Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini/Archive 2

message: 199.172.169.17 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a picture of Hitler. If it was there it's probably removed. AucamanTalk 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, politically motivated works like "Living In Hell" by Ghazal Omid  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)
thread_title: Indian Origin

message: "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)
thread_title: Referendum

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title?

message: Ruh is the transliteration of the Farsi word for spirit.
--66.81.192.202 15:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruhollah = Spirit of Allah 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've corrected the link. Next time do it yourself or see the history page for more information. AucamanTalk 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Taqriti - Saddam Tiqriti - Saddam Hussein? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is not true 

message: I edited the article, At least now it's somehow true.
(Arad 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OK, looks like now the article is fine 

message: 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. AucamanTalk 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: tolerance of other religions

message: 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. AucamanTalk 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Views on sex

message: 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. AucamanTalk 06:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text:  I Agree. Thank You for the support Shervink.(Arad 02:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your only source is an anti-Khomeini website. SouthernComfort 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can you give links to those places? --Khoikhoi 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just google any piece of the text for example --CltFn 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Views on sex section

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tahrir-ul-Vaseela 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please discuss before deleting or editing. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can you enlighten me? 

message: 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). AucamanTalk 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 13:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really answer my question. SouthernComfort 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Views on non-Muslims

message: 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. AucamanTalk 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already explained above. Read my comments carefully. SouthernComfort 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 04:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: If it is an uncivil remark, then it is the mildest ever. Pecher Talk 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your POV. SouthernComfort 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution? 

message: 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. AucamanTalk 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 04:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: If it is an uncivil remark, then it is the mildest ever. Pecher Talk 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your POV. SouthernComfort 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One of the most influential men of the 20thC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: <P>Finding that no one contests the statements by Khomeini on Jews quoted above, and that <I>velayat-e-faqih</I> contains passages such as:
<P>"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]
  
<P>... I propose some changes to the article text.
<P><B>Current passage:</B> 
<P>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 (<I>Shari’ah</I>), 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.
<P>Problems: 
<LI> current: <I>Kashf al-Asrar</I> "laid out his beliefs as such: that all laws in an Islamic society should be based on the laws of God (<I>Shari’ah</I>), all laws and activities should be monitored by clerical authorities on Islamic law (guardians)."
<BR><BR>Khomeini's beliefs were not static but changed over time. In his first book, <I>Kashf al-Asrar</I>, 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 ..." ( <I>Islam and Revolution</I>, p.170)  
<BR><BR>In <I>Velayat-e-Faqih</I> 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" (<I>Islam and Revolution</I>, p.27)
<BR><BR>In January 1988 Khomeini reversed himself again, proclaimed in a letter to the president `Ali Khamene`i that the <I>shari’ah</I> ("God's law") was <I>subordinate</I> to Islamic government: 
<BR>"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] <I>Kayhan</I> 2.1.88. Quoted in The Constitution of Iran by Asghar Schirazi, circa p.230 </LI>
<LI>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. </LI>
<LI> 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.</LI> 
<LI> "The Supreme Leader, as the post is officially called, would have absolute authority." Something should be said about the fact that the <I>velayat-e-faqih</I> 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." </LI>  
<LI>"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."
<BR><BR>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.</LI>
<P><B>Proposed revision to deal with problems:</B> 
<P>In 1970, while in exile, Khomeini wrote his most important book <I>Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists</I> (<I>velayat-e-faqih</I>). It laid out his evolving belief that correct Islamic government required not only strict observance of divine law, (the traditional Islamic <I>shari'ah</I> law), but the elimination of the monarchy and its replacement with rule (or "guardianship") of an Islamic jurist (or <I>faqih</I>) to ensure <I>shari'ah</I> was enforced. This guardianship would eliminate (what Khomeini believed was) the control by foreigners and Jews of Iran and other Muslim countries -- 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 <I>Rahbar-e Moazam</I>) served as guardian <I>faqih</I>, and Islamic clerics were given extensive control of Iranian institutions. 
<P>see: Iran
<P>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)
thread_title:  Khomeini, Jews, and <I>velayat-e-faqih</I>: Proposed Changes in Article 

message: As you can see from this diff  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: False accusations by tickle me

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I already asked someone to try to mediate this, but his questions simply went ignored. AucamanTalk 05:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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. Violated Wikipedia official policies/guidelines include: WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:POINT. AucamanTalk 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait until the dispute is resolved - reverting to your version isn't goint to solve anything. --Khoikhoi 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Update

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AucamanTalk 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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). AucamanTalk 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  AucamanTalk 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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  regarding whether or not "People of the Book" are considered "najis" in Shi'ism. SouthernComfort 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

message: In defense of Aucaman it must be pointed out
<LI> That while there are many mullahs who believe <I>kuffar</I> (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 <I>A Clarification of Questions: An Unabridged Translation of the "Resaleh Towzih al-Masael"</I>, 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 <I>E'lamieh Hay Imam Khomeini</I> (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,`
<LI>As for the accuracy of Lewis's translation, here is  "clarification #83", on p.48 of <I>A Clarification of Questions : An Unabridged Translation of Resaleh Towzih al-Masael</I> 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, <I>non-Moslem men and women</I>, 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)
thread_title:  The "Uncleanness" of Non-Muslims - Is the issue relevance? Is the quotation of Khomeini accurate? 

message: <LI>The following is from vol.1 p.118 of Khomeini's Tahrir al-Wasilah. Note 
::<LI>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 
::<LI>the translation is from a Bonyad of the IRI. </LI></UL>
   
: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)
<LI>The following quote of Khomeini is from the book <I>Ruhani, Nahzat-e Imam Khomeini</I> (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.] 
<LI>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]</LI>
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)
thread_title:  Still More Translations of Khomeini on non-Muslims, etc. 

message: 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.
<LI>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)
replies: text: 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: <I>Persian Mirrors</I> by Elaine Sciolino Free Press, 2006, p.216 
<P>Ebudswenson 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Uncleanness" of Non-Muslims - Did Khomeini's Islamic Revolution renew traditional ideas of ''najes''? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just to poke some fun: they actually don't even shake hands. --tickle me 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaking hands with [[Neturei Karta]]