Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Khomeini's British Origins

I have tried to post this article several times and it is being removed. There is evidence that Khomieni's father was an Englishman named William Richard Williamson. I am posting this again.

Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.

Khomeinis real father,William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian OilCompany (later British Petroleum: BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.

The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked for me. He certainly went native but whether he is Khomeinis father I could not say. Would not an outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British paternity? From someone who knew Haji [and thus the truth] well?

Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his no comment.

How it all happened:

A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula in South Yemen, where hejoined the local police force.

His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Youssef Ebrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.

A few points should be remembered about the PersianGulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that time. Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.

British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz, but politically controlled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Mohammareh) with assistance from E. Elking- ton in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later represented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence, who gained fame as Lawrence of Arabia, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Khorramshahr during this same period.

Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and exploited by the British, including via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran.

Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political and oil personnel. Haji Abdollah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65. Earlier, in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the first name of Abdollah. Family names were still unusual and son of the son ofor son of a type of worker or craftsman was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca, took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactors name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it as a distin- guisher. ThusWilliam Richard Williamson became Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri.

During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdollah took his vacations in Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women each under Muslim marriage rituals. He sired 13 children of whom seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood. His repeated Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to the Kashmir Indian father misconception.

With dark-haired Haji Abdol- lah a fanatically devoutMuslim, a characteristic he imposed on his children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman. He insisted his four surviving sons attend religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their own right.

The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residenceKhomeinas the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning of Khomein).

The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas (petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini through that brother with Haji Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeinis undisputed brother use the Williamson family name? The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdollah Williamson in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for anti-Iranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50 agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932 pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.

His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm (see above), a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdollahs political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know Khomeinis father well. Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of foreign oil companies, which decided not Iran how much oil the country was allowed to produce and at what price it had to be sold.

With his own and his familys theological background, he began to foment an anti-monarchy revolt through the mosques,which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently being given the life-saving ayatollah title which he had not earned.

After formally being exiled to Turkey, he ended up in Iraq where he wrote some philosophical and social behavior dissertations which were so bizarre by religious standards that, where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, cleaner texts appeared as edited translations in Farsi.

Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the language. With the number of Iranians who have died because of him and his successors over the past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian with Arab Sunni Muslim theological and philosophical roots may have had no love or compassion for Iranians either.

In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras rolling, a journalist asked: What do you feel about returning to Iran? He replied: Nothing! The question was repeated, and again he replied: Nothing!H

1. Alan Peters is the nom de plume of a correspondent who spent many years engaged in security and intelligence issues in Iran. This report is copyright © 2004 by Alan Peters.

2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily February 23, 2004: Iranian Elections Reinforce Short- Term Clerical Grip; Heighten Political Instability.

3. Editors note: See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily March 1, 2004: Iranian Leadership Seeks Ways to Circumvent IAEA, and to Suppress Possible Libyan Revelations About Iranian Involvement in PA103 and WMD. Significantly, while this report deals with the concern of the Iranian clerics over the possibility of launching terrorist or insurgent attacks against Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi of Libya over matters related to Irans involvement in WMD programs and the PA103 terrorist bombing, it is possible that the clerics also feel concern that the transformation of Libyas relations with the US could also reveal unpalatable truths about the disappearance of Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Mussa Sadr.

DEFENSE & FOREIGN AFFAIRS STRATEGIC POLICY 3, 2004

Hitler

199.172.169.17 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC) there's now a picture of hitler on this page. is there a good reason for this?

I don't see a picture of Hitler. If it was there it's probably removed. Aucaman^Talk 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Indian Origin

I have tried to add factual data on Khomeini's heritage but each timme it is removed. Can you tell me what is the problem? My source is Massacre of 67 by Masoud Ansari published in 2002. He is a professor and an Iranian Scholar.

Khomeini was born in the town of Khomein as Ruhollah Mousavi (روحالله موسوی in Persian) on May 17, 1900. Although Khomeini claims he is from a family that claimed descent from the prophet Muhammad and that he was entitled to use the style Seyyed before his name, the fact of the matter is that Khomeini's father was born in Kashmir, India and was a man named "Hindi." Khomeni's father was an illiterate magician-healer who extracted money from the poor in India. Around his time, a famous dancer in India dies and upon her death she dedicated all her money to Islam. The British took her inheritance and established a fund through which they founded schools of Theology in Qom and Baghdad. As part of this fund, the English provided money to Indians to encourage them to become mullahs and dispatched them to Iran and Baghdad. Khoemini's father was the recipient of one of these lifelong stipends. Upon receiving the stipend he headed for Gom in Iran, but because he was untalented, he was kicked out of Gom. He then settled near the town of Khomein and took the name of the town and entered into trade with a partner. They began to sell jewelry and other sundry items around town. Eventually, Khoemeni's father kills his partner, takes all the money and escapes. As a fugitive from the law, he traveled from one village to another practicing his art and stealing women's jewelry. Eventually, he was arrested for the murder of his partner and hanged during Reza Shah's regime.

Upon his death, he left three boys. It was at this time that Reza Shah was requiring all Iranians to select a surname. So, each son picked a name: his oldest son selected the name of his father "Hendi", the second selected the name 'Khomeni" which was name of the town, and third selected name "Pasandideh." In Khomein, Pasandideh opened a small business providing certificates and serving as notary. Khomeni in his youth married a young girl and divorced her, then he married a 12 year old girl (his brother provided a marriage certificate for him) which was illegal during the Pahlavi administration, so Khomeni was thrown in jail. In addition, Khomeini was arrested in Baghdad for sexually assaulting a young boy and later became a closet homosexual, a common practice among the mullahs. He was a notoriously corrupt person. After his father's death, the English selected Khomeini for training. Khomeini given a lifelong stipend to help him become a mullah. Khomeni had three children, 2 sons and one daughter. One son died of overeating and alcoholism, the second son Ahmad is a cleric in Qom and receives a life long stipend, and a daughter, Ashragh, who is still alive. Khomeini, a man of Indian stock, had little affection for Iran. In fact, he hated Iran. He was against education. When he came to power, he closed all the universities and medical schools, stating that Iran did not need educated people or doctors. He criticized Reza Shah for building schools and giving rights to women among other things. His books on Islamic guidance are about sex and anal hygiene.

With the help of the British, Khomeini reinvented himself. Khomeini was named an ayatollah in the 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.234.120 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 February 2006

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 Mousa al Kazim (sometimes spelled Musa al-Kazim.

--66.81.192.138 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources, preferably from a authoritative biography, of which there are many in the English language. SouthernComfort 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, politically motivated works like "Living In Hell" by Ghazal Omid [1] don't count unless she specifically cites sources in her book for this information. Otherwise it cannot be stated as fact. SouthernComfort 12:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

"With only one choice on the ballot, and without being able to vote in secret, over 98% voted in favor of replacing the monarchy with an Islamic republic. "

Any sources for the claim that one could not vote in secret? And I believe that it is quite unusual for an interim government to put out more than one constitution, so of course there is only one choice on the ballot -- the phrasing has a strong negative connotation that may be unnecessary. AmirM 66.108.59.171 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The 98% figure (as of this writting) does not seem to refer to the outcome on the vote to approve the the new constitution, but that of the vote to overthrow the Shah. Your point about ballots typically providing only one option in troubled times, however, is well taken, Amir, as well as your point on the negative connotation in the original wording. In general though, I think it would be good to note the mere fact that a single choice appeared on the ballot of an election (whether this was true in this case, I cannot say; though as you say, it seems plausible). By itself, the 98% figure can be misleading, because from there, a reader might draw the conclusion that that figure represented the opinion of the Iranian population. Of course if the reader was clever, he or she might suspect the single-ballot-choice explanation, or some other one; but in either case, there is an obvious gap of information which this article can fill. Danielx 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Indian origin"

Someone keeps claiming Khomeini is of Indian origin. I searched online, and there are some articles claiming that his mother was from Kashmir. I did more searching and it turns out his mother was the daughter of Ayatollah Mirza Ahmad who resided in Karbala and Najaf, so I don't know if any of these claims are true. Those who believe he has Indian origins should provide the necessary evidence. For now I'm taking it out. Aucaman^Talk 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The source of Khomeini's real heritage and lineage and background comes from Massacre of 67 by Masoud Ansari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.234.120 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 February 2006

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at your source and let you know in less than 5 days. Aucaman^Talk 14:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

According to "The Making of Iran's Islamic Revolution: From Monarchy to Islamic Republic" by Mohsen M Milani, "Khomeini used the 'Hendi' pseudonym, which means 'from India,' in his writings and poetry. This led to the rumour that he was of Indian, not Persian, descent. In reality Khomeini chose the pseudonym because his Iranian grandfather had lived in India for some time and was known there as Mir Hossein Neyshaburi Hendi." I think this warrants having another section covering this rumoured Indian connection. Feedback? --L1CENSET0K1LL 01:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, also see his short biography by Hamid Algar, a well-known scholar. I also have this other book ("Massacre of 67", which is in Persian), but I don't know which part the other user was referring to. I might add a note about this in the article. Aucaman^Talk 08:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini Detested Jews

The remark of Mahmood Ahmadinejad about Israel is a replication of Khomeini's.

What is this baloney? "Ayatollah Khomeini was also supportive to religious minorities including Persian Jewish community." Almost all Iranian Jews fled Iran. Therefore I will remove this nonsense.

--66.81.200.116 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss changes on the talk page before making them. Let's not start an edit war.

Being against a nation is not the same as being against a religion. Ayatollah Khomeini's comments where in regard to the Israeli regime.

If you have evidence that Ayatollah Khomeini was fundamentally against any individual of the Jewish creed solely because he was Jewish, cite it.

Permit me to quote you from Islamic Government p.27 of Hamid Algar's English translation in Islam and Revolution : Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini

"from the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present." (p.27) [155]

in a statement in E'lamieh Hay Imam Khomeini (Imam Khomeini's Declarations), vol. VII, p.68.), Khomeini complained that Cyrus the Great's freeing the ancient Israelites from Babylonian captivity

`prevent[ed] the natural disappearance of elements [i.e. the Jewish people] who would never be satisfied with anything less than world domination,`

Judging from these statements could we not say that Khomeini was fundamentally against individuals "of the Jewish creed" because they are Jewish?

Bud Swenson, http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/, 23 March 2006

Currently, the Iranian government has a close relationship with the country's Jewish community as noted by a recent BBC article [2] and quoted below:

Iran's small Jewish community of about 30,000 is recognised by the Islamic Republic and there is even a Jewish member of parliament.

Iranian Jews normally do not interfere in political issues and they often support the country's stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In a gesture of loyalty to the Islamic Republic, Mr Yashayaei [Chairman of Iran's Jewish Council] told the Iranian president that his comments on the Holocaust were against the teachings of the leader of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei.

66.108.59.171 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am Iranian, but not a Jew. It may true that Khomeini did not like Israel, but was tolerant of Jews in Iran. However, I have never asked why after the Islamic Revolution the majority of Jews left Iran. Now many Iranian Jews live in Southern California, U.S. I think Khomeini treatment of Jews was more subtle.

Think of it this way: Khomeini picked Khamenei, who as the de facto leader had to give Ahmadinejad permission to run for presidency. Furthermore, hasn't Ahmadinejad all along been claiming to imitate Khomeini? Neither did Ahmadinejad specifically say," Jews are vile."

--66.81.192.202 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to `Life under Khomeini`

Current passage:

Life under Khomeini

Under Khomeini's rule, Sharia (Islamic law) was introduced, with the Islamic dress code enforced for both men and women. Women were forced to cover their hair and body, while men were not allowed to wear short-sleeve shirts or shorts. Many opponents fled the country because of their dislike of the political situation after the Revolution and its changes. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press were ostensibly protected, at least as long as it did not contradict Islamic law. Inevitably, however, many newspapers and other media outlets were closed down. Furthermore, opposition to the religious rule of the clergy or Islam in general was often met with harsh punishments. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, there were many systematic human rights violations, including mass executions and interrogation of former members of the overthrown monarchy and military and anyone who opposed the revolutionary government.

In 1979, when Khomeini returned to Iran after exile and before he led the Islamic revolution, he made a speech in Tehran’s main cemetery. In this speech, Khomeini promised Iranian citizens free telephone, heating, electricity, bus services and free oil at their door steps. He also declared that “no one should remain homeless in this country”. None of these promises were fulfilled. [3][4][5][6][7]

Ayatollah Khomeini was also supportive of religious minorities including the Persian Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian communities.[8] He also called for unity between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

In 1976, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to allow people with hormonal disorders to undergo gender reassignment if they wished, as well as to change their birth certificates to reflect their new gender role. Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, there was no particular policy regarding transgendered individuals. Iranians with the inclination, means, and connections could obtain the necessary medical treatment and new identity documents.

For many years, breaking the barrier of confinement of the private sphere has been a major source of frustration for advocates of women's rights in Iran. But the Islamic revolution broke the barrier overnight. When Khomeini called for women to attend public demonstration and ignore the night curfew, millions of women who would otherwise not have dreamt of leaving their homes without their husbands' and fathers' permission or presence, took to the streets. Khomeini's call to rise up against the Shah took away any doubt in the minds of many devoted Muslim women about the propriety of taking to the streets during the day or at night.[9]

The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a marked increase of employment for women. This increase was much more than the rate prior to the revolution. Such dramatic change in the pattern of labor force participation might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere. Educational attainment for women, also a product of free education and the literacy campaign, contributed to this increase. In fact, today there are more women in higher education than there are men. The Islamic Republic had adopted certain policies to expand educational levels for women in order to ensure that sexual segregation paid off. These policies were to encourage women to become skilled workers in domains exclusive to women. For example, the government set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and set up barriers against women wanting to become civil engineers.[10]

Khomeini supported family planning, a program through which the government called upon women to distribute contraceptives, as well as organ transplants. [11]

In early 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie, claiming that Rushdie's murder was a religious duty for Muslims because of his alleged blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad in his novel, The Satanic Verses. The novel, which examines the integration of Indian characters into modern Western culture, implies that the Qur'an was not properly preserved. Rushdie's book contains passages that some Muslims – including Ayatollah Khomeini – considered offensive to Islam and the prophet. The issuance of the fatwa caused many Westerners, particularly those on the left who had generally been in favor of the Revolution against the Shah, to reconsider their support of Khomeini.

---

Problems with existing text.

current: "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press were ostensibly protected, at least as long as it did not contradict Islamic law. Inevitably, however, many newspapers and other media outlets were closed down."

problem: why was it "inevitable"? what did Khomeini say as to why he did not protect it?

Proposed change: "Although many hoped the revolution would bring freedom of speech and press, this was not to be. In defending forced closing of opposition newspapers and attacks on opposition protestors by club-wielding vigilantes Khomeini explained, `The club of the pen and the club of the tongue is the worst of clubs, whose corruption is a 100 times greater than other clubs.` (footnote: Khomeini, February 1981, from p.146 Bakhash, Shaul, The Reign of the Ayatollahs : Iran and the Islamic Revolution by Shaul Bakhash, New York, Basic Books, 1984 )

current: "In 1979, when Khomeini returned to Iran after exile and before he led the Islamic revolution, he made a speech in Tehran’s main cemetery. In this speech, Khomeini promised Iranian citizens free telephone, heating, electricity, bus services and free oil at their door steps. He also declared that “no one should remain homeless in this country”. None of these promises were fulfilled. [4][5][6][7][8]"

Proposed change: Speech marked the beginning of "life under khomeini" and might be better put at the beginning of the section.

In speech given to a huge crowd after returning to Iran from exile Feb.1, 1979, Khomeini promised Iranian citizens free telephone, heating, electricity, bus services and free oil delivered to their doorstep. He also declared that “no one should remain homeless in this country”. While Khomeini was unable to follow through on these promises, [13][14][15][16][17] many far-reaching changes did come to Iran.

current: Ayatollah Khomeini was also supportive of religious minorities including the Persian Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian communities.[9] He also called for unity between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

problem: what is "supportive"? more facts would help.

Proposed change: Life for religious minorities has been mixed under Khomeini and his successors. Shortly after his return from exile in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering that Jews and other minorities (except Bahai) be treated well. By law, several seat in the parliament are reserved for minority religions. Khomeini also called for unity between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

However, religious minorities do not however have equal rights in Khomeini's Islamic Republic. Senior government posts are reserved for Muslims. Jewish and Christian schools must be run by Muslim principals. Compensation for death paid to the family of a non-Muslim is (by law) less than if the victim was a Muslim. Convertion to Islam is encouraged by entitling converts to inherit the entire share of their parents (or even uncle's) estate if their siblings (or cousins) remain non-Muslim. Bahia are actively harassed. non-Muslim population has falled dramatically. Jewish population dropped from 80,000 to 30,000 in the first two decades of the revolution. (footnote: The Last Revolution by Robin Wright c2000, p.207,210, 216)

Existing: "For many years, breaking the barrier of confinement of the private sphere has been a major source of frustration for advocates of women's rights in Iran. But the Islamic revolution broke the barrier overnight. When Khomeini called for women to attend public demonstration and ignore the night curfew, millions of women who would otherwise not have dreamt of leaving their homes without their husbands' and fathers' permission or presence, took to the streets. Khomeini's call to rise up against the Shah took away any doubt in the minds of many devoted Muslim women about the propriety of taking to the streets during the day or at night.[10]

"The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed a marked increase of employment for women. This increase was much more than the rate prior to the revolution. Such dramatic change in the pattern of labor force participation might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere. Educational attainment for women, also a product of free education and the literacy campaign, contributed to this increase. In fact, today there are more women in higher education than there are men. The Islamic Republic had adopted certain policies to expand educational levels for women in order to ensure that sexual segregation paid off. These policies were to encourage women to become skilled workers in domains exclusive to women. For example, the government set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and set up barriers against women wanting to become civil engineers." [11]

Problem: these paragraphs are almost verbatim quotes from an article (p.233, 236 Brown Journal of World Affairs, Winter/Spring 2003) which may present copyright problems. In addition it omits passages that explain the real hero of the article is the grassroots women activists of the Iranian revolution who at least sometimes achieved their gains in spite of the desires of Khomeini and his sucessors (example: "Khomeini planned to send women back home to their tradditional roles as mothers and wives," something "advocates of women's rights" would not have approved of).
Another question: the "marked increase of employment" for women is a rise from 21 to 24% over 5 years. Is this so remarkable or different than non-revolutionary countries like Egypt or Jordan?

existing: Khomeini supported family planning, a program through which the government called upon women to distribute contraceptives, as well as organ transplants. [12]

problem: Does not mention that birth control was discouraged in Iran for the first 6 years of the revolution.

Proposed change: Not all of the original goals of the Islamic Revolution were achieved. Early attempts to ban music, family planning, and divorce initiated by women were reversed [19], as was the lowering of the age of majority for girls from 15 to nine years old.

After encouraging couples to have large families, Khomeini reversed course in 1986, when Iran's population growth rate reached 3.2%. [20] Iran now has a nationwide campaign to encourage contraceptive used. [21]. Music was banned in 1979. In 1988 Khomeini issed a fatwa permitting its use again. [22] The age at which girls could be married off or tried in court as an adult was raised from 9 years to 13 in 2002. [23]

---

If you have any suggestions, changes, complaints or reasons why these changes should not be made please let us know as I plan to make these changes listed above if no one objects.

---

In reference to "In 1976, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to allow people with hormonal disorders to undergo gender reassignment if they wished, as well as to change their birth certificates to reflect their new gender role.":

I was hoping someone with permission could change it to:

"In 1976, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to allow transgendered people to undergo gender reassignment surgery if they wished, as well as to change their birth certificates to reflect their correct sex."

This is more in keeping with current respectful language regarding transgendered people. Many thanks.

---

Title?

There is some discrepency in wikipedia as to whether or not to title an article of a marja with Grand Ayatollah ... Since all major shia marja have this title in the heading of their respective articles, I will be making the appopriate change here if no one disagrees. The title will read Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. 66.108.59.171 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policy is to not use titles. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)). The other articles should be moved, and this should stay. - SimonP 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the clerical names section under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is that titles _should_ be used. The rule on clerical names takes precidence over the general rule of using no titles. Please clarify.66.108.59.171 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this should be moved, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruhollah = Spirit of Allah

Ruh is the transliteration of the Farsi word for spirit.

--66.81.192.202 15:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Taqriti - Saddam Tiqriti - Saddam Hussein?

The listing of Saddam, first as vice-president of Iraq, later as president of Iraq, esp. in context of the Iran-Iraq war, leads me to assume that the individual cited (using two different spellings of the last name) is in fact Saddam Hussein. These alternate spellings are likely the reason they point to empty links rather than the Saddam Hussein link that no doubt exists in Wiki. Not being a serious student of Islam or the Middle East, I defer to other volunteers to either correct those names or correct my assumption. Longshot14 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the link. Next time do it yourself or see the history page for more information. Aucaman^Talk 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, I could instead rely on those more knowledgeable than myself on such issues - in my ignorance I could've been wrong. So, assuming you are in fact speaking from a position of knowledge on this issue, thank you for having made the change. Longshot14 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is not true

As an Iranian, I know that Imam Khomeini wasn't as great as described here. He promised Iranians FREE Gasoline, FREE Electricity, and lot more. HOW can this be possible for a country mostly dependent on oil?

Also, this man ordered many executions. He ordered the death of anyone who opposed him. Did he really accepted the International Human Rights as mentioned in this article? Is this freedom? He forced women to wear Hejab. He also put a price for Salman Rushdie's head, the auteur of the Satanic Verses. He continued the stupid of war Iran-Iraq for another 6 years while Iraq and Saudi-Arabia wanted peace and they accepted to pay all damages caused by the war. Instead he said that his regime will conquer Baghdad. Because of his decisions, Iran gave a lot more causalities and damages. How can he be so cruel and none of these are even mentioned in this article?

I will appreciate a complete change in this article and like everyone I want truce. If i'm not right, please put your comments.

Thank You for the great Encyclopedia. (Arad 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

OK, looks like now the article is fine

I edited the article, At least now it's somehow true. (Arad 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

This article is still a joke. Mullah Khomeini was a blood-thirty murderer who killed anyone who disagreed with him. Just ask any of the millions of Iranians who fled the country because of him. Any article that omits the many human rights violation his regime committed cannot be trusted as a reliable source. --Houshyar 21:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

tolerance of other religions

i can't believe the number of important issues this article has missed out on. first and foremost to do with human rights violations!! especially against those in iran who were not muslim...whoever wrote that he was tolerant of other religions must have been alseep for the past thirty years...i am just one of many millions of non-muslim iranians that were forced to flee the country because of the threat to our lives and livelihood! notonce did i see any mention of the treatment of minorities like the Bahais...who by the way were striped of any right to attend universites, had any supperannuation or benefits taken away from them and basically were rounded up, thrown in prison and interrogated and threatened with death if they did not convert to islam!! i personally know of a number of Iranian bahais that were executed because of this!! please change this article!! he is not someone we should be respecting..he was just as bad as hitler or milosovic!!

Views on sex

I had seen some literature out there suggesting that Khomenini approved of sex with children and animals. Now someone has added some of these claims into this article. I'm not going to take them out, but the article is going to receive a dispute tag until these information are verified. Aucaman^Talk 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurious quotations

• A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
  • Cited on the internet as being from the fourth volume of Tahrirolvasyleh (1990); it is declared to be spurious because there is no fourth volume to this work at the AhlulBayt Discussion Forum

(Fted 05:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately it is a real book as you can see Tahrirolvasyleh and a real quote , here is the persian original page from the book is the persian original page from the book . Read it for yourself.--CltFn 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• The questions isn't if the book Tahirirolvasyleh exists or not.
• It's the accuracy of the quotation and it's referencing to a volume 4. The quote doesn't come from volume 4 since Volume 4 does not exist.
• You right that the quote appears to come from the homa website. The shia link raises doubts about the objectivity and how authentic their work is.

• The quote is contrary to other quotes that stipulates the punishment that is given in you have sex with animals.

• In-depth discussion of the quote and why the homa website quotation is inaccurate/ can be found here:

http://sdol.answering-ansar.org/index.php?s=1c3c1dfbf385bfa872c30b89e59751e2&showtopic=85

• To summarize, they allege tampering with the original work by the homa website, and selective quotes.

e.g. to quote from the above link:

Part three: http://www.homa.org/khomeneiSayings.html "A man can have sex with animals such as sheep's, cows, camels and so on. However....."

Now if you look at this part of Ayatollah Khomeini's book you will see the punishment of having sex with animals: "Tahrir alwasile": the book of "Hudud"(legal punishments),saying in have sex with animals and dead. Numbers: 1,2,3 http://www.wilayah.org/arabi/ahkam/tahrir/index.htm

Now for people who don't know Arabic I translate these numbers briefly: 1- Having sex with animals has punishments and it depends upon the dictum of leader and... 3- If someone repeat this work if he hasn't punished yet he should be punished but if he had been punished before for this work and he again repeat it, he should be killed for the fourth time.-though as a precaution-(If he repeated it three times and after each time he had been punished for the fourth time he should be killed)

And they have continued: "However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people......." As I searched in the "Tahriri Al wasile" ; it is written in "Tahrir al wasile": The book of eatables and drinkables: saying about animals, number 22,23 http://www.wilayah.org/arabi/ahkam/tahrir/index.htm

Do we ask the Shia what they belive or do we ask a anti-shia website?

(Fted 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Khomeini wrote those things , and it is not a question of what the Shia believe or do not believe, its a question of what Khomeini wrote.--CltFn 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Well even if Khomeini in fact wrote such a thing, the translation seems. For example, Khomeini does not start by saying "A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age", but rather, "If a man has a partner of less than nine years old, sexual intercourse with her is not allowed, regardless of whether she's his permanent partner or temporary partner. But other pleasurable acts such as sensual touching, hugging, and &&& are allowed, even if she's very young." The "&&&" seems like a technical term, and there's a footnote explaining it to mean "rubbing her thighs".

In any case, the tranlation you have in the article is not accurate - especially the part where the word "sodomy" is used. But I'm not going to remove it because it's well-sourced. But the dispute tag remains to warn readers of the mistranslation until we can research the authenticity of the source and find more accurate translations.

I also ask people to remain calm and don't engage in lengthy irrelevant discussions. Aucaman^Talk 06:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how this can be classed as well-sourced since it comes from one source only, from a exile website, more over it is from a non-existant volume. The book only runs to 3 volumes. Yet the Homa website quotes it as coming from volume 4. No other mainstream website has this quote although their are are numerous blogs that discuss it, but none of them can be seen as either authoritative or lacking a tradition of bashing Islam/Muslims taking a generally dim view of Islam.

My conclusion, so far, is that the document in question is either non-existent, or grossly exaggerated, but I'll leave you to it.

(Fted 06:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

This is similar to the issue of the so-called Indian origins of Khomeini - no biography or work about the man even mentions this nonsense. This is just more of the same old, same old from the extreme anti-Khomeinist camp on the Internet. SouthernComfort 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that make you a pro-khomeini apologist then? As the old sayings goes birds of a feather flock together.--CltFn 12:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The source you are citing is questionable and only cited on extreme anti-Khomeini websites. It has never been cited by any biography or book about the man, in any language. Stop your vandalism. SouthernComfort 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't just go around erasing what is in the article

Why did you erase the Iran-Iraq war second paragraph and opinions on sex? It's all true, his opinions on sex and the foolish decisions he made during the war.

What is this?

Explain me: Many Iranians welcomed these policies (wearing Hejab), since during previous regimes particularly Iranian women had not been permitted to wear Islamic dress code.

this is what someone wrote in this article. It's 100% false. It's true that during Reza Shah Pahlavi woman were not allowed to wear "Chador" but they could still wear Islamic dress such as Hejab. But during the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, women were allowed to wear whatever they like.

I also agree with the previous point. The statement in the article is totally wrong. Women were allowed to wear any kind of clothing, including chador or other Islamic dress, during Mohammad Reza Shah's time, thus also when the revolution happened. Islamic dress code was allowed and was in fact in use by those with strict religious beliefs.

Also, the statement that Many Iranians welcomed these policies is POV. First, how many is meant by many? Many Iranians, if not most, certainly thought the other way. Even those who were more religious, were already allowed to use the dress code, so why should they feel particularly happy about it now becoming compulsory? Shervink 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

I Agree. Thank You for the support Shervink.(Arad 02:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Views on sex section

Lets not go deleting stuff just because it does not match our POV. These sections are sourced and valid.--CltFn 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your only source is an anti-Khomeini website. SouthernComfort 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

nonsense , that information is sourced in many places , and that is your POV that they are anti-khomeini. Your attempts at blocking this material will ultimately fail so you are wasting your time. --CltFn 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give links to those places? --Khoikhoi 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just google any piece of the text for example [12]--CltFn 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet you provide no sources other than a virulently anti-Khomeini website. Any biographies, histories of Iran, etc.? SouthernComfort 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I provided a picture of khomeini's book , and a page scans from it . Are you denying that this book exists? Are you denying that he wrote those things?--CltFn 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of a forgery? Funny how no biography of the man mentions this book and no other website mentions it other than anti-Khomeini sites. SouthernComfort 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to group every site that mentions this material as anti-Khomeini web sites, which may or may not be the case but this does not take away from the fact that this material comes from Khomeini. Your attempt at censoring this information is innapropriate and should cease unless you provide proper counter references that support you own claims of forgery etc.. --CltFn 06:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, all right, do we know when it was published? I assume it's not published today—I would think all of Khomeini's works are published and available in Iran today. How does the book in general read: does it generally seem plausible, or does the whole thing have the sound of something someone wrote to smear Khomeini? Everyking 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not published in Iran, nor is it referenced in any biography or work which deals with the man and/or his theology. The above editor has also uploaded an image falsely claiming that is of Khomeini kissing a child (Image:Khmeinichild.jpg). One can use many of Khomeini's writings and speeches as a way to criticize him - however, quoting non-existent or forged "sources" is not the way to go about doing it. Also see Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The above user, however, seems more interested in simply out-and-out character assassination and polemical attacks rather than any serious criticism. SouthernComfort 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

After all these websites I saw:

http://www.homa.org/default.asp?TOCID=2083225445 - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/131217 - http://www.geocities.com/islampencereleri3/sayings_of_ayatollah_khomeini.htm - http://ethnikoi.org/iran.html - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini - http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/a-man-can-have-sex-with-animals-such-as-sheeps/357329.html - http://atheisme.free.fr/Quotes/Love.htm - http://www.dialognow.org/node/view/1160 - http://spaces.msn.com/undressing-islam/

And a lot more. I think Khomeini wrote these. So we should let people know these quotes. What do you think SouthernComfort?

(The One We Call God 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

How about NOT, considering that a) the above sites cite the EXACT SAME SOURCE as that which has been disputed from the VERY BEGINNING and b) the wikiquote link you cited EXPLICITLY indicates that the quotes to which the other sites referred are spurious and disputed. Assuming Good Faith in contributors doesn't mean turning off one's brain, nor does it mean turning a blind eye to deliberate and disingenuous sandbagging with links that only reinforce the impression that this is a drive to include biased and non-factual information to further the ends of someone with an axe to grind. Please find a more productive way to contribute to this or some other project. Longshot14 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tahrir-ul-Vaseela

• You can find the full book here Full text of Tahrir-ul-Vaseela in Persian in a zipped file. Its real , it exists and khomeini wrote it.--CltFn 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CltFn - we've been through this already. Cite an alternate CREDIBLE source for authenticating this as Khomeini's work, or PLEASE drop it. This is getting as tiresome as arguing holocaust revisionism with a skinhead. Longshot14 05:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just produced the entire book for you and you ask for another source??? The book is all the source you ever need. It makes no difference on whose site it happens to be hosted. Perhaps you should take a better look on which side of the censorhip issue you plan on being instead of making innapropriate references to skinheads. --CltFn 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CltFn - You produced AN entire book. If I took a NAMBLA pamphlet and put O.J. Simpson's name on the cover, that doesn't mean O.J. Simpson wrote it. If someone else did it and I passed it along uncritically, that wouldn't mean he wrote it any more than if I had put his name there my own self. And I absolutely refuse to be drawn into an argument over whether this is censorship or not when all one need do is authenticate the authorship via a CREDIBLE source. Longshot14 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs Rewording

This bit needs rewording: "Because of such foolish decision, Iran gave 450,000 - 950,000 casualties and after Japan, Iran's one of the world's top afflicted countries by Weapons of Mass Destruction.". Foolish is POV. What does "after Japan, Iran's one of the world's top afflicted countries by Weapons of Mass Destruction." mean? That they are #2? (Please don't tell me, just improve the article). Lose "Iran's" - "Iran is". I won't edit myself as I know nothing about the subject. Cheers. --kingboyk 07:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Better now? Aucaman^Talk 09:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, foolish was too offensive, i shouldn't wrote that but when I say after Japan, Iran's one of the world's top afflicted countries by Weapons of Mass Destruction, it means Iran is #2.

I fixed everything, please before editing that part, talk to me. I will appreciate it. Thank You. (The One We Call God 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--72.57.86.79 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry that i have to write this here but i dont know how to edit

i have one quistion Is the person/people that(s) (are) writing the article about khomeini persian or are they from other countries because there is a lot of history about khomeini and his rule that is only known by the people that have lived under his rule

Please discuss before deleting or editing.

Please discuss before editing or deleting an existing article.

Thank you for your cooperation. (The One We Call God 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Can you enlighten me?

OK this is what I saw in the funeral section;

"It is said that a crowd of more than nine million mourners of Khomeini attended the burial location at the vast Behesht Zahra cemetery complex, and tens of millions more around the country and outside participated in."

a crowd of 9 million is kind of impossible to fit in a place like Behesht-e-Zahra. May be it is possible. i don't even think that Tehran's population was 9 million at the time (maybe people from other places came too). Anyway if such thing happened, can you give me sources. I just want to be sure and keep Wikipedia clean.

Thank you.

• Well, metropolitan Tehran is currently 14 million according to that article, but then again, Tehran Province is only 12 million, so obviously numbers are a bit skewy. So the sheer numbers are vaguely conceivable, but you have a good point about fitting them in one place -- consider of course that they wouldhave been constantly moving. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Views on non-Muslims

I'm adding some of Khoimeini's views on non-Muslims. It's well-sourced and should not be removed. If you want to make the section more neutral feel free to add some positive things he has said about non-Muslims (from credible sources of course). Aucaman^Talk 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the title of this "widely circulated" book? If it's what I think it is, it doesn't belong here since it is not specific to Khomeini but to Shi'a marjas in general. SouthernComfort 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The book is written by Khomeini and the title is in the back of "Jews of Islam". The term najis is usually used in this context to refer to unclean things. Aucaman^Talk 13:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. SouthernComfort 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And like I said, it doesn't belong here since it is not specific to Khomeini, but to all Shi'a marjas. But I'll leave it to others to remove the material and explain why. SouthernComfort 13:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Compare with views on ritual cleanliness in Judaism, for example. Would you go to every article on a Jewish rabbi and state their views on ritual cleanliness, when it is not specific to them? As well, the edits in question lack any context whatsoever. SouthernComfort 13:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the comments were made by Khomeini, not anyone else - so they belong here. You can go ahead and add anything you want to any Rabbi's article. In fact if you read some israeli politician's pages you would find a lot of controversial sayings included. As a leader of a country, and especially as a religious figure, it's important to know Khomenini's views on non-Muslims. This is the only thing I've found so far. You can find other things and add them in if you want. Aucaman^Talk 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is ritual purity in Shi'ism - it's nothing specific to Khomeini. Also, Bernard Lewis' assertions about non-Muslims may be inaccurate, so I'll leave that to others with more knowledge of this area. SouthernComfort 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add stuff about uncleanliness you can create a new section and add them in. This section has been created to include Khomeini's views on non-Muslims. There's a lot more material to come and I'd probably create a new article about this. Until then we would have a section. All this should be pretty reasonable. The only objectionable thing is that the section is not neutral enough, but then again you can add positive stuff - and I will too. Aucaman^Talk 13:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the following is from "clarification #83, p.48 of A Clarification of Questions : An Unabridged Translation of Resaleh Towzih al-Masael by Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini (Translated by J. Borujerdi with a Foreword by Michael M. J. Fischer and Mehdi Abedi Westview Press/ Boulder and London c1984)

"There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel." 

This is not from Bernard Lewis, but from a reverent translation of Khomeini's book.

Secondly: Is not the "issue at hand" what is unique and important about the subject --- Khomeini?

Yes, there are many mullahs who believe kaffir are as unclean as urine and excrement, but they did not lead a revolution or rule a country of 60 (or so) million.

It seems to me this is goes beyond "ritual purity in Shi'ism." Ebudswenson 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire section you started is about ritual purity. I'm not sure why you think it's specifically about non-Muslims. As for "positive" stuff, I'm not interested in this subject matter, but there is mention of his views concerning Jews and Christians elsewhere in the article. SouthernComfort 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not engage in this pointless revert war. Suffice it to say that it is about ritual purity, not non-Muslims in general. If you can't see that, especially since you added that material, that's not my problem. I've added a tag until others can deal with this. SouthernComfort 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Fair enough. The tag can stay, but you should outline what's not neutral about the section and what it takes to make it neutral. Aucaman^Talk 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained above. Read my comments carefully. SouthernComfort 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, according to your POV in titling the section, "urine, feces, sperm, carrion, blood, a dog, a pig, wine, beer, and the sweat of a camel that eats unclean things" are also non-Muslims. SouthernComfort 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The section may be expanded, and its entirely unreasonable to place a NPOV tag within the section, while the dispute is about the section's title. Pecher ^Talk 14:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it hasn't been expanded. It remains only about ritual purity. Secondly, read my other comments - the dispute is more than just the title. The tag is most certainly warranted. SouthernComfort 14:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this article. I've read the discussion above, but I'm not understanding what specifically is POV about this section; would you mind explaining it succinctly? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Solution?

I will try to fix this up with my version... I may fail... but... here are some points I think are valid.

• We're citing Bernard Lewis, we should mention that it's him in the paragraph... that's standard citing procedure. Along with this you don't marginalize a source you're using without good reason. "According to Bernard Lewis" and "'widely circulated'" being in quotes are attempts (as far as I can tell) to make it seem like Lewis' opinion aren't valid. Which... if they aren't we should have an opposing explanation.
• Simply, that quote as it is presented is about ritual cleanliness. Yes, some of it can be used to talk about views of non-Muslims but you'd get a sentence out of that and mentioning urine, feces, etc. would be superfluous. If you want it to be a section about non-Muslims you can use a little bit of that paragraph and incorporate more information on his view about non-Muslims beyond the fact that they are not ritually clean. It would be an interesting section... but right now it would be just about an empty header. Aucaman, feel free to create it.

I hope we can use my changes and I hope you know, Aucaman, that by changing that section's title to ritual purity is not limiting you from creating a section on his view of non-Muslims. It really would be an interesting section, but titles should reflect what the section is mostly about... and that section is all about ritual purity. gren グレン 14:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Aucaman... this search on Google Print may help you find some decent sources... although they aren't really the best scholarly sources... they're better than random pages online.

I should also state that there is a decent amount of literature around that points to Khomeini thinking non-Muslims were unclean... we shouldn't take this out of its spiritual context and portray it as a hatred for others... but it is a relevant point... and using the section header that I did is not trying to remove that point from other places in the article... just... if you're going to discuss it; it needs to be done in the proper context. gren グレン 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My question is, are these views specific to Khomeini or to Shi'ism in general? From what I understand, these views on ritual purity are part and parcel of Shi'a thought and are accepted by all marjas. I don't know about the non-Muslims part though - perhaps that is more specific to Khomeini, rather than a generally accepted part of Shi'ism? SouthernComfort 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Sorry I don't see what problem this is a "solution" to. You also seem to be advocating for this edit here, so nothing you say is new. As I said, the section is intended to present Khomeini's views on non-Muslims. If you want to create a section about ritual impurity you can go ahead and do so - but don't remove another section. And BTW, there's nothing "spiritual" about all this. We're talking about feces and urine. Muslims are instructed to clean themselves after touching such things, and most followers take them quite literally. Aucaman^Talk 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Before you start adding Khomeini to articles like najis it needs to be clarified that these views are even specific to him. BTW, you should revert your last edit - the government of Iran officially uses the term Imam and his supporters do as well. Why would you be disputing that? SouthernComfort 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to discuss several different edits at the same time just because they're done by me. Like I said the source is Khomeini's own book and Bernard Lewis is simply the translator. I think he's credible enough to be trusted with the translation, but you're more than welcome to provide alternative translations if you think it's not accurate. Aucaman^Talk 04:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any uncivil comments above. Pecher ^Talk 12:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Don't try to discuss several different edits at the same time just because they're done by me." SouthernComfort 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is an uncivil remark, then it is the mildest ever. Pecher ^Talk 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV. SouthernComfort 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the most influential men of the 20thC?

I dislike this phrase because it's remarkably vague, and not much better than saying "he was great". The introduction would better give evidence of his importance by actually saying what the important things he did were, and how he exerted influence. Who or what are we meant to believe he influenced, and in what way? Just my opinion... Palmiro | Talk 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This sentence is a classic example of weasel wording and may merit inclusion in WP:AWW as a phrase to avoid. Pecher ^Talk 16:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The man is indeed considered influential by many due to his initiation of the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of the first Islamic Republic - this directly impacted the future of Islamism and led to a new wave of such movements across the Islamic world. Also, I find it interesting that no one opposed that bit until now, after all this time that it's been there. SouthernComfort 16:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we say exactly that then? It would be far better. Also, I certainly don't think Time Magazine declaring him man of the year for 1979 belongs in the intro. It's essentially trivia, and for what it's worth doesn't appear in the intro to a random selection of 15 or so other articles about Time men of the year I checked. Palmiro | Talk 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Time named him one of the most influential figures of the 20th century [13]. SouthernComfort 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

A cursory Google search brings up a couple of dates which differ from the one given here - 1901 and 1902 (specifically 24 September 1902). SouthernComfort 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems we can't even agree within the article. The lead para says he was born in "May (?) 1900", but further down it's "17 May 1900". JackofOz 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Views on sex with children"

CltFn, it's not proven that he wrote the book. The only other places on the internet that I can find these quotes are on anti-Khomeini websites. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of factual information, and "Tahrirolvasyleh" is too questionable of a source for this. --Khoikhoi 04:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We already went through this on the book page. --CltFn 04:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What we went through was to delete the article or not. The result of the vote was to keep it because it is a real book, even though it is not confirmed that it's written by Khomeini. Do you have any neutral sources that say he wrote the book? --Khoikhoi 04:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may interfere here: there's lots of evidence that Khomeini wrote the "Tahrir al-Vasileh". We found several pieces of evidence on the web that other Ayatollahs who comment on it treat it as endowed with Khomeini's authority. It's also described in detail in the English translation of his other fiqh work, the "Towzih al-Masaeel", a very non-polemic and reliable source as far as I can see. The remaining issue is the genuineness of those particular quotes about sex with animals. After reading the Towzih and the editors' introduction to it, I have myself the suspicion that those bits could be from some of the satirical pseudo-Towzih texts that apparently circulate in Iran. By the way, I agree with S.C. that we shouldn't over-emphasize the quotes about the ritual impurity of non-Muslims. Those are genuine, for sure, but it's quite clear they are just reproducing older traditions. It would be more interesting if it could be demonstrated that, through Khomeini reaffirming these rules and endowing them with his authority, Iranian Muslims after the revolution were actually encouraged to treat non-Muslims worse in everyday life than they did before. If not, these passages would seem pretty irrelevant to me. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to know is if these ideas on ritual purity concerning non-Muslims are even unique to Khomeini or if they are simply a general Shi'a tradition. If it is a general Shi'a tradition, is it still widely accepted? If it is widely accepted and is still valid in terms of Shi'a theology, then mentioning it here wouldn't be appropriate. And if it is not widely accepted, was Khomeini one of those few clerics who did adhere to this line of thought? If that were true, then mentioning it might be justified - but then again, we cannot list every single fatwa that was unique to the man. We need someone with a decent knowledge of Shi'ism to comment here to clarify this issue. I'm currently of the opinion that if the tradition is valid, then it is something general to Shi'ism, and not to Khomeini specifically. But this is beyond the scope of my knowledge. SouthernComfort 12:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Some interesting quotes from Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi: "Introduction", in: A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of the "Resaleh Towzih al-Masael", London: Westview Press 1984:

[p. xv] The first "Risaleh Towzih al-Masa'il" was issued by the leading ayatullah of the 1950s, Ayatullah Sayyid Hossein Borujerdi [...] Since the 1950s, every senior cleric with claims to being an ayatullah or marja'i taqlid has issued a nearly identical Risaleh Towzih al-Masa'il. [...] Somewhat similar efforts to provide texts on ritual duties for laymen had been issued previously in simpler form [...] Sayyid Abul-Hasan Isfahani issued a similar compendium entitled Vasileh tun-Nejat. Ayatulla Khomeini wrote a commentary on this latter volume in Arabic while in exile in Turkey, and it is this book, rather than his Risaleh Towzih al-Masa'il which secured his reputation in the early 1960s. [...] The reason for the near identity of all the Risaleh of the different ayatullahs is two-fold. First, it is not worth an ayatulla's time to pay much attention to this text [...] The second reason for the near identity of the Risaleh is that the rules contained therein are deductions from a disciplined form of reasoning in the scholastic tradition.

[p. xii:] The logics of ritual procedure and of the purity code are logics that can be played with infinitely. [...] Those who in the early days of the 1977-79 Revolution sought to discredit Khomeini by citing from his Risaleh Towzih al-Masa'il minute rules having to do with how to purify oneself after bodily elimination, after secual activity, or indeed what exactly constitutes such offenses as beastiality were themselves taking these debates to absurd lengths. The discussions of beastiality might indeed come up in a masaleh-gui session, but it would be treated with roughly the same laugther and amusement that the Western reader would receive it with.

[p. xxii:] The case of the infidel (kafir) is more ambivalent and serious, and constitutes perhaps the politically most pernicious portion of the popular manipulation of the purity code. [...] What is pernicious is that this rule has often been transformed into social exclusions: debarring non-Muslims from barbershops, from public water fountains, from public baths, from the produce bazaars, and from public areas during rainstorms.

[p. xxviii:] Far more trenchant critiques of the Risaleh Towzih al-Masa'il are the satirical Risaleh Kolsum Naneh (Treatise of Aunt Kolsum) and the Risaleh Hazrat-i Vafur (Treatise of His Excellency the Opium Pipe), which replicate the form of the Risaleh and draw out its methods to their absurd reductions. These latter satires, the one concentrating on sex and marriage, the other on opium, are widely popular among the Iranian folk."

Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that none of this is specific to Khomeini [14], but are opinions accepted by all (or most) Shi'a marjas - please ask Shi'a editors to confirm if there is any doubt. SouthernComfort 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Ayatollah Sistani's website (or any marja's website) [15] for an example of similar rulings (mind you these are questions submitted by average people to which he gives an answer). SouthernComfort 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree - just in case that wasn't clear from the above. However, Aucaman might have relevant information about whether the discriminatory effect against non-Muslims was strenghtened by the Revolution. If yes, that could still be worked into the article in some way, right? (The "Life under Khomeini" section comes to mind.) Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Aucaman and Pecher have been taking the issue of "ritual purity" totally out of context to make some kind of point (a violation of a WP guideline, as I have stated below). It's one thing to add sourced information that Khomeini was prejudiced towards religious minorities and so forth, but this line of reasoning (concerning "ritual purity") is severely flawed and inappropriate, and certainly not NPOV to say the least. SouthernComfort 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini's views on non-Muslims are indeed entirely orthodox for the Shi'a Islam, but that's not an argument for removing them from the article. Whether Khomeini went along with the mainstream or argued something original, his views are relevant and must still be described in the article. Pecher ^Talk 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring points made in this discussion (along with sources). Khomeini cannot be singled out unless you can address Lukas' concern above. Also, "urine, feces, dogs, blood, etc" are not non-Muslims. The whole gist of your argument and the way you are going about things is severely flawed. Also see WP:POINT - do not use WP to make a point. SouthernComfort 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Views on non-Muslims

See this link for an example [16] (from a Sephardic site). SouthernComfort 13:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No Khomeini's views on non-Muslims is pretty clear and can be found throughout his religious works. The statement you're referring to was issued after the revolution as a political move (since he no longer needed to appeal to people's hatred of non-Muslims to united them). In any case don't take out any sourced information. Aucaman^Talk 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits don't mention anything about "political moves." Why don't you provide an exact quote from Lewis? Also, you continue to ignore my other comments - "feces, urine, dogs, etc." are not non-Muslims. You have also ignored Lukas' comments. Again, see WP:POINT. SouthernComfort 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Khomeini's "political moves" - you are. What I have provided comes directly from Lewis's book. I've even provided a link to the online version, so you can read it yourself. You have no reason to delete it. The concept of najis is very important in Islam, and many Shia clergy (including Khomeini) consider non-Muslims to be najis. Are you denying this? Then why are you taking it out? Aucaman^Talk 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote Khomeini using the exact word "non-Muslim" in such context. --ManiF 18:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini does not speak English and you know this very well. The translation comes from Bernard Lewis and there's no reason to believe it's incorrect. Stop removing sourced information without any reason. Aucaman^Talk 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Khomeini speaks English or not. Khomeini never uses the word "non-Muslim" in any language, in such context, unless you have a quote. As I explained on another talk page, another high-ranking Shia cleric, Fazel Lankarani says that "Murtad (apostate) is Najis; but the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Paak." [17] --ManiF 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm directly quoting Bernard Lewis and he's saying this is what Khomeini says. You cannot say Lewis is wrong unless you have another source that translates the statement differently. Also see WP:NOR. I happen to speak some Arabic and Persian, but this is the English Wikipedia and we rely on translations. I trust Lewis with his translation and you have no provided any alternatives. Do not remove sourced information. Aucaman^Talk 20:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not directly quoting Bernard Lewis saying that "Khomeini says non-Mulsims...". If you are talking about Bernard Lewis's asserstions of what "ritual purity in islam" means, then I've alerady provided an explicit quote from Fazel Lankarani, a Grand Ayatallah and one of the most knowledgeable specialists in the field of the Islamic law, clarifying the meaning of "ritual purity in islam" and how Jews and Christians are "Paak" in Islam. --ManiF 20:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The quote comes directly from Lewis, and no amount of your original research can change that. Pecher ^Talk 20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, read WP:NPA and WP:NOR. I'm citing Fazel Lankarani [18], a Grand Ayatallah who has been declared by the Shia hierarchy as "the most knowledgeable specialist in the field of the Islamic law ". Regardless, Bernard Lewis never talks about Khoemini's views on "ritual purity in Islam". So I'm afraid you are the one conducting original research, not me. --ManiF 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

More nonsense. It's beyond human comprehension how Lewis can quote Khomeini's views on ritual purity from Khomeini's book and at the same time "never talk about Khoemini's [sic] views on 'ritual purity in Islam'". Pecher ^Talk

Where does Bernard Lewis talk about Khoemini's views on "ritual purity in Islam"? Give me the exact quote and I will address it. --ManiF 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The exact quote is in the article. It's your responsibility to raise objections, if any. Pecher ^Talk 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a quote from Bernard Lewis. As far as I remember, Bernard Lewis never talks about Khoemini's views on "ritual purity in Islam". If he does, then provide the book title, the page number and the exact quote in accordance with WP:VERIFY. --ManiF 21:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34.

Lewis says exactly what I put in the article - I was simply copying it in there. Why are you taking this out without even reading the source? Aucaman^Talk 23:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed your revert to a severely POV version of the article - it would be nice if you actually engaged in discussion and looked at other peoples' comments on the talk before doing so. Also see WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. "Feces, urine, blood, etc" are not non-Muslims as Pecher and Aucaman assert. I have worked long and hard with other editors to ensure that the article, about a controversial figure, remains NPOV, and such edits are not helping to maintain balance, especially when they are taken out of context and used to make a point, against WP guidelines. SouthernComfort 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Moved from my talk page: --tickle me 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You deleted references to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as well (diff 46454859, 13:37, 1 April 2006), I stated that doing so is not acceptable via summary.

Absolutely wrong and incorrect. Check the diffs. SouthernComfort 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it has been rightfully mentioned that e.g. Time Magazine named him "Man of the Year" in 1979. To kick a shin: 1938 it was Adolf Hitler. So it should be obvious that the nomination was not necessarily a positive one. Khomeini changed relations between the Middle East and the West substantially. Thus, to provide context for that kind of information, his views on non-Muslims must be mentioned here, as the casual reader is not likely to know them - even though these views are mainstream Shi'a indeed. Before him, this position could be ignored outside Iran.

"'Feces, urine, blood, etc' are not non-Muslims as Pecher and Aucaman assert.": They certainly aren't, and Pecher and Aucaman don't assert that - not even Khomeini does. But he enumerates feces, urine, etc. and unbelievers, thus likening them, arguably in a spiritual context only, to the substances mentioned. So does Lankarani, mentioned by ManiF earlier, and Sistani.

User:ManiF at 21:19, 1 April 2006: "If he does, then provide the book title, the page number and the exact quote in accordance with WP:VERIFY.". This is getting out of bounds, as the info requested had been provided even earlier than with diff 46454859. --tickle me 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are talking about is not specific to Khomeini but to all Shi'a marjas. It doesn't belong here. SouthernComfort 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are specific to Khomeini and definitely belong here. And you're saying "Shi'a marjas" as if Khomeini is not part of them? Also note that the new source you added is not really reliable nor academic in nature. It's also written unprofessionally with some wording issues. In any case we keep this until I can find an alternative. Aucaman^Talk 05:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis never mentions Khomeini in The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34. Plus, Lankarani and Sistani are "Shi'a marjas" too and they disagree with Bernad Lewis' interpretation of the "ritual purity" concept in Islam. --ManiF 18:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini, Jews, and velayat-e-faqih: Proposed Changes in Article

Finding that no one contests the statements by Khomeini on Jews quoted above, and that velayat-e-faqih contains passages such as:

"Their plan [i.e. the imperialist's plan] is to keep us backward, to keep us in our present miserable state so they can exploit our riches, our underground wealth, our lands and our human resources. They want us to remain afflicted and wretched, and our poor to be trapped in their misery. Instead of surrendering to the injunctions of Islam ... they and their agents wish to go on living in huge palaces and enjoying lives of abominable luxury." [p.34]

... I propose some changes to the article text.

Current passage:

During his exile, Khomeini wrote a book titled Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (velayat-e-faqih), which laid out his beliefs as such: that all laws in an Islamic society should be based on the laws of God (Shari’ah), all laws and activities should be monitored by clerical authorities on Islamic law (guardians), there should be no monarch (that Islamic countries should become republics and not monarchies). Khomeini believed that the leader of an Islamic Republic should be a faqih (an Islamic jurist, who is also a member of the clergy), who should be selected by a group of clerics. The Supreme Leader, as the post is officially called, would have absolute authority, and could only be removed from power by that very same group of clerics. Though the public cannot vote for the Leader, in a similar fashion to the Pope, Dalai Lama and Chief rabbis of Israel, according to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a group of clerics called the Assembly of Experts is voted in by the citizens of Iran every eight years, and it is they who select him. The book provides an insight on the eventual political background of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In short, after the success of the Revolution Khomeini replaced the monarchist government of the Shah with a theocratic system dominated by the clergy.

Problems:

current: Kashf al-Asrar "laid out his beliefs as such: that all laws in an Islamic society should be based on the laws of God (Shari’ah), all laws and activities should be monitored by clerical authorities on Islamic law (guardians)."

Khomeini's beliefs were not static but changed over time. In his first book, Kashf al-Asrar, he wrote "We do not say that government must be in the hands of the faqih [an Islamic jurist]; rather we say that government must be run in accordance with God's law ..." ( Islam and Revolution, p.170)

In Velayat-e-Faqih he wrote "governance of the faqih is a subject that in itself elicits immediate assent and has little need of demonstration" and was only prevented from coming to being by a concerted effort of conspiracy by Jews (quoted above) and foreigners " the imperialists ... felt that the major obstacle in the path of their materialistic ambitions and the chief threat to their political power was nothing but Islam and its ordinances" (Islam and Revolution, p.27)

In January 1988 Khomeini reversed himself again, proclaimed in a letter to the president `Ali Khamene`i that the shari’ah ("God's law") was subordinate to Islamic government:
"Your interpretation of what I have said -- that the government is empowered to act only within the framework of the existing secondary divine ordinances [preserved in the shari’ah] -- runs entirely counter to what I have in fact said. ... I must point out, the government which is a branch of the absolute governance of the Prophet of God is among the primary ordinances of Islam, and has precedence over all secondary ordinances such as prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage. [22] Kayhan 2.1.88. Quoted in The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, circa p.230

Passage doesn't explain why Khomeini felt guardian jurists should replace kings or presidents, i.e. that he believed current Muslim heads of state were agents of foreigners and Jews etc.

comparison with Dalai Lama or other religious leaders lacks accuracy. The Roman Catholic Pope leads a religion/religious organization but only has state political control over a small complex of buildings and grounds (Vatican City). The Dalai Lama has not ruled a state for many decades and when he did was chosen as a child reincarnation, not as the cleric most fit to make legal rulings or lead the land of Tibet. The Chief Rabbi of Israel does not have ultimate power over his country's military or anything like the power of the supreme leader of Iran.

"The Supreme Leader, as the post is officially called, would have absolute authority." Something should be said about the fact that the velayat-e-faqih that was put in effect in Iran was a modified version of Khomeini's original plan, and though the the Supreme Leader is the most powerful political official in Iran, he does not have "absolute authority."

"Islamic Republic of Iran, a group of clerics called the Assembly of Experts is voted in by the citizens of Iran every eight years, and it is they who select him. The book provides an insight on the eventual political background of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In short, after the success of the Revolution Khomeini replaced the monarchist government of the Shah with a theocratic system dominated by the clergy."

Because the Iran and Politics of Iran deal with this in more detail I proposed providing links to those sections of wikipedia to make the entry more concise.

Proposed revision to deal with problems:

In 1970, while in exile, Khomeini wrote his most important book Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (velayat-e-faqih). It laid out his evolving belief that correct Islamic government required not only strict observance of divine law, (the traditional Islamic shari'ah law), but the elimination of the monarchy and its replacement with rule (or "guardianship") of an Islamic jurist (or faqih) to ensure shari'ah was enforced. This guardianship would eliminate (what Khomeini believed was) the control by foreigners and Jews of Iran and other Muslim countries [19]-- wielded through the rule of "agents" such as Iran's pro-Western monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi -- a control that he believed was impoverishing Muslims and destroying Islam. After the revolution, a modified version of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists was installed in Iran: A Supreme Leader of the country (or Rahbar-e Moazam) served as guardian faqih, and Islamic clerics were given extensive control of Iranian institutions.

see: Iran

Politics of Iran

---

If you have any complaints, suggestions, or reasons why the above changes should not be made, please let us know. If there are none I plan to replace the existing passage.

Thank you. Ebudswenson 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

False accusations by tickle me

As you can see from this diff [20] your accusation that I deleted references to the Cairo Declaration are baseless and unwarranted. I expect an apology. SouthernComfort 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you implying? It's a follow up counterpart of the diff I provided above. I didn't claim that you deleted all and any references to the Cairo Declaration. However, I wrote of references, where it was about the wording. I've no qualms to avow that I should have been more specific: you reverted the paragraph to a prior state - which was unwarranted. As your revert was aimed at the "Views on non-Muslims" section, and not, I suppose, at the Cairo Declaration issue, your wholesale revert was as wrong, as my wording was inaccurate. Considering yesterday's revert frenzy, you should have no qualms assuming good, or at most negligent, faith. --tickle me 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any major difference in the wording concerning the declaration. Assuming good faith is warranted only when the other party stops insisting upon the inclusion of material not relevant to this article, as others and myself have clearly explained. Nothing is a one way street. SouthernComfort 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

If Aucaman, tickle me, et al continue to insist upon the inclusion of the "ritual impurity" paragraph, disregarding my comments and sources as well as those of others as to why the inclusion is unwarranted and selective (and POV), then I suggest an RfC regarding this issue to allow third-party opinions. Agreed? SouthernComfort 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've no issues whith an RfC, however, an informal mediation on this talk page would possibly reduce wikipedic overhead for others. What about Zora? --tickle me 04:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I already asked someone to try to mediate this, but his questions simply went ignored. Aucaman^Talk 05:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Others and myself have explained quite clearly what is wrong with your position and insistence upon including this information. You have continued to ignore these points. SouthernComfort 06:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis never mentions Khomeini in The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34., and there is no universal view on meanings and implications of "ritual impurity" concept in Islam, as explained earlier. --ManiF 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the continued edit warring by both Aucaman and Pecher, who continue to blatantly ignore the discussion and evidence presented on this talk. SouthernComfort 19:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it's not even clear what your claims are. People have asked you several times about your concerns, but you either ignore them or start talking about people and not their edits. And whatever "evidence" you have provided, it does not justify the removal of well-sourced information. This is exactly what Lewis says in his book, and you still yet to provide an explanation for its removal. Aucaman^Talk 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection, Lewis, Khomeini

I've protected the page against the edit war. I'm not sure what the issue is this time, but I do note that ManiF and SouthernComfort have been removing sourced information from the article on the grounds that, as ManiF said on my user page, " Bernard Lewis doesn't mention Khomeini in The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34". I'm not sure how both of these editors know this. In particular I'm confused because I have the book open before me, and on page 34 it says "The Ayatollah Khomeini, in a widely circulated book written for the guidance of Muslims in ritual matters, observes: "There are eleven things which make them unclean: 1. urine; 2. faeces; etc." Can either ManiF or SouthernComfort help clear up this confusion? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Jayjg. I'm not sure if you have read over this talk, but I have explained the problems with Aucaman's additions numerous times (not least of which is the fact that "urine, feces, dogs, etc." are not "non-Muslims"), and have been ignored each and every time. All the pertinent information and discussion is available right here on this talk. As well, if anyone has any doubts, they are also free to consult Shi'a editors to clarify matters even further, though I think things are pretty clear as it is. This link [21], which I have provided before, makes it clear that these ideas of "ritual purity" are standard in Shi'a Islam and are not unique to Khomeini or any other Shi'a marja. SouthernComfort 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding. It's a reliable source, accurately quoted, and on-topic, in an area where Lewis discusses Khomeini's views of the impurity of non-Muslims. Why are you removing it? Why would Shi'a editors come into it? Are you asserting that Khomeini didn't say that? Or if it's a common view, then why not simply add that this is a common view in Shi'a Islam? ManiF is still insisting that he is removing it because Lewis doesn't mention Khomeini, but I can see the information right there on the page itself. You'll find it in Google books as well.[22] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I must say that this is the second time I have come to this page trying to understand what the issue is here, and I am still completely unable to comprehend it, even after reading the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And to confuse things further, rather than this being a "common view" in Islam, ManiF has now just told me that other Shi'a scholars disagree with Lewis, that this is not a common view (just the opposite of what you have said), and that that is why he is excluding it. Can you see why this is confusing? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"...Bernard Lewis never mentions Khomeini...". ManiF: This is obviously untrue, and to end this, I'll cite sources that are available online:

• amazon.com, "The Jews of Islam" - Table of Contents, A-B, check for "Ayatollah Khomeini", he's mentioned on page 34, as Aucaman rightly stated. Further, he's mentioned on the pages 39, 194 and 198, where Khomeini's book "Risala-i Tawzih" is cited.
• amazon.com, "The Jews of Islam" - 4 pages with references to Khomeini - Excerpts:

"...such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatolláh Khomeini, in a widely circulated book written for the guidance of Muslims in ritual and related matters, observes: "There are eleven ..."

"... of the Roman Empire, vol. 5, ed. J. B. Bury (London, 1909-1914), p. 332. ;. See, for example, the Ayatollah Khomeini's references to the position of the non-Muslims in the Islamic state. In his programmatic book on Islamic government, he indicates ..."

• amazon.com, "The Jews of Islam": keywords=eleven unbeliever: "... Khomeini, in a widely circulated book written for the guidance of Muslims in ritual and related matters, observes: "There are eleven things which make unclean: I. urine; z. faeces; 3. sperm; 4. carrion; 5. blood; 6. dog; 7. pig; 8. unbeliever; 9. wine; Io. beer; ii. the sweat of a camel which eats unclean things." In a gloss on number 8 ..."

1. You have denied for quite some time that Aucaman purveyed the book title, the page number and the exact quote: "If he does, then provide the book title, the page number and the exact quote in accordance with WP:VERIFY. --ManiF 21:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)". This was in bad faith because this info had been given right from the beginning.
2. Afterwards, you went on repeatedly to allege that Khomeini wasn't mentioned at all in Lewis' book. Either you didn't know and chose to deny what you merely hoped to be false or it was an outright lie. Neither is acceptable.
3. "...and there is no universal view on meanings and implications of "ritual impurity" concept in Islam...": Nobody claimed this would exist for both Sunna and Shia or that Khomeini's statement would imply this. You are retorting to claims that are completely irrelevant, even if you hadn't made them up in the first place - a known eristic stratagem. While SouthernComfort is arguing, you're ressorting to illicit filibustering. You should refrain from further editing this article.

"Note the continued edit warring by both Aucaman and Pecher, who continue to blatantly ignore the discussion and evidence presented on this talk": SouthernComfort: Quite the contrary, you haven't addressed Aucaman's and my assertion that this position is of a specific and novel nature, due to Khomeini's political influence, which other Iranian scholars had not. Lewis' statement that "such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatolláh Khomeini..." clearly stresses this argument.

Jayjg: I would like to revert and expand accordingly:

===Ritual cleanliness===

Khomeini subscribed to the traditional Shi'a view that unbelievers are ritually unclean (najis). In his book Risala-i Tawzih al-Masail, Khomeini lists 11 things that make a Muslim ritually unclean (and thus unable to conduct prayer or touch the Qur'an): urine, feces, sperm, carrion, blood, a dog, a pig, an unbeliever, wine, beer, and the sweat of a camel that eats unclean things. Khomeini further explains: "When a Muslim man or woman is converted to Islam, their body, saliva, nasal secretion, and sweat are ritually clean." Bernard Lewis asserts that "such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered", attributing this development to Khomeini.

--tickle me 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also struggling to understand why ManiF and SouthernComfort are removing the words "from popular violence that had erupted in the wake of the Islamic revolution" in the sentence saying that Khomeini declared Jews and Christians "protected". In the current, abridged version the sentence leaves the reader wondering: protected against whom or what? The reference to violence against religious minorities is sourced to the same external website as the current version of the sentence, and I can see no legitimate reason for removing that part of the sentence. Pecher ^Talk 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The source simply says that Khomeini "issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. Similar edicts also protect Iran's tiny Christian minority" in the context of the new post-revolutionary Iran. You are putting unnecessary attributions on Khomeini's decree. --ManiF 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SouthernComfort: "but I have explained the problems with Aucaman's additions numerous times (not least of which is the fact that "urine, feces, dogs, etc." are not "non-Muslims"), and have been ignored each and every time". You have not been ignored. I addressed this, saying that Pecher and Aucaman didn't assert that - and that not even Khomeini did. My quote: "...But he enumerates feces, urine, etc. and unbelievers, thus likening them, arguably in a spiritual context only, to the substances mentioned. So does Lankarani, mentioned by ManiF earlier, and Sistani.". You didn't react.

SouthernComfort: "As well, if anyone has any doubts, they are also free to consult Shi'a editors to clarify matters even further...": this is a disturbing offer - and demand. Asking for Shia editors to be consulted when Shia issues are dealt with is completely unwikipedic. There are no Shia editors here, we're all anonymous and non expert editors by definition, some claiming to be Shia - which can be true ...or not. Since when are we requested to ask, say, supposedly marxist editors for guidance on communism? --tickle me 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a editors should be involved because obviously you guys do not have any knowledge or understanding concerning Shi'a traditions and theology. The fact of the matter is that your edits are pushing an anti-Shi'a POV, and it is also incredibly POV to single Khomeini out when the issue of ritual purity is standard in Shi'a Islam. You are also pushing a POV by not even explaining the concept of ritual purity and "najis" in Islam - let me bold this so you are able to understand clearly and perfectly: it is only in regards to prayer and touching the Qur'an. If a Muslim man shakes hands with a an unbeliever (this does not include Jews and Christians - most Shi'a marjas accept that Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are "people of the book" and therefore not "kafir") or if he/she has just drunk alcohol or if he/she has touched a dog, that person is not able to pray until he goes through basic ritual ablutions (called wudu). If the individual has just had sexual intercourse, they must perform full ablutions known as ghusl.

It's absurd that I have to explain all this to you as if we are in school. But you guys have literally ignored all my points and continue to make incorrect and prejudicial assertions within the article without even bothering to listen to the discussion. Not only is this inappropriate behavior, not only are your edits totally inaccurate and out of context, but it also goes without saying that such edits do indeed offend Shi'as, because you are singling out a single doctrine that has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry against non-Muslims, and also connecting this doctrine (which is standard in Shi'ism) to a single Shi'a cleric, one who most Shi'as in the world disagree with and oppose. SouthernComfort 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're appealing to people's lack of knowledge on Shia Islam to try to remove certain perfectly correct and relevant information you don't like. The information is specific to Khomeini and is coming directly from his book. The word "unbeliever" here is synonymous to "non-Mulsim". If you're doubting that, you might want to ask yourself why Lewis would bother to quote Khomeini saying such things in a book on JEWS. In fact, if you read the previous page, Lewis makes the following observation:

Among the strict Shia, non-Muslims also fall in this category, and contact with them, or with clothes, food, or utensils handed by them, causes ritual impurity requiring purification before undertaking religious or ritual duties.

So, again, you've been making some claims that turn out to be blatantly false. The only explanation I can give is that your own personal views (and maybe the views of some contemporary Shai clergy) happen to differ from those of Khomeini, but this still does not justify the removal of perfectly sourced information coming from Khomeini's own book. Aucaman^Talk 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we are all aware of exactly how neutral a character Bernard Lewis is (one of the more adept POV pushers out there). He is wrong, and I have explained why. Your knowledge of Shi'ism is clearly weak and that you are relying only on Lewis to make a prejudicial point (clearly violating WP:POINT), speaks volumes. You have also again ignored all my other points as well as the gist of my argument. Muslim editors well acquainted with Islamic ritual and tradition, and who actually know what they are talking about, should get involved in this discussion. SouthernComfort 04:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "unbeliever" is NOT synonymous to "non-Muslim". You should not put words into someone's mouth in an encyclopedia, if Khomeini wanted to discuss all "non-Muslims", then he'd have used the word "non-Muslim". The word "unbeliever" has different meanings in Islam, and most Islamic scholars would agree that the term doesn't apply to Jews and Christians who are considered "People of the Book" in Islam. Again, read Lankarani's religious decree about the definition of "unbeliever" ("Kafir") [23] --ManiF 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you don't make absolute statements when you're not familiar with the subject. In the context of Shia Islam, and especially in Khomeini's writings, the two concepts are the same. As I said, the fact that Lewis is bringing this up in a book on Jews makes it clear that the concept applies to non-Muslims.

Update

I'm done arguing with you. You removed sourced information saying "Bernard Lewis doesn't mention Khomeini in The Jews of Islam, Princeton, 1984, p.34". You made this statement twice and it turned out be blatantly false. Were you even reading the source? Then you said "unbeliever" doesn't mean non-Muslim. Also turned out to be false (per same source p.33). Now you're saying Bernard Lewis, the number one scholar in this field, is a "POV pusher" and that we should just take your word for it. This is a direct violation of both WP:V and WP:RS. I'm going to ask for that last edit (removing sourced information) to be taken back. Then we can discuss other additions to the article. Aucaman^Talk 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against - The information is misrepresented and misleading, a direct violation of NPOV. Khomeini doesn't refer to "non-Muslims", he talks about "unbelievers". One should not put words into someone's mouth in an encyclopedia, if Khomeini wanted to discuss all "non-Muslims", then he'd have used the word "non-Muslim". The word "unbeliever" is NOT synonymous to "non-Muslim" in the Islamic context. Furthermore, Bernard Lewis' views and assertions about the implications and meanings of "ritual purity" and the definition of "unbelievers", are not universally accepted by the Islamic scholars or Marja, and can't be attributed to Khomeini. For example, Fazel Lankarani, the highest-ranking Shia cleric, has issued a religious decree or Fatwa defining "Kafir" or "unbeliever" as "apostate" and clarifying that "the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Paak". --ManiF 05:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you were not to remove sourced information, especially with edit summaries claiming such a source does not exist. Aucaman^Talk 05:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when there is an ongoing dispute over whether the information is relevant, and meets NPOV requirements. Also, I never said the "source does not exist", I had simply misread the source and I corrected my mistake right away. --ManiF 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the fifth time I'm saying this. If you think the source is POV then you should add additional information/criticism to make the whole section/article NPOV. You're not remove sourced information because you think it's POV. The fact that you don't even understand how WP:NPOV works is not making your argument look any better. Khomeini must have had some views on non-Muslims, right? Well I did some research and found something. You're not to just go ahead and remove that because you think it's not neutral. You can only remove information if they're inaccurate and this case everything is factually accurate and comes from Khomeini's own book. But if you think it's not neutral you are to go do some research and find some other statements made by Khomeini that give a different point of view. Then both views would be presented and the reader is to make up his/her mind. Instead you have been deleting the whole section which is simply unacceptable. Aucaman^Talk 06:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR, the title of the section, "views on non-Muslims", is not only misleading but also inaccurate, Khomeini never mentions the word "non-Muslims" in that citation. --ManiF 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

????????????? I'm quoting from Lewis's book! Aucaman^Talk 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote talks about "unbelievers", not "non-Muslims".

Besides, is there a rule that says you can't delete POV sections of an article? If so please show me where it is. Just because information in a paragraph is sourced doesn't mean that it's NPOV. --Khoikhoi 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you don't make absolute statements when you're not familiar with the subject. In the context of Shia Islam, and especially in Khomeini's writings, the two concepts are the same. As I said, the fact that Lewis is bringing this up in a book on Jews makes it clear that the concept applies to non-Muslims. You also appear to be favoring the personal opinion of some users over historical facts. Here's what Lewis has to say about this:

Among the strict Shia, non-Muslims also fall in this category, and contact with them, or with clothes, food, or utensils handed by them, causes ritual impurity requiring purification before undertaking religious or ritual duties.

POV disputes should be resolved according to [this]. Like I said, both views would have to be presented. Did you see me removing anything??? Aucaman^Talk 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against - can't we wait for this dispute to be resolved instead of reverting to Aucaman's version? --Khoikhoi 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See below.

Update

Like I said, there was no reason to remove a perfectly well-sourced and relevant section. If you believed it was biased, according to WP:NPOV, you were to add more information to prove its biasness and let the reader decide who's right. But instead you went on and removed the whole section - (fasely) claiming that Lewis has never said such a thing. This is a direct violation of WP rules. I believe the section should not have been removed and am going to give the admins 12 more hours to restore the section. If the section is not restored I'm just going to set up an RfC and let others comment. Then it's up to the other side to defend their edits and false claims.[24][25][26][27][28] Violated Wikipedia official policies/guidelines include: WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:POINT. Aucaman^Talk 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait until the dispute is resolved - reverting to your version isn't goint to solve anything. --Khoikhoi 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against - As per my comments in the above section. Wait until the ongoing dispute is resolved. --ManiF 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against - as per all the comments I have made regarding this issue. SouthernComfort 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

While taking no position on the underlying issue, which I haven't even looked at, I have removed the 'editprotected' request from this page because it seems to be in reference to a content dispute and there is an apparent lack of consensus for the requested change (whatever it was). I see that there is discussion of an RfC and that seems like a reasonable next step if the dispute cannot be resolved here. --CBDunkerson 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is not even a joke; it is Propaganda, it is pathetic. Pure and simple. Couple of points need immediate clarifications and i believe as a wikipedia user we have every right to know them:

• • First: Who has the right to edit this page and most importantly what is their background? I don't think a government employee or a basiji(i wonder if they can even use computers but in any case) is a reliable source and a trustworthy editor. he will ignore every single evidence against Khomeini and the result would be the same crap we have right now.

• • Second: I strongly believe Government sources (in Iran) about him should be ignored and not be used as a valid source. It is obvious that those working for the regime will not criticize the founder of the regime. For Christ sake just take a look at people who criticize Khomeini inside Iran; they either get killed or end up in prison. Dj skazi 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. But this is Wikipedia, an Encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, so... I think everyone should have the right to edit. (The One We Call God 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Yeah you can edit, but your edits suddenly disappear without any reason whatsoever. Good luck to all the new users editing Iran-related articles!Aucaman^Talk 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ritual purity

Aucaman invited me to look at the article, but I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with him. I don't regard Bernard Lewis as an expert on Shi'a Islam. He studied the Sunni Ottoman state, not the Shi'a. It's not at all clear to me that the passage from Khomeini's book is novel, in the context of Shi'a Islam. Nor is it clear, from an English translation, that it refers to all non-Muslims or just non-People-of-the-Book. Finally, it isn't clear what effects statements about ritual purity have on day-to-day relations between Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.

It seems that Aucaman wants to explore Khomeini's attitude towards Jews, and is focussing on this passage as an indication of Khomeini's views. It's a slender reed on which to base a larger premise. Surely the best place to look for Khomeini's attitudes is speeches, books, that speak directly, rather than indirectly, about the attitudes to take towards Jews, and in his actions as head of state. Furthermore, all that should go in whatever article there is concerning Status of Iranian Jews under the Islamic Republic of Iran, or perhaps just Persian Jews, or Jews of Iran. Not here. This is a biography of Khomeini, and his views on Jews are of small import compared to his other, sweeping, innovations. Link to the Jewish status article, don't drag it all into this biography. Zora 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You realize what you are saying? First the other side says that these don't even apply to Jews and Christians. Then you come and say it's specific to Jews?????? Nothing Khomeini is saying is specific to Jews in particular. It's specific to non-Muslims in general and these are his views coming directly from his writing (read the source and the notes in the back). I asked you to comment on the decision to remove the an entire sourced section from an article without any proper reasoning or previous agreement. Aucaman^Talk 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that your interests are specifically in the treatment of Jews -- but I may be misreading you. But whether it's Jews, or People of the Book, or non-Muslims in general, it's not at all clear that rules re ritual purity automatically mean that the impure items are subject to stigma OUTSIDE the ritual context. Sex and camel sweat are apparently impure items, but sex is otherwise encouraged, and the camel respected.

I do believe that it's true that various religious groups were and are subject to persecution -- notably the Bahais. I have the impression that Jews were persecuted, but on charges that they were spies for the Israelis. You can document all of that without relying on statements re ritual purity. That whole section could be usefully expanded, I agree. The revival of the murderous Qajar policies towards the Bahai is particularly noteworthy. Zora 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions from Khomeini's remarks. These are some of the things he's said and I believe they need to be presented here. Whether or not these remarks have had a direct impact on other people's lives is another question (and I agree that it should probably be discussed somewhere else). Aucaman^Talk 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to present everything he said here. If we did, the article would expand to a whole bookshelf. We have to pick and choose -- what's distinctive? What's relevant? I don't think his views on ritual purity meet that standard, at the moment. We really don't know if they were a departure from standard Shi'a views. Until we have secondary sources (other than Bernard Lewis, who is not an expert in this area) saying so, we'd better just leave the subject alone. IMHO. Zora 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is not an expert in this area? Bernard Lewis's specialty is the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic world. He has also written a number of books on Khomeini and Islam in Iran. In fact, I cannot think of any other scholars who specifically focus on such aspects of Islam. Can you? It's not really relevant. These comments are found in Khomeini's book. Lewis is just translating them. I have no reason to believe Lewis is mistranslating them and no opposing views have been presented. The quotes belong here because they pertain to Khomeini's views on non-Muslims. If the section "expands to a whole bookshelf" we can then move it to a new article. A single quote an article does not make. Aucaman^Talk 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So "feces, blood, urine, dogs, beer, etc" are now non-Muslims? Have you even listened to what anyone is saying? The quotes are regarding ritual purity - ritual purity concerns prayer and touching the Qur'an. That is it. See WP:POINT. SouthernComfort 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"We really don't know if they were a departure from standard Shi'a views": Nobody claimed this, however, his position is of a novel nature insomuch as Khomeini had political influence, which other Iranian scholars had not. Before him, these views became obsolete and could be ignored. Lewis' statement that "such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatolláh Khomeini..." precisely stresses this argument. --tickle me 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how his position is "novel" when the doctrine of ritual purity is standard Shi'a practice as regards ritual purity? Do you know what ritual purity is and understand what it means? Did you even bother to read my other comments? Also look at this link [29] regarding whether or not "People of the Book" are considered "najis" in Shi'ism. SouthernComfort 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with tickle. Khomeini's views are ritual purity of non-Muslims are germane precisely because, according to Lewis, Khomeini was the one who tried to revitalize a forgotten, but not abrogated practice. We may have to look for additional sources to see whether Khomeini succeeded or not, but his stance is certainly relevant for the reader. Pecher ^Talk 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, clearly ignoring what comments made by others and myself which clarify and explain this issue. SouthernComfort 09:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Other editors may be interested in this dispute concerning ritual purity between Pecher and Aminz at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-27_Dhimmi_and_Jizya#Shi'a_ritual_purity. SouthernComfort 11:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Uncleanness" of Non-Muslims - Is the issue relevance? Is the quotation of Khomeini accurate?

In defense of Aucaman it must be pointed out

That while there are many mullahs who believe kuffar (non-Muslims) are as unclean as urine and excrement, none have led a revolution, nor ruled a country of 60 (or so) million. The day-to-day relevance to non-Muslims of their putative impurity has already been noted by Lukas (T.|@) :

The case of the infidel (kafir) is more ambivalent and serious, and constitutes perhaps the politically most pernicious portion of the popular manipulation of the purity code. [...] What is pernicious is that this rule has often been transformed into social exclusions: debarring non-Muslims from barbershops, from public water fountains, from public baths, from the produce bazaars, and from public areas during rainstorms. [p. xxii: from A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of the "Resaleh Towzih al-Masael", London: Westview Press 1984:

And Khomeini's political attitude toward at least one kind of non-Muslim (Jews), has been noted by myself. (Being impure is not the same as being hostile to Islam, but if you believe some kinds of human beings are as impure as feces you obviously regard them as seriously deficient.)

"from the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present." [from p.27 Islamic Government p.27 of Hamid Algar's English translation in Islam and Revolution : Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini ]

in a statement in E'lamieh Hay Imam Khomeini (Imam Khomeini's Declarations), vol. VII, p.68.), Khomeini complained that Cyrus the Great's freeing the ancient Israelites from Babylonian captivity

`prevent[ed] the natural disappearance of elements [i.e. the Jewish people] who would never be satisfied with anything less than world domination,`

As for the accuracy of Lewis's translation, here is "clarification #83", on p.48 of A Clarification of Questions : An Unabridged Translation of Resaleh Towzih al-Masael by Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, Translated by J. Borujerdi with a Foreword by Michael M. J. Fischer and Mehdi Abedi Westview Press/ Boulder and London c1984)

"There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Moslem men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel." [italics added]

(compare with the B. Lewis quote from "The Jews of Islam":

"There are eleven things which make unclean: 1. urine; 2. faeces; 3. sperm; 4. carrion; 5. blood; 6. dog; 7. pig; 8. unbeliever; 9. wine; 10. beer; 11. the sweat of a camel which eats unclean things.")

Bernard Lewis has been attacked by Edward Said and others as an "Orientalists," but the book quoted above is really quite reverent toward "the Imam". It can't be regarded in any way as unsympathetic.Ebudswenson 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still More Translations of Khomeini on non-Muslims, etc.

The following is from vol.1 p.118 of Khomeini's Tahrir al-Wasilah. Note

the very broad definition of what constitutes a kafir (including peaceful non-Muslims; and Muslims who consider "the Divine Law or legislation of Islam to be incomplete or imperfect or whose speech or actions are evidence of his covering over the truth of religion"), and that

the translation is from a Bonyad of the IRI.

A kafir is a person who follows a religion other than Islam or who knowingly denies the exigencies of Islam (like ritual prayer, fasting, hajj, etc.) in such a way that this denial amounts to denial of prophethood or the belying of the Holy Prophet or considering the Divine Law or legislation of Islam to be incomplete or imperfect or whose speech or actions are evidence of his covering over the truth of religion. There is no difference between a person who has renounced Islam (an apostate, murtad) and a person who is at war with Muslims (harbi) and one who lives in peace with them in mutual accord (dhimmi). As for nawasib (an enemy of Imams) and the khawarij (a set known for their rebellion against the authority of the Imam) and the ghali (a person who so exaggerates the station of the Imams, that this exaggeration amounts to denial of the Divinity of monotheism or prophethood), they are all kaffirs. [italics added]

(Taken from According to the Tahrir al-Wasilah of Ayatullah `Uzma Imam Khomeini / compilation, translation and commentary in Persian by Abdul Karim Biazar Shirazi ; translated into English in consultation with Hujjat ul-Islam Salman Ghaffari by Laleh Bakhtiar. First published by Foreign Department of Bonyad Ba'that in 1986... in Tehran)

The following quote of Khomeini is from the book Ruhani, Nahzat-e Imam Khomeini (v.2, p.512)

The following eleven are najes. 1st urine, 2nd stool, 3rd semen, 4th dead bodies, 5th blood, 6th dogs, 7th pigs, 8th non-Muslims, 9th wine, 10th beer, 11th the sweat of a camel that eats unclean things. [translation in Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian c1993, p.46.]

Abrahamian also quotes Dr. Mansur Farhang, the former Iranian representative at the United Nations thusly:

Khomeini's main hagiographer boasts that the imam would not eat or drink in restaurants unless he knew for sure the waiter was a Muslim. [p.46 of Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian c1993]

I hope that we can now put this controversy behind us and accept that there is little if any doubt that the leader of a major revolution and ruler of large country believed that non-Muslims were unclean; and that this is a noteworthy fact suited for an encyclopedia entry on that leader/ruler. Ebudswenson 22:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Uncleanness" of Non-Muslims - Did Khomeini's Islamic Revolution renew traditional ideas of najes?

Is there evidence that traditional Islamic "social exclusions" or social separation of Muslims from non-Muslim dictated by the purity codes Khomeini favored made a reappearance after the Islamic Revolution? Yes there is.

In a chapter from the book My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes  : Uncensored Iranian Voices (Beacon Press, 2006), Roya Hakakian describes living in post-revolutionary Iran and why she and her Jewish family left to go to America,

In 1984, that perfectly Orwellian year, an order came from the washroom facilities in schools to be separated by religion. One morning, as my class filed through the schoolyard, we saw men posting signs above the toilets: Muslims Only. Above the last two stalls, another sign read: Non-Muslims Only. [From "The Last Chapter in the Book of Exodus" p.42]

The author explains it was not separate toilets but the "stifling and restrictive" life under the Islamic republic that drove the Hakaian family out of Iran; That the students (at least at this school in north Tehran) ignored the restrictions as "uncool;" and the school administration was to busy with the disruption of the Iran-Iraq War to enforce the segregation. She also does not specifically say why the washroom segregation was mandated. But prevention of Muslim contamination by non-Muslims seems to be the best, most obvious (maybe the only) explanation. (If anyone has an alternative explanation, please share it with us.) Ebudswenson 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lament of an Armenian in Tehran on her isolated life (circa 1999)

Some people I work with, Muslims, don't want to come to my house because they think Christians are unclean. And did you know we're considered less valuable in the eyes of the law than Muslims? It's not right. Humans are humans.

From: Persian Mirrors by Elaine Sciolino Free Press, 2006, p.216

Ebudswenson 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Great idea

It was a clever and great idea to protect this page from edit war. Thank you.

Some links aboutEmaam Khomaini (RA): http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/kashkul.htm http://www.khomeini.org/GatewayToHeaven/Information/imamsbiography.htm http://inminds.co.uk/visit-to-iran.html http://www.inminds.co.uk/imams-house.html

Non-Muslims as unclean

Apparently it's not just a ritual matter. Here's an impassioned piece from Iranian.com, complaining of years of being treated like an untouchable [30]. Now was this something Khomeini promoted, or has it been a feature of Iranian society for a long time? If the latter, it's deplorable, but Khomeini is off the hook for it. Zora 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On this issue, you may consult the section on "Safavid and Qajar dynasties (1502-1925)" of the article Persian Jews, especially in this version. Many more details are available in the sources translated and published by David Littman (see the "References" section to Persian Jews). Pecher ^Talk 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer to Zora's question is that the concept of najis (and non-Muslims being considered najis) definitely predates Khomeini, but its resurection in modern times has had a lot to do with Khomeini. Khomeini was a marja and anything he wrote had a direct impact on people's social and religious life. Aucaman^Talk 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The piece has no scholarly value whatsoever, Iranian.com is an open tribune, anybody with a grasp of English can send them an opinion piece. Read Frequently asked questions about iranian.com --ManiF 05:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're claiming that this writer just made all that up? It jibes with what Pecher says, and what I've been reading about Iranian society (Persian Mirrors, In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs), though they don't go into that much detail. Zora 05:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The "writer" and what she's written is of no significance. Her name doesn't even generate a single hit on google. For all we know, she could be someone who is involved in this dispute. As I said before, Iranian.com is an open tribune that publishes practically anything that's e-mailed to them and the date on this e-mail or "opinion piece" is April 13th, 2006. Regardless, this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. If Khomeini held such views, you'd need to quote him directly saying that, and just so you remember, "Kafar" (unbeliever) doesn't mean Non-Muslim. --ManiF 05:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What we're discussing right now is whether "ritual uncleanliness" translates into everyday persecution (which it seems to do) and whether or not this is to be considered a feature of Persian Shi'a Islam in general or something introduced or intensified by Khomeini. Are you denying that any Persian Shi'as have ever persecuted those they regard as najes? Zora 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what we're discussing, or at least should be discussing right now, is whether or not Khomeini's views on "ritual uncleanliness" extended to "Non-Muslims" ie people of book. If Khomeini held such views, you'd need to quote him directly saying that – and it's as simple as that. --ManiF 06:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It has already been discussed above. See the second point. This alternative translation actually translates the term as "non-Moslem men and women". Note that the translator is Persian. So far we've had two different translations confirming that Khomeini lists non-Muslims as unclean, and there are personal accounts of Iran's religious minorities confirming that this the case - and you're still denying it? Those are direct translations of Khomeini's work. Aucaman^Talk 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

@Zora: Nobody on this talk page claimed so far the Khomeini introduced this feature. But again, Lewis' statement that "such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatolláh Khomeini ...observes..." stresses that Khomeini intensified this stance. So I fail to understand why he should be "off the hook for it".

As for the merely eristic quarreling on Non-Muslims vs ahl at-kitab, ManiF is trying to deny the undeniable again as he did when gainsaing that Lewis wrote on the subject in the first place. Lewis is a reputable secondary source in this matter and he cites Khomeiny speaking unmistakably of "unbelievers" and "non-Muslims" in this regard. Also, it has not been suggested to use iranian.com as a reference in this article - the pseudo debatte on this is pure procrastination. --tickle me 06:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read my earlier comments. I've already explained several times on this page, citing several religious decrees by the highest ranking Shiite clerics out there who are the highest authority on religion and law in Shi'a Islam, that the word "Kafir" (which Khomeini uses, and Lewis cites him as using) does not mean Non-Muslim. --ManiF 07:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the word Kafir a lot of times means non-Muslim, but I doubt Khomeini is even using that word. In any case we have provide two totally different translations interpreting the term Khomeini uses to mean "non-Muslim". Do you have any alternative translations? Aucaman^Talk 07:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't have the original text of Khomeini's statement, Lewis has directly translated the word as "unbeliever" and that must be "Kafir", which contrary to what Lewis claims in his commentary, does not mean Non-Muslims. As I have stated before, Fazel Lankarani, the highest-ranking Shia cleric, has issued a religious decree or Fatwa defining "Kafir" or "unbeliever" as "apostate" and clarifying that "the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Paak". [31] To settle this issue, you need to attain a copy of of Khomeini's book and see what he's exactly saying in Arabic or Persian, before attributing anything to him. --ManiF 07:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and we go by translations. Both sources say whatever the original Persian/Arabic word is it translated to "non-Muslims" and that's how it's interpreted. Anything beyond that would violate WP:NOR. So Lewis and Borujerdi are mistranslating Khomeini and we're just supposed to trust you with the translation? Aucaman^Talk 07:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

ManiF has twisted Lankarani's words and improperly attaempted to extend this modern ayatollah's personal opinion into the past. ManiF, can you name a single ayatollah before the 20th century who thought that Jews and Christians are pak? I'm afraid, you can't. Nowhere does Lanakrani define kafir solely as "apostate", instead he writes "A Kafir is a person who does not believe in God and His Oneneas, or does not believe in Prophethood of Hazrat Khatem-al-Anbia Mohammad ibn-Abdullah".[32] Pecher ^Talk 09:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not just an Ayatollah's personal opinion, this is a biding religious decree by the highest-ranking Shia cleric who defines historic religious laws in Shia Islam. He clearly says "the people of the Book such as Jews and Christians are Paak (clean)" and hence not kafir, in his definition of kafir, which he considers unclean. Now as far as Khomeini goes, we can't say what his position was, unless there is a quote by Khomeini defining th word kafir. Different Grand Ayatollahs have deferent positions on many of these issues. --ManiF 09:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But the entry we are discussing is not "historic religious laws in Shia Islam," it's Khomeini. Though no one commenting here seems to have a farsi copy of Khomeini's "Resaleh Towzih al-Masael", we do know that the translator and commentators of the English edition of that book refer to the people Khomeini considers unclean as non-Muslims, not non-ahl-al-kitab. We also know there is no question the purity codes affected non-Musilms:

The case of the infidel (kafir) is more ambivalent and serious, and constitutes perhaps the politically most pernicious portion of the popular manipulation of the purity code. [...] What is pernicious is that this rule has often been transformed into social exclusions: debarring non-Muslims from barbershops, from public water fountains, from public baths, from the produce bazaars, and from public areas during rainstorms. [p. xxii: from A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of the "Resaleh Towzih al-Masael", London: Westview Press 1984]

Ebudswenson 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC) gemsofislamism.tripod.com

People,

Please dont make arguments on topics which you know nothing of.

Please, specify which arguments show a lack of knowledge and explain exactly in what ways they are factually incorrect. Your assertion to the contrary is not a sufficient explanation.

1. Khomeini is dead. His decrees therefore do not carry any or as much weight compared to a living Marja (such as Lankarani). See مسئله 10 here: [33]. Therefore statements like "Lankarani's statement is just a modern ayatollah's opinion" have no meaning, because Muslims are required to follow a Marja "of the day" (meaning alive).

In case you haven't noticed, this particular article's subject is the late Ayatollah Khomeini, not the intricacies of Shia tradition and law and how they are followed today. Lankarani was not the foremost Marja while Khomeini was alive, so I fail to see how that man's later decrees are of any relevance in an article purportedly about Khomeini. And trying to apply Lankarani's later definition of kafir to Khomeini's earlier usage is, of course, an anachronism.

1. The very act of some editors here trying to extend Khomeini's views into Islam altogether is just asking for trouble. Is that what youre really here for?

Yeah, I suppose that would be asking for trouble. However, the charge doesn't hold up. I see no indication of anyone equating Khomeini's interpretation of Islamic law with the wider Islamic world's understanding or practice, as far as such an accordant understanding could even be said to exist. Specific accusations, please.

It is likewise easy to find very similar views from Judaic scripts. Example. Compare:

• Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
• Erubin 21b: Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
• Sanhedrin 58b: If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
• Sanhedrin 57a: A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
• Baba Kamma 37b: "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
• Baba Mezia 24a: If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
• Sanhedrin 76a: God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Islam after all itself claims to be the follow-up of the Christian, Judaic, and Abrahamic traditions. So no surprises there.

As interesting as those passages are, the whole argument, besides being a 'tu quoque' fallacy of epic porportions and thus invalidated from the start, still has nothing to do with the Ayatollah Khomeini.

So. The Point? : It's not that hard to dig up dirt from every person's past, if you look hard enough. But is that why we're here? Therefore I think this effort by Pecher et al is just another sad POV drive intended to defame Islam.

Dig up dirt? Defame Islam? Now you're going into full apologetics mode. First you try to dissociate Khomeini's radical interpretation of Islam from Islam proper, and now you're telling us his interpretation isn't so radical, and that any recognition of the radical nature of his views is "digging up dirt". Very odd.

This article is supposed to be an encyclopedic biography. Not a muckraking arena.

How unfortunate.--Zereshk 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Neither do sweeping, vague accusations make a good argument.

Also, I'd like to add that I find it humorous that no less than three separate editors are arguing against the inclusion of pertinent information on the Ayatollah's interpretation of Islam, and moreover all for starkly differing, if not wholly contradictory, reasons; SouthernComfort because he thinks the information is somehow insignificant, ManiF because he thinks the Ayatollah either didn't mean what he said or didn't say it at all, and Zereshk because it...well, offends his sensibilities. 24.11.123.68 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the bold text, but I felt it was the easiest way for me to contrast my own words from Zereshk's, given the format of his contribution. I wasn't trying to "shout" or drown out any of the rest of the text in the discussion. Again, I apologize. 24.11.123.68 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually lets dig up the facts , from all the faiths and cover them , instead of brushing them under the carpet. Khomeini did say some very nasty and evil things as any real Iranian who lived there during that time period knows. Lets not have a bunch of apologists and misinformed bookworms sanitizing history for the readers.--CltFn 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore it is kinda strange to equate something written millenia ago (that was written figurtively anyways) with something that was said by a head of government 30 years ago.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop at this point because it was apparently Zereshk's intention from the beginning to divert discussion from Khomeini and Shi'ism to Judaism by resorting to a tu quoque fallacy. So, I will not comment in detail on the accuracy of the above "quotes", nor will I provide a link to the website on which Zereshk found those "quotes", discarding the most obvious forgeries. Those who are interested in getting the URL may email me. Pecher ^Talk 12:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• To Zereshk: i don't know you very well but from what i understand from your posts, it seems you're OK with Khomeini being portrait as an angel-a saint but if we argue about his very questionable past, it's "Digging dirt" and therefore "wrong"? what kind of logic is that? "Aucaman" was right, it is almost impossible to edit Anything in Iran's related articles. with catastrophic articles like these, with a soul purpose of spreading propaganda, Wikipedia doesn't need enemy. Now THAT is unfortunate. Dj skazi 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that Pecher does not want to compromise as he continues to ignore all those who disagree with him. I have made my arguments many times as regards this issue and it is clear that there are some editors who are not interested in NPOV, but only in transforming this article into an anti-Khomeini, anti-Shi'a hatefest. It is even more obvious when editors who wish to strictly adhere to NPOV concerning such a controversial figure as Khomeini are attacked as being "pro-Khomeini." That is unwarranted and unacceptable. SouthernComfort 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry buddy but I really don't think it makes sense to imply that any criticism of Khomenmi is unacceptable, it is important to illustrate the more contentious views of this figure, since he is an extremely controversial leader. I don't see how explaining this makes the article a "hate fest" especially when much of the article is devoted to his importance and how great he was.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not your "buddy." Secondly, you're insisting that "blood, feces, dogs" and so forth are "non-Muslims" as well as confusing issues of ritual purity with treatment of non-Muslims. Give me a break. It's obvious that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Islamic concept of ritual cleanliness, which mind you, is not so different from the Judaic original. Thirdly, it's one thing to include specific views of Khomeini concerning non-Muslims, but again, you are insisting on interpreting issues of ritual cleanliness as evidence of prejudice. We call that "original research" here on WP. See WP:NOR and WP:POINT. SouthernComfort 07:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it English grammar and usage that you are having touble with? No one has said `"blood, feces, dogs" and so forth are "non-Muslims"`. They have said, i.e. they have patiently tried to explain, that those four things (and several others besides) were declared unclean (najes) in a fatwa by Khomeini.

.... Ol` Pal

- Ebudswenson 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a cheap rhetorical device to ascribe to the opponent ridiculous views and then easily refute them, but I don't think that anybody will be impressed here. I can't remember Moshe anywhere "insisting that blood, feces, dogs and so forth are non-Muslims" or "insisting on interpreting issues of ritual cleanliness as evidence of prejudice". In addition, try to comment on the content, not the editor; phrases like "[i]t's obvious that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Islamic concept of ritual cleanliness" are uncivil and do not help to support your arguments. Mind you, academic scholars believe that Shi'a views on ritual purity were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Pecher ^Talk 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Seen here is senior ranked cleric Allameh Asgari of Iran, shaking hands of a Jewish Rabbi. He wouldnt be doing that if Jews were "unclean".--Zereshk 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Its bad to put words in another person's mouth, but it is even worse to take entire ideas that don't even follow the logic of anything I was saying and then only address them instead of my actual arguments. Not only have you violated good faith and civility, but you have once again crossed the line of common courtesy. I do not understand why you think it is necessary to be rude at every opportunity, do you think it helps your argument? because it doesn't. Now please can you address what I and others have been arguing instead of dummy versions of them?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Shaking hands with Neturei Karta

Funny, Zereshk seems determined to add this image with his original research caption to every single article he is editing. Pecher ^Talk 09:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to poke some fun: they actually don't even shake hands. --tickle me 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

lol. It's true, they don't shake hands. Good point. The Unknown 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)