but just because they turned out to be right does not mean they were prothetic or in any way special or particularly smart. Of course now that we have the hindsight of more than a decade we can much more clearly see how the whole thing fell apart. --mav
"Silly"? Mav, no name-calling or belittling please. I'll accept that you probably didn't say what you meant both before and again; surely you believe a "statement of fact" is only a statement of fact when it is actually a fact. I think what you meant was a statement of opinion. I don't debate "many", (that wasn't my point) but surely "some" or "others" should be unarguable. B

A better rewrite of the points at issue. Well done, B. JTD 22:41 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, your commendation comes across as kind of patronizing and condescending, don't you think? Don't you think YOU should have done the re-write instead of simply deleting material? Folks who remove material have the burden of reworking the material to make it acceptable... B 02:27 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

I see no problem in leaving in the quotes praising Khomeini, but I'd also like some balance. How about some from his enemies? Surely they're out there. -- Zoe

I added a few - and recontextualized Norman Mailer's quote, which came off in the original as praise of Khomeini. It was actually from a speech condeming Khomeini's fatwa of Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. Chas zzz brown 23:08 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the part about his "Indian origin" from the article becuase it is simply inaccurate and misinformation. His great grandfather, originally from city of Neishabour in northeastern Iran, went to various areas in parts of today's India, Kashmir and Pakistan as missionaries (remember that Iran is the main Shia Muslim country and the rest of the Shia world are minorities in their respective societies). After some time, they retured back to Iran and this time they settled in the city of Khomein in middle of Iran.

The article was suggesting that he was born "Ruhollah Hindi" and changed his name to "Ruhollah Khomeini" in 1930. At the time of Khomeini's birth there was no official and governmental organization for identifications and birth/death certificates. Such an organization was established in 1930 for the first time in Iran, and that is how he became "Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini". The Mousavi part has always been with him, since he is a "Sayyed" and his roots go back to Imam Mousa-al-Kazim, thus, Mousavi, meaning, pertaining to, or belonging to Imam Mousa-al-Kazim. --k1

This "Familiarize the people with the truth of Islam ...." quote is a bit long. It's supposed to be a quote, not an exerpt from his entire body of thought. user:J.J.

What does Khomein (the town where Khomeini came from) mean?

AWS 26 Jan 2004

Khomein is just the name of the city. The real ethymology is disputed, and is irelevant to Khomeini himself. Roozbeh 13:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Could Roozbeh kindly play along with AWS's original question, that there is something in the name of the town Khomein, no matter how small, that might inspire Rudollah to choose Khomeini as his surname. :-) AWS 11 Mar 2004
It's the tradition of Iranian clerics to choose a city they belong to or have spent lots of their time there as their surname. That is the case with almost any famous cleric: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was born in Rafsanjan, so he is calling himself that instead of "Hashemi Bahramani". Same with Ali Meshkini, Ali al-Sistani, Mahmoud Taleghani, almost every Ayatollah. Roozbeh 10:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe we can remove the NPOV status now. What do others think? Roozbeh 14:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed. It was there since May 2003! --mav


  • "If a man - God protect him from it! - fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution (see Wudu) is necessary". From: Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini
  • "If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed". From: Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini

I have been trying to place these quotes in the article and Roozbeh repetedly is deleating them. He argues that these quotes are not different from the mainstream opinion of Shia clerics. But most of the other quotes (i.e. "America is a satan") are not restricted to Khomeini as well. It seems as if Roozbeh does not personally like these opinions to be linked to Khomeini. But why? That is censorship. These quotes ARE from Khomeini.--217.235.124.88 10:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions:
  1. Are these quotes worth of an encyclopedia?
Yes they are. Are the other quotes worth it ? These ones are certainly not worth less.
  1. Do these quotes explain anything about Khomeini?
Yes they do. They show how ridiculous the man was. You may not notice it, but others do. They show how he tried to regulate the most simple aspects of life.
  1. Do these quotes belong to the top of the quotations list?
Don't mind if they are moved below
  1. Why have you select only these from a long list of other Fiqh-related material?
Because these are particularly ridiculous. We do not have to show only the chocolate side of thngs, do you know ?
  1. I personally don't care about these quotes to be linked to Khomeini. Go and create a website about Khomeini (or another Islamic cleric) and , and post anything you want there. I only believe that these don't belong to the quotes section of the Wikipedia's article on Khomeini. They're not encyclopedic.
I'm glad you don't mind. I'll put the quotes back on.
  1. If you are so desperate to add them somewhere, create an article about sexual rulings of Shias and put them there. Then put a link on an appropriate page. Copying misleading quotes at the top of the quotes page of just one of Shia clearis is not the way to do it. Wikipedia is an organized source of knowledge, not just some random pile of knowledge. roozbeh 13:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is certainly not a place for censorship. And this article is not supposed to avoid giving a picture of ridiculous aspects of his life and ideas. Imagine what an encyclopedia would be if it only had friendly notes about public personalities. Not very instructive at all. Wikipedia is better than that. Truth will prevail.

What about the funeral?

The funeral procession, where the body fell out onto the pavement, isn't even mentioned. A2Kafir 03:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wait, they were trying to tear his corpse apart? Why? DS 18:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pre-revolution biography requested

The article badly needs biographical material prior to the revolution. Currently it only mentions his birthplace, then becoming an ayatollah, then exile, all in the briefest way. Tempshill 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters on the Left?

I'm wondering if this sentence is accurate: This event caused many Westerners, particularly those on the left who had been generally in favor of the revolution against the Shah, to reconsider their support of Khomeini. It's true that several on the Left viewed the Shah as an American stooge, and that might have led to early support for the revolution, but considering the theocratic regime that won out I can't see how any honest leftists would continue to support Khomeini, other than out of anti-Americanism. J. Parker Stone 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad's Descendant?

Being of Iranian descent, I find it hard to believe Khomeini was Muhammad's descendant, especially when the coincidence that many other Middle Eastern princes and kings have claimed the same. Is it possible to cite a source for that particular statement?

Actually, recent mathematic analyses have shown that *everybody*, or at least everybody of European or Middle Eastern descent, is descended from Muhammad... and from Charlemagne and lots of other people. Basically, if you pick any given person from that long ago, either he has no descendents or everybody is descended from him. It's just due to the exponential number of generations. See "The Royal We" by Steve Olson in the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. —Chowbok 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see here and here. —Chowbok 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The author is entitled to his/her opinions, and try as we might, nearly every article in existence has a tinge of bias. We must remember however, Khomeini claimed women can be presidents of their own country in an interview before he became Grand Ayatollah, and now women cannot even show their ankles in public...a law of his own making.

Please do not praise what cannot be justified.


~SAS

Also in response to "Supporters on the Left?", it's important to recall that much of the population who wanted a revolution were students.

When Khomeini made promises to bring safety and security and to connect with the people (unlike the Shah), the people needed a hero he said he would provide. Support began to fall when they realized he did not fulfill all of his duties, and that caused distrust.

Also, the Iranian people did not support him out of anti-Americanism. The United States is an important side of Iranian politics, but people do not vote because of how their leader deals with another country. People vote because of how their leader deals with THEIR country.

And no, America is not what other countries' politics revolve around.

Sorry, Uncle Sam.

oh sorry. i guess i shouldn't have mistaken revolutionary fervor such as the hostage crisis and "death to the great satan" and the torturing to death of Americans in Lebanon as "anti-Americanism." silly me.
on an unrelated note, should this article perhaps be retitled Ayatollah Khomeini, cuz isn't that what he's commonly known as? or perhaps the WP naming conventions disagree with me -- dun't knoww J. Parker Stone 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Banisadr's Killing

Did Khomeini secretly commission the killing of Banisadr to entrench mullahs or their stooges like Ahmadinejad in the government? However, Banisadr escaped in a timely fashion, but Mohammad Ali Rajai didn't.

--John on 11 October 2005

Intensifying Religious Studies by Force

Why was the following edit deleted?

Education in Iranian Kindergarten Through 12th Grade
  1. Males and females must go to separate school.
  2. Everyone must study Quran as a subject. Also, everyone must read the Quran in Arabic, not Farsi.
  3. Everyone must study Islamic ethics.
  4. Forced religious studies existed during Shah's reign also; however, after the Islamic revolution such mandatory studies have become intensified.
  5. Everyone must study Arabic and English starting in the middle school.
  6. Usually from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. students have to pray, march back and forth in lines, and sometimes chant death to America.
  7. Subject grades ranges from 0 to 20, with 20 being the highest grade. In order to pass a class an individual must at least receive a 10 as a grade.
  8. In 2005, many villages had elementary schools only.
  9. Historical textbook are routinely tampered with or infused with bias.

Instead of letting people focus on math, science, computer, and finance everyone has to waste time on crap. This puts Iranians at a disadvantage. No wonder so many people become frustrated and drop out of school. This may be one reason why not a single Iranians has won the Nobel prize in a science, Fields Medal, and so on. The government goes out of its way to make things unnecessarily difficult.

-anon

I've removed it again. The text is POV and unreferenced, but more importantly it is tangential. This is an article on Khomeini, not on Iranian education policy. - SimonP 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The new Iranian education system was one of the policy modifications of Khomeini once he rose to power. I went to school in Iran for five years. Every day, students had to march in the school yard for 30 to 45 minutes before the start of school to pray and chant death to America and Israel. Furthermore, in my history textbooMuhammedk, I learned that since the U.N. is based in New York City, then the United States controls it. My parents and relatives told me that Khomeini made the study of Islamic ethics, Quran, and Arabic more intensive than before by adding more material to the textbooks and, for example, requiring students to take start Arabic starting in the sixth grade instead of seventh. In short, some of these are things Khomeini who became a Supreme Leader in 1979 instituted himself.
However, I concede that Khomeini had nothing to do with items 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 listed herein.

-anon

I would suggest writing an article on the Iranian education system, though it would be good to cite some external sources so that the article would be verifiable. - SimonP 06:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


"Peace Be Unto Him" suffix

I have noticed that in this article under the "Life under Khomeini" section, the name of Muhammad is followed by "(pbuh)", which I assume is "Peace Be Unto Him". Is this the convention in Wikipedia? Does it suggested a biased point of view? Should it be removed from the article?

Xamian 02:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian ancestry

I think there is a little misconception in this article regarding his ancestry. His "Indian ancestors" were actually Persio-Arab descendents of Muhammad who settled in Lucknow, India among the Shiites and lived there for many centuries and one of them settled in Iran by chance while returning from a pilgramage to Najaf. They might have picked up some Indian blood after living there for so long, but ultimately Persio-Arab. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. User: Afghan Historian

Khomeini and economics

How can we say that Khomeini believed in free market economy??? And said that corporations should be encouraged???? It's crazy!!

Why "Imam"?

Is there someone who knows why Ayatollah Khomeini is called "Imam," despite having no official status by or from the Hidden Imam? Kitabparast 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 

KHOMEINI AND 'PROGRESS'

Khomeini was plainly anti freedom of speech. His intolerance and the manner in which women suffered under his regime is well documented and thus the lead page is both erroneous and misleading january 23 2006 (MG)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini/Archive_1&oldid=966898182"