Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

hijab

Assalamu alaikum,

i am going to ask you a few questions considering hijab. for ladies, when they put mehendi for eid or any other event are they aloud to show other namehram men. another question that i wanted to ask you was that if a girl goes to a party where she knows there would be men can she dress up, but the boys. and girls are in different sections.

The Shah Refused ya right!

During November 1964, Khomeini denounced both the Shah and the United States, this time in response to the "capitulations" or diplomatic immunity granted by the Shah to American military personnel in Iran [36][37]. The famous "capitulation" law (or "status-of-forces agreement") would allow members of the U.S. armed forces in Iran to be tried in their own military courts. Khomeini was arrested in November 1964 and held for half a year. Upon his release, he was brought before Prime Minister Hasan Ali Mansur, who tried to convince Khomeini that he should apologize and drop his opposition to the government. Khomeini refused. In fury, Mansur slapped Khomeini's face.[38] Two weeks later, Mansur was assassinated on his way to parliament. Four members of the Fadayan-e Islam were later executed for the murder.

Advisers to the Shah recommended executing the Ayatollah[citation needed]. The Shah refused and in 1964 sent Khomeini into exile; initially in Turkey, later in Iraq. [39]

The Shah did not refuse, it was a greta marja at the time (Shariatimadari) who said a marja cannot be executed (constitutional right), so they promoted Ayatollah Khomeini to this status, so Shah was unable to execute Khomeini (trust me he would have done it in a heart beat if he could have),. so he was kicked out...please dont make Shah seem like a liberal by saying he refused to do so, implying he had morality!

Yet more arguement over sentence in lead

Since the anon 67.194.202.113 (possibly Snkla2) is so exercised about alleged original research in a sentence in the lead I have provided some cited quotes for which some kind of summary of which might be included in the lead. (from: Political thought and legacy of Khomeini#In the West) .... Khomeini's "glowering visage became the virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture" and "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam." His fatwa calling for the death of secular Musilm author Salmon Rushdie in particular was seen by some as a deft attempt to create a wedge issue that would prevent Musilms from imitating the West by "dividing Muslims from Westerners along the default lines of culture." The fatwa was greeted with headlines such as one in the popular British newspaper the Daily Mirror referring to Khomeini as "that Mad Mullah", observations in a British magazine that the Ayatollah seemed "a familiar ghost from the past - one of those villainous Muslim clerics, a Faqir of Ipi or a mad Mullah, who used to be portrayed, larger than life, in popular histories of the British Empire", and laments that Khomeini fed the Western stereotype of "the backward, cruel, rigid Muslim, burning books and threatening to kill the blasphemer." ... in ... the United States - where Khomeini and the Islamic Republic are remembered for the American embassy hostage taking and accused of sponsoring hostage-taking and terrorist attacks - especially using the Lebanese Shi'a Islamic group Hezbollah .... Here is another quote from the TIME magazine man of the year story that might be used in part: "To Iran's Shi'ite Muslim laity, he is the Imam, an ascetic spiritual leader whose teachings are unquestioned. To hundreds of millions of others, he is a fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal. ... Rarely has so improbable a leader shaken the world." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923854,00.html

Please cease the name-calling (calling me "anon").

But you are an anon. Anon is a standard term for anonymous editors. Why don't you just log on and I can call you by your editing name? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But we're both anonymous. You could be considered more anonymous than me since there is no geolocate, &c. for you as there is for me. In any case what need is there to call me "anon" every other time you address me? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, some of the material seems viable, though of course we wouldn't use as much detail. I'd just like the lead to note the role that the hostage crisis and the fatwa had in creating his controversial/negative image in the West, and I think this new material could be used to create a simple statement to this end within Wikipedia guidelines. Would you prefer I propose a new sentence, or would you rather go first? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to your work. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph in lead

Beloved by many Iranians, both his return from exile and funeral were the occasion for emotional outpouring by millions. Abroad he was also famous - though not regarded nearly as affectionately - remembered by many for his support for the 444-day long hostage-taking of several dozen American diplomats and embassy workers, and his death threat fatwa against British citizen Salman Rushdie. He was named 1979 Man of the Year by TIME magazine, in an article using words such as "fanatic" "frightening" "malignly" "irrationality," to describe him and his impact, while another observor called him "the virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture" who "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam" during his reign. Khomeini is usually known as "Imam Khomeini" inside Iran and "Ayatollah Khomeini" outside of Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

thought not regarded nearly as affectionately isn't in an encyclopediac tone, methinks. --Enzuru 23:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to understate it so as to avoid any hint of POV. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would, "Abroad he was infamous to many for his support for the..." be POV? Because it's true, he is infamous in the West, not famous. --Enzuru 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just get rid of the "affectionately" bit because it sounds awkward; the negative image is clear enough from the Time quotes. They will speak for themselves, though right now they seem a bit too indirect. Now our understanding is that this will replace the Algar and Abrahamian duo contested above, right? And that similar material from a paragraph about his theological impact will be removed to avoid repetition? The following is my revision:

Beloved by many Iranians, both his return from exile and his funeral were occasions of great emotional outpouring for millions. Abroad he gained infamy for his support of the hostage takers during the Iranian hostage crisis and his fatwa calling for the death of British citizen Salman Rushdie. The "virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture", Khomeini was named Man of the Year in 1979 by TIME magazine, and became known outside of his supporters as a "fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal" who "inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam" during his reign.

67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. --Enzuru 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK w/me. My one hesitation is I would like to have mentioned the mass executions of 1988 in the lead, because in human rights terms they are much more significant than the fatwa and hostage taking, but since they are also much less well publicized you can't really say Kheomini is famous/infamous for them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, sources either emphasize the conflict with Muntaziri or the actual killings, but both do not seem to receive enough note to comfortably reside in the lead. It should be alright though; these facets are covered in the body and I think most people read more than the introduction. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I execute the replacement? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it. --Enzuru 05:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK w/me I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is done. Thanks for talking it out. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Isn't he Arab!!

i know he is iranian (nationality) but his family from arabic origin --Bayrak (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a sayed, but not Arab. In fact, his family spent quite some time in British India. --Enzuru 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

because that i write his origins from arabs.. Saadah are arabs --Bayrak (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No Seyeds are not Arabs. Most of them even are fair skinned and light haired.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, typical obsession with fair skin. I've seen sayeds from Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, India... they are often dark-skinned as well as light-skinned, and don't look anything like each other. But I suppose aren't aren't the real ones, right? Every sayed says the sayed from another country isn't real. --Enzuru 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying he is a sayed is sufficient. It's not like his family moved to Iran from Lebanon a generation ago. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

His family was not from Lebanon.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A Sayyid claims to be in the lineage of Mohammad. This is not necessarily true. There is little reason to believe that all Sayyids are in fact descendants of Mohammad. Worldwide, special lineages can be fabricated, and the Sayyidism of the Islamic world is no exception. I'm not saying that his claim is fake, but rather that we are not in place to conclude that he has Arab origins simply because he is considered a Sayyid. Find a reliable source that describes his family as Arab, and then we may be able to discuss this issue again. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't much of a real suggestion, this user has tried to make several people on Wikipedia who are seen as Persian as Arab, simply for speaking Arabic sometimes. And geez, the Sayed thing is like the caste system now. Light skinned, super powers (one sayed told me they could fly and couldn't be burned by fire), and so forth. South Asian ones are the worst too, where a sayed woman can't even marry a sayed man. The funniest thing I've heard by far is supposed Pashtun sayeds, except to be a sayed your father has to be one, and to be a Pashtun your father has to be one. How the hell does that work? --Enzuru 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently having light skin makes you non-Arab... anyway, I thought that to be Pashtun the main requirements are talking Pashto and acting Pashtun. Of course the Pashtuns would have to accept you as such. A sayyed really told you that sayyeds can fly? Did he demonstrate? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with this light skin thing. Anyway, the three requirements are that your father is Pashtun, that you speak Pashto, and that you follow Pashtunwali, so yeah, those are the two other requirements. And he didn't demonstrate, but he did work at Burger King and hadn't been burned by the grill yet from what I know! --Enzuru 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On Shi'ah chat sites, literally half the discussions are people trying to debunk insane Sayyid cults (in re: above) & cet. the Ogress _smash! 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about the Pashtun, Arab, Turkish or Indo-Pakistani seyeds. It is obvious who are the Iranian Seyeds. Not Arabs, which ever claim you accept it does not make them Arab--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they aren't Arabs, that wasn't my point. --Enzuru 05:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Saadah are descendants of prophet Muhammad and prophet Muhammad is arab so they are arabs.. --Bayrak (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you take no heed of the discussion. You are trying to push original research into the article. I present to you an ultimatum: if you find reliable sources explicitly describing his family as Arab, we can mention it in the article. Otherwise, cease to push this idea. Hopefully we will not hear any more of this, as no scholar would suggest that he becomes Arab by virtue of claimed descent alone; even if it were reliably traced, this would say nothing of his actual cultural affiliation. Any further attempts will confirm that you are trolling, and in light of your other edits on Wikipedia, you may end up being labeled a troll who does not respect our policies and guidelines. People like that receive treatment for their condition; if you really care about editing here, you will make a sincere attempt not to be one them. So, take it or leave it, but further trolling will inevitably result in a block for disruptive behavior. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I won't be as harsh, he never stops this until we stop talking to him. And when we do sometimes he'll make the edit. So... --Enzuru 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the fake sayed...

if he is not arab he will not be real sayed also he knows arabic very well Bayrak (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many non-Arabs sayeds, or at least those who claim to be. There is no way of proving or disproving sayed lineage currently. In fact, the largest claimed sayed populations are probably in Pakistan and India, sometimes claimed to be a continuation of the caste system. --Enzuru 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

so he is not sayed..?? very strange --Bayrak (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He is considered a sayed, that's what I'm saying. There are non-Arab sayeds, like Khomeini. --Enzuru 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak, are you saying that all sayeds are arabs since they are decended from the Prophet and the Prophet was an arab? BoogaLouie|BoogaLouie]] (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

yes that what i am trying to say all of them are from arbic origins since they are decended from the Prophet mohamedBayrak (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make you an Arab. If your great great great great grandfather was Irish, and everyone in your family was Arab, are you Irish? And you never answered me, does an Arab who speaks only English become an Englishman? --Enzuru 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru is right. It doesn't make you an Arab. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of engaging in these types of debates, that we stick to what the sources say? It's not about genealogy or language, it's about what is written about the topic in reliable sources. --Elonka 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• As such, are their actually any sources than seriously claim him ethnically "Arabic"? The Scythian 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can even find sources calling him Indian, but Arab? We'll have better luck finding sources calling Napoleon Russian.--Enzuru 08:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

his family origins go back to Quraysh tribe i will try to find some sources --Bayrak (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider coming in fresh to this, i don't know all the background to this dispute. But it seems that there is a lot of agreement above. Khomenei's "seyedship" implies/indicates that he has some Arab lineage. I don't think any reasonable person would contest this. Right? However Bayrak, this does not make him an "Arab." He self-identified as Iranian, grew up with persian as his primary language, in persia/iran etc... Remember, Bayrak, "Arab" is not a racial category, but a cultural-linguistic one. There are lots of turks, iranians, and europeans with some arab ancestry, but that does not make them "arab" (anymore than the turkish, iranian and european ancestry of many arabs makes them anything else but arab). Well, I hope this helps (not naive though).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to sources. If Bayrak has reliable sources which refer to Ruhollah Khomeini as Arab, they may be worth reviewing. If there are no sources, it's not worth discussing. --Elonka 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Michael Axworthy's book "Empire of the Mind: A History Of Iran", Khomeini's paternal grandfather was born Seyyed Ahmed Mousavi in Kintur,India.This isn't surprise considering how the part of India,he was born in had a strong Iranian influence which is apparent in the Nawabs who ruled over Awadh (which had included Kintur),the first of whom (Sa'dat Khan( was an Iranian from Nishapur and was a Shiah Muslim.--Azeem Ali (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

Since we came to an agreement about the lead, can we remove the tag suggesting that it be checked for neutrality? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that refer to the entire article? --Enzuru 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, "article or section." I'll make it clear. Indeed the article isn't quite neutral; though I rooted out a few unreliable sources there are still more, and there are may also be some legitimate sources not being used or presented quite right. The lead was difficult enough to resolve, but perhaps someday the rest of the article can be improved as well. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I find that what can be helpful here, is to get rid of the "all article" tag, and just go for inline tags. Specific ones that may be useful:

• {{fact}} - Adds [citation needed]
• {{POV-section}} - Adds banner with "The neutrality of this section is disputed"
• {{disputed-inline}} - Adds [disputed]
• {{pov-statement}} - Adds [neutrality disputed}
• {{lopsided}} - Adds [opinion needs balancing]
• {{vc}} - Adds [unreliable source?]
• {{vs}} - Adds [verification needed]

That way it helps focus exactly where the problems are. If someone can fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time, then the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement about the tag, a discussion thread can be started at the talkpage. If no one's fixing it, and there's no discussion about it within a reasonable amount of time, then the questionable statements can simply be changed or deleted. Hope that helps, --Elonka 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. The main non-neutral section ("Life under Khomeini") is already tagged with POV-section, and its main problems appear to be use of sites like holycrime, daneshjooyan.org. iranhrdc.org (the specific reference is dead in this case), and the drawing of conclusions from primary sources (such as Tahrir al-Vasileh or the radio broadcast about melons). There is also, of course, the material I removed non-RS from earlier, leaving fact tags; unless these items can be backed up with RS we can simply excise them. Though the section has good material (describing changes to life under Khomeini, such as dress codes), it largely being used as a coatrack for material about persecution of Bahais and different types of Islamic radicals (such as MKO). Much of this is not based on proper sources, and more importantly, the section presents a picture of life under Khomeini focused upon the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran. At the last point, checking the usage of the legitimate references (such as Bakhash) may be useful, but mostly I'm concerned about non-RS sources, improper use of sources, and a distracted presentation aimed more to list grievances than to comprehensively describe life under Khomeini. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"the section presents a picture of life under Khomeini focused upon the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran."

• Absolute poverty rose by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of the Islamic revolution and on several occasions the mustazafin have rioted, protesting the demolition of their shantytowns and rising food prices. Disabled war veterans have demonstrated against mismanagement of the Foundation of the Disinherited.
• 1992 March - Protest by disabled war veterans against the mismanagement of the Foundation of the Disinherited. (Mackey, Sandra, The Iranians : Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation by Sandra Mackey, New York : Plume Book, 1998, p.361)
• 1992 May 30 - Protest by squatters against demolition of shantytowns in Mashhad. government buildings set fire, including city's main library with rare Qur'ans. (Mackey p.361)
• 1993 January - Mob attacks on grocery stores in protest against rise in subsidized milk prices (Mackey p.362)
• 1995 April - Akbarabad shantytown on the edge of Tehran explodes in protest over bus fare increases. 30 people die. (Mackey p.366)
• "Provoked by a sharp decline in oil prices and deteriorating economic and social conditions, in April [1995] the protests reached the outskirts of Tehran, where rioters, `armed with clubs and stones,` shouted `Down with the Islamic Republic! Down with Khamanei!` (Brumberg, Reinventing Khomeini, (2001), p.218)
• "The rial, which had already fallen from 7 to the dollar before the revolution, to 1749 to the dollar in 1989, plummeted to 6400 to the dollar in 1995." Abrahamian, Ervand, History of Modern Iran by Ervand Abrahamian, Columbia University Press, 2008, p.185
• According to economist Bijan Khajehpour, as of the mid 1990s, "the majority of the middle-class families sold off their assets to survive economically" and "... the average Iranian is much worse off today than he or she was 20 years ago. Economic hardship is undoubtedly the main source of discontent with the Islamic revolution." (source: "Iran’s Economy: 20 years after the Islamic Revolution" by Bijan Khajehpour, from: Iran at the Crossroads, edited by John Esposito and R.K. Ramazani, New York : Palgrave, 2001, p.112, 120)...

As we rewrite the article and contemplate all the wonderful things the Imam has brought to Iran, let us not focus our energy on close inspection of wikipedia regulations to think up reasons to delete facts from the article that others ... do not need to know about. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, we are talking about Life under Khomeini. Khomeini died in 1989. Most of your examples refer to life during the mid-1990s. Need I explain more?

You're absolutely right, they should be in a legacy section not a life under section. -BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, unless a reliable source explicitly describes it as his legacy, we won't include those items, for to do so reeks of original research, used to hang grievances and place blame on Khomeini without the explicit backing of reliable sources. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind those relevant points, assuming they are general trends and explicitly tied to Khomeini (rather than the war or the revolution or anything else). For example, your item that actually falls within Khomeini's lifetime (Absolute poverty rose by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of the Islamic revolution) would need to be tied specifically to "Khomeini" in order to be relevant to his biography.

That's odd. You didn't mention anything about the lack of information explicitly tied to Khomeini in your earlier complaint. It was all about avoiding the negative experience of a few rather than general trends applicable to the majority of Iran. It is my duty to point out that the Imam was the Supreme Leader of Iran following the revolution, and such a important post conferes great responsibility for what happens in the country. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the slight change is the result of my realization that, with this section, we hanging up a bunch of items in his biography simply because they occurred while he was Supreme Leader. I sometimes revise my view or approach in response to new evidence or new paths of thought - don't you? Regardless of your perceived "duty" to point out items to the end that he has "great responsibility" for them, well, let's just say that no product of this will be acceptable unless it aligns with the reliable mainstream narrative. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to remain in the biography article (rather than in a history article about Iran during the 1980s), Khomeini needs to be tied directly to any item by the reliable source, otherwise we are using the fact that Khomeini happened to be ruling to associate some trend with him. This article will not be used as a coatrack for things that you believe "the Imam has brought to Iran" by virtue of ruling Iran while they occurred, or in the case of your miraculous examples, things that occurred some years after his death. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to blame Khomeini for the cited problems would be like blaming George Washington for Watergate, the Great Depression, or the Iraq War. Polemics don't belong in the article, and there should be a high burden of proof if you can't use common sense.--70.224.16.81 (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing Khomeini as "Scholar" is Blatant POV

Except for that uninspiring poem that is quoted in the article, what sort of scholarly contribution has Khomeini made to the world's body of knowledge? Writing a fatwa that commands people to kill an author of a book does not qualify as "scholarly" in my view. John Paul Parks (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

--- it seems you don't know much about ulema. forget scholar, this man is a philosopher king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.106.122 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

edits to Life under Khomeini

I'm going to make some edits to the Life_under_Khomeinisection issues where there seems to be a consensus. i.e I'm going to shorten the minorities section and remove comments about life in Iran after Khomeini --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to alter the section on economy. I'm going to make mention of the war as a probable contributing factor to the economy and emigration. The article makes mention of the possible effect it had on the economy, but not emigration. It seems a little POV to go on about people leaving the country during his reign without mentionng the country was invaded a year after he came to power. The faltering economy and emigration need to be more clearly put in the context of the war. Any objections? 72.66.14.247 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about edit by 69.208.133.204

69.208.133.204 ed summary says: how is rioting in 1992 relevant here? every country has poverty. this looks more like we are trying to tie anything negative that we can to Khomeini.
He tagged the section

As he and baby turkey have pointed out events happening in 1992 can't really be put in a section titled Life under Khomeini since Khomeini died in 1989. On the other hand it's pretty safe to say that what happens in a country with a constitution/governmental system overseen by supreme leader Khomeini and created in revolution led by Khomeini is relevant to an article about Khomeini.
Poverty and rioting by unhappy poor is especially relevant because the Ideology of Iranian Revolution was about helping the poor. One of the reasons Khomeini felt Islamic government was necessary was to prevent "encroachment by oppressive ruling classes on the rights of the weak," and plundering and corrupting the people for the sake of "pleasure and material interest," (from p.54 of the book Islamic Government)

I propose the text in question be sumarized and put in the legacy section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but we're still probably best leaving it up to reliable sources to tie these figures to Khomeini. This might actually be possible to find, but things like gemsofislam shouldn't be used since they are not reliable. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevancy should be established by the source, not by the editor.--134.68.77.116 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

edits made to

I've made some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khomeini#Emigration_and_economy to remove post-Khomeini material. Does anyone still think it is "straying from the topic"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It could use a bit of formatting, but I removed the tag since it seems to be more well-sourced and on-topic. If you could use objective measurements from reliable sources instead of somewhat polemical quotes from somewhat questionable sources this wouldn't be as much of an issue. This would probably make a stronger case anyways. Anyways, happy editing!--68.248.152.92 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, I deleted The guy is not beloved by most Iranians! as "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased description of Operation Ajax

The description of Operation Ajax as a "coup d'état" is biased. Operation Ajax was an action to suppress an uprising against a decision by the Shah to replace a popular prime minister, a power which the Shah had under the Iranian constitution at the time. Thus, the article would be more accurate in stating that the Revolutionaries viewed Operation Ajax as a "coup d'état." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.35.189 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

reliable source? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

There is some material by an Alan Peters (nom de plum) and others asserting that Khomeini was the son of the extraordinary British convert to Islam, William Richard Williamson. As there is no consensus as to what his actual surname was during the Shah's time (Mustafavi according to Taheri, Musavi according to Wikipedia, something else according to Moin, & Hindi according to others), it seems probable that evidence of this Williamson or other Western lineage was erased by the Islamic Republic after he came to power. There is no mention of his Kashmiri mother let alone brothers running businesses under their British surname. Obviously Iranians would not have comprehended the Williamson connection and would have imagined the worst. During Khomeini's first uprising in the 1960's some journalists researching Khomeini, were astounded to discover that there were no records or files under any of these names. There was simply, no such person as Ruhollah Khomeini.
Moreover, as a Musavi or descendent of the Imam Musa Kazim, his lineage should have been recorded in Al Azhar university in Cairo and it is not. Can any exiled journalists, Amir Taheri, Baqer Moin et al, show some documentation (not from the Islamic Republic) that shows Khomeini as whatever? I guess even if it came to that, forging an old style birth certificate (with a lion and sun emblem) would not be difficult for the government of Iran, but getting the Al Azhar in Cairo to show something of his lineage would be more convincing. --Wool Bridge (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Give us some relieable sources and we can make a sectoin on conspiracy theories. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

sean connery

we should add some info related to his look-alikeness on sean connery, definitely, it's on the rules, important facts go on the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.19.39 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beloved by millions of Iranians

Is this phrase actually necessary? What does it add to the article that the next sentence "Khomeini was a "charismatic leader of immense popularity" fail to add. I suggest we remove the phrase because it is entirely the wrong tone for an encylopedia article.Theresa Knott | token threats 08:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which source it is originally from, but during the recent edit war I added another New York Times article to show that it is neither original to Wikipedia nor the invention of Khomeini's propagandists. I also added the "charismatic leader of immense popularity" from Encyclopaedia of Islam in case the IP was genuinely concerned about RS... which, of course, he wasn't, representing instead the familiar MPOV attitude I described on my talk page.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "necessary," or "wrong tone for an encyclopedia article." Since Khomeini's reputation is mixed, we inevitably must describe multiple, opposing POVs in order to take an NPOV. The evaluation of his popularity is hardly "propaganda," as a cursory glance at the sources should demonstrate, and our presentation of it certainly isn't, considering the negative opinions covered in the same paragraph, so it is not clear why we should dilute our description of one POV while leaving the other POV untouched. The tone is that used by RS; we have simply describe both sides without endorsing any. If there is an issue of WP:UNDUE, please elaborate, as I simply do not see it. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that he was a "popular leader" but I don't think we need to use the term "beloved" just because the source does. The problem I have with the word is it is subjective. Popularity is easy- you can count the number of people who show support and if that number is above a certain percentage of the whole then he is "popular". But beloved? How do we assess that? Just because once source says he was doesn't mean it's true. It's a subjective term. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What about removing the phrase but keeping the source (adding it to the next sentence). Or rewriting it as Describe by "Philip Shennon of the New York Times as "beloved by millions" to at least inform the reader's that this was one mans opinion not that of Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again it is not clear why we should give this RS exceptional treatment. We already use a footnote to cite Shennon, and as there is no clear reason to distance ourselves and even cast doubt from this assessment (or that of Arjomand, or that of TIME, &c.), I see no reason to single this out as "one mans opinion" simply because he chose the word "beloved" instead of "immensely popular" or some other variant. If the reader questions our use of the source, he can check it using the citation, and he will find that "beloved" is not original research but rather the assessment of a reliable source. Furthermore, there is always the honored tradition called "reading the whole paragraph" to see that Wikipedia carries the views of detractors as well. If Shennon, as a journalist, described the great magnitude and scope of Khomeini's popularity instead than covering it up or downplaying it, why shouldn't we? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Overviewing the paragraph again, it would seem that we do not go over the fact he was controversial in his in own country, as well as popular in some other Muslim countries. I think we make a somewhat artificial domestic and foreign divide. However, I don't know the magnitude of those who disliked him in Iran, it could be WP:UNDUE, especially considering the Iranians that are the best in English are the ones who fled the country after the revolution anyway. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We might be able to squeeze something in about non-supporters in Iran, but at risk of undue weight and bloat. We already include a good summary of his image outside of his supporters, so really we only might clarify that there are non-supporters in Iran, a fact which should be clear enough from the body of the article. Despite this hesitance of mine, I'm willing to consider any proposed addition. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused, do you really think we could hit WP:UNDUE with this? While Khomeini may have been viewed almost universally as the spiritual component the Iranian revolution, even by the communists and other groups, certainly when he attained power (now the Islamic revolution) he was no longer a hero for these groups which were prominent. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was sort of just following your line there ("it could be WP:UNDUE"), but it is largely a matter of proportion and presentation. I'd like to judge proposals on a case-by-case basis instead of making a blanket statement. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality against him

The article is against him and saying bad stuff about him. It seems to be written by people allied with the U.S.A. government who hate him. He is not bad. He is very nice and good.99.247.0.42 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, yea the CIA is editing wikipedia. Get a clue. This politician has ordered death threats on an author, i bet you're willing to tell me he's a champion of civil liberties too huh? --66.158.232.98 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a SAVAK agent, not a CIA one, thank you very much. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is biased against him unfairly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.68 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

more on "Beloved by millions of Iranians"?

Is this phrase actually necessary? What does it add to the article that the next sentence "Khomeini was a "charismatic leader of immense popularity" fail to add. I suggest we remove the phrase because it is entirely the wrong tone for an encylopedia article.Theresa Knott | token threats 08:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that currently the phrase is still in the article. The book Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin (p.312-13) describes the extraordinary funeral of Khomeini.

Several million people came to the cemetary "in a completely spontaneous and unorchestrated outpouring of grief." The body had to be carried in by helicopter the crowds were so big, but this didn't stop the crowd from taking control of the body as soon as the helicopter landed. Khomeini's white shroud was torn to pieces and taken by the mourners as holy relics. Eventually the body was recovered and placed in an ambulance to be taken back to the helicopter, but even as the helicopter tried to leave the mourners clung on, preventing it from taking off. Finally the body was taken to north Tehran to go through the shrouding ritual once again and sealed in a metal container for good measure. When the body landed back at the graveyard crowds once again broke through the Revolutionary Guard security cordons but body was finally buried. About 10,000 Iranians were injured and dozens killed by the press of crowds during the funeral.

Bear in mind this came after Khomeini had signed a status quo ante truce ending the Iran-Iraq War - a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, and a war in which Khoemini put his prestige on the line to continue for years.

I put it to you that if there is any political leader in the 20th century that deserved to be called "beloved by millions" it is Khomeini (well Ghandi too). People like David Beckham may be "charismatic" and have "immense popularity," but Khomeini was beloved. I put it to you that deleting the phrase would not make the article more "encyclopedic" but would be tampering with its accuracy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a child

IMHO the article contradicts itself, it says

"Ruhollah Khomeini began to study the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, and elementary Persian at age six."

and following that says:

"As a precocious child, he was already, at the tender age of six, able to recite the whole Qur'an by heart."

This is the source of the second claim, I'm not sure if it trustable enough, since it only cites it. But it makes no sense to claim a child starts studying the Qur'an (and as far as the article says, education as a whole) at age six and in the same year is able to recite it by heart. Also, even if we keep the second phrase, I suggest we remove the "tender" from the age. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

About "tender" I was thinking just the same thing the other day. The entire "precocious" sentence should be removed. Thanks for bringing this up. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, the source after "child" says that he memorized parts of the Quran at the age of six, while the "King of the Mountain" source claims he memorized the whole Quran. I'm inclined to side with the former. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So, can I remove the "As a precocious child, he was already, at the tender age of six, able to recite the whole Qur'an by heart" phrase? Anyone disagrees? Uirauna (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the entry. Uirauna (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Habits section

Something is disordered about the references in the Habits section. I'm not sure what was meant to be listed. Can somebody who does please fix it? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Briley2

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=281107363&oldid=280480133 Edit summary: (Completely false and on the contrary in the Iranian Jews article is clearly states, he gave Jews and minority religions equal rights. Please provide a real online source to these statements.)

These edits are very bad. Sharia law and the constitution of the Islamic Republic do not give "Jews and minority religions equal rights"; Bakhash, The Reign of the Ayatollahs, (1984), is a very good and scholarly book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He is right in pointing out that iranian.com is not a reliable source, but if it is truly by Matini then it should not be a problem. Ideally, we we would use Matini hosted at a reliable source, but so long as there is no reason to believe that something has been falsified in the iranian.com article, it is not a big deal. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article legnth and criticism

Is this article perhaps a little lengthy? Also, haven't their been fatwas from muslim scholars against khomeni? Faro0485 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

POV

It is not appropriate to quote a magazine from a country that was hostile to Iran in the leading page of Iran's leader. Statements like "fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre" are not appropriate for the first paragraph. Mitso Bel (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you: unless it is from a publication from a country that was "friends" with Iran under the late Khomeini, it can't be used as a source? -->David Shankbone 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

US was the most hostile country to Iran at the time. Such hostile statements cannot be included unless a positive judgment from Khomeini's supporters are also included. By the way the article you cited did not directly mentions this statement as the reason why he was called man of the year. Mitso Bel (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)You are raising a POV argument. You state that because Time Magazine is American, and because American-Iranian governmental relations were hostile during Khomeini's reign, that the Time magazine article is POV itself (negative) and the only way to make this Wikipedia article NPOV is to include a POV statement from a supportive magazine. That logic doesn't hold up, because the premise--Time magazine is a POV source because it is American--does not hold up. Sorry. And in the first paragraph of the article the quote is found:

To Iran's Shi'ite Muslim laity, he is the Imam, an ascetic spiritual leader whose teachings are unquestioned. To hundreds of millions of others, he is a fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal.

I don't know where you got that it doesn't note the reasons. They are the introductory reasons. -->David Shankbone 17:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The title "Times Magazine Man of The Year" only suggests that he was possibly highly influential. The first paragraph of the article has both positive and negative statements about Khomeini. You only chose the negative one and this is POV. Time Magazine is no more reliable than any other magazines of this kind throughout the world including the Iranian ones. In any case it only reflects the viewpoints of some Americans about a leader in another country. You do not want to include the judgment of an Iranian newspaper about an American president at the leading paragraph of the person. In any case, your source does not support your edits. Sorry this is POV. Mitso Bel (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the direct quote from the Time magazine for more context. That should also solve the POV problem, as the longer quote is more neutral. --Sina111 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

issues in article's lead section

I appologize for not replying to this issue earlier as I wrote much of the disputed text. The point of the TIME quote is to juxtipose the intense feelings the Imam arroused in the different communities. In Iran,millions attented his funeral and dozens were killed in the heat and melie to touch his coffin. In the US feelings were also very high ... but in the opposite direction. (The two countries might be called the two "poles" of feeling, with many non-US non-Muslims disliking Khomeini and many non-Iranian Islamists very excited about him.)

So to skip this issue is to miss a huge part of his impact. Yes there were some Iranian who did not admire him, and I'm sure many people at counterpunch and Z magazine who did, but the WP:Lead has to serve "as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

So I propose to clean up the lead with both "sides" of the feeling represented:

• Named Man of the Year in 1979 by TIME magazine[8], Khomeini was a "charismatic leader of immense popularity."[4] Beloved by millions of Iranians, he was "the Imam, an ascetic spiritual leader whose teachings are unquestioned"[8]. Both his return from exile and his funeral were occasions of great emotional outpouring for millions.
• Abroad he was known for his support of the hostage takers during the Iranian hostage crisis [5] and his fatwa calling for the death of British citizen Salman Rushdie.[6] The "virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture,"[7] "a fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal."[8]. Iranian American scholar Vali Nasr believes that Khomeini was a man who "escalated anti-Americanism and inculcated fear and distrust towards Islam" during his reign. [7] --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at least interesting to note neither the Bush or Reagan opening paragraphs have statements about what people outside of america thought about them. Kim Jong-il has a quote from CNN. In that regard, systematic POV could be a valid concern. In looking at Putin, Merkel, Morales, Chavez and a few others it appears much more likely that leaders that are controversial to the US government are likely to have a mention of that fact in the leading paragraph. Jeff Carr (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea behind "systemic POV" is interesting, since disparate editors, from disparate backgrounds and nations, likely worked on all of those disparate articles. -->David Shankbone 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason why the leads of articles (not opening paragraphs though) on Bush or Reagan should not have something on the reaction of non-Americans to their administrations. It certainly isn't odd or a sign of bias that an article on Khomeini includes the reaction of foreigners. Khomeini's revolution was not a national revolution, it was an Islamic revolution. He specifically talked about spreading the revolution across the globe, first to the Islamic world and then to the rest of the world. His "foreign policy," or his clash with the West and particularly with the US were a very big part of his revolution and his rule.

If nothing else he saw Iran's (and the Muslim World's) problems as a direct result of foreign imperialists whose plan it was

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 … they and their agents wish to go on living in huge palaces and enjoying lives of abominable luxury. [Islamic Government, from p. 34 of Islam and Revolution]

See also his last will and testiment and here. And of course the holding of dozens of diplomats and embassy employees hostage for over a year is pretty much unprecedented in modern times. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Khomeini was arrested in November 1964 and held for half a year."

This sentence in the Opposition to capitulation section appears to contradict other facts. If he was held for half a year, then met with Mansur, then Mansur was assassinated, it would have been around June of 1965. But Mansur died in January of that year. Somebody with a good grasp of the time line should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundermaker (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

According to my information that TIME article is wrong. Capitulations were a big deal in 1964 Autumn. Khomeini was arrested and exiled in November 1964. He was arrested and held earlier. Arrested 1963 June 5 and held until April 1964. My info is from the Baqer Moin bio. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bigot"

Removed one word. Horribly not-neutral. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.233.201 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Terrible man" etc

These lines, which come just after his burial and form a section to themelves, are blatantly POV:

"Khomeini was a terrible man, he led to the death of Iran. He took away women's rights and turned Iran back in time (demodernizing it). He was put in power for what the people thought was temporary, and everyone thought he would be replaced. But no, this non-iranian man stayed to torture Iran's history for years until his death."

Even if it's true that Khomeini was (mostly) no modernizer and that he employed brutal methods (as did the Shah, as did Clemenceau and even Churchill in WW1), those claims are made in a much too sweeping and peremptory way. As they stand, they're simply supposed to represent the final judgment of history on the man. Remove and write something more reasoned and more linked to *who* holds a specific view.Strausszek (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody else quickly lifted that out while I was calling attention to it here, seems it was only in for less than two hours. Good!Strausszek (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Successorship

It seems odd to me that the section on "Successorship" doesn't say the outcome--who ended up as successor and how. I'm not sure this article is the place for the full story, but I don't understand why the bits that were selected for inclusion here were the ones to include. Am I missing something or is this simply something that needs work. Maybe the Supreme Leader of Iran article is the place for the full story? If all the bits in different places were assembled there, then it would be feasible to pick out what's the right stuff to include in other articles, like this one.

I'm writing as a puzzled reader, not from a position of knowledge about the history.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Have added the name of the successor. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In editing I also deleted a lot of persian language regime sources contending that other marja's supported Khomeini's interpretation of velayat-e faqih. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhollah_Khomeini&diff=301056931&oldid=301052458

As the issue of the sentence is why the constitution was changed to allow non-marja to be leader, this seems irrelevent. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Loved by Millions- whats wrong with it?

What is so wrong about this that its causing such a fuss? is it because of self denial - people can't handle that so many people adore him? Why should imensly liked be used instead, i mean come on people stop behaving so childishly. People loved this man and were ready to sacrifice themselves for him, why shouldn't it be said and known to the world??? and to be honest this article is definatly biased and sometimes put khomeini in a bad picture...i ask myself were the hell did they get these references from. but then i guess anyone can write in wikipedia and edit. People if you have a problem don't try and cover it up, you have a problem with millions loving him, tough luck, its a fact that can't be edited... or covered up by a few pathetic words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.106.162 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini Picture Change

Can soemone change the current picture of the Mausoleum of Khomeini to this one, the current one is ugly and blurry, with the lights dragging and ruining the picture. Here is a much better one to replace it with. Thanks.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://image07.webshots.com/7/1/4/43/87910443WkVWjH_ph.jpg&imgrefurl=http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1087910443047667045WkVWjH&usg=__gRRxQY1D31_sIMBpr5shbDwq3us=&h=454&w=640&sz=120&hl=en&start=58&sig2=05ZiME-oMoOhePTYf2TBzA&um=1&tbnid=Bql0h-gdsCkrCM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmausoleum%2Bof%2Bkhomeini%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D40%26um%3D1&ei=8XghS-iOBZritQPx79XWBA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes section

It was obviously a sick joke and had no place in the article. The Quotes were probably made up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.68 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My dear, it was neither a joke nor made up. I put these quotes back. Just go and buy Khomeini's books and then come and judge after. --Iranihastim555 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can we make up our minds and decide on a single picture instead of changing it almost every day? Please post your options here and we'll elect one. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

At least replace the image that has been deleted... Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture we have of him.

Why is it so sentimental? Of all the "normal" pictures we could have put there, why do we have him hugging a kid? Are we going out of our way to show that he's a nice guy or something? I don't think we should do that. I think we should just have a plain image of him giving a speech or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.111.157 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruhollah Khomeini's biography garble in wikipedia

he is an irainian person not an indian. his paternity is iranian and he born in iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.161.96 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IN Michael Axworthy's book "Empire of the Mind: A History Of Iran", it is described how Khomeini's paternal grandfather was born Seyyed Ahmed Mousavi in Kintur,India.This isn't surprise considering how the part of India,he was born in had a strong Iranian influence which is apparent in the Nawabs who ruled over Awadh (which had included Kintur),the first of whom (Sa'dat Khan) was an Iranian from Nishapur and was a Shiah Muslim.- --Azeem Ali (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth, death and the name of Khomeini

Khomeini asserted himself was born in 30 Shahrivar 1281 (AP) against the September 22, 1902, but her birthday in profile, 1279 (1900) is equal to the date is wrong.

Khomeini's death is at 3 June 1989 (13 Khordad 1368). But in Iran has been recorded at 4 June (14 Khordad).

Name of Khomeini's birth certificates is Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi. Khomeini himself is termed Ruhollah Moosavi Khomeini. Khomeini is known as Imam Khomeini inside Iran and amongst in world Ayatollah Khomeini. full name of Khomeini With titles is Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi Moosavi Khomeini (Persian: آیت‌اللّه سید روح‌اللّه مصطفوی موسوی خمینی). Negonbangoni (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)