The Tahrirolvasyleh: Khomeini writes rules for Pedophilia?

[mswas]

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

http://g33klite.com/index.php/facts/general/76-general/299-the-controversial-tahrirolvasyleh-book

Does anyone know if this is true? Any Farsi speakers here? Did Khomeini really write this?

[SandyHook]

I got nothin’, but sure looking forward to getting an answer to the OP.

[Will_Repair]

Wiki.

Oops, time on public library up.

[mutantmoose]

Well, I got up to page 10 of google. Whilst the book itself exists there seems to be some doubt about whether the quoted portion exists or, if it does, whether it has been translated correctly. Many websites that are hostile to Iran or hostile to islam (or both) simply list the quotes. Muslim sites refute them saying that he can’t have written such things because islam doesn’t allow such behaviour so it wouldn’t make sense for him to write them.

The book was written in Arabic not Farsi so even Iranians probably wouldn’t be able to translate it properly. An example of the possibility of mis-translation is given in this website (Yahoo answers):

One of the “quotes” from the book is:

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.

whereas the correct translation (according to the Yahoo guy) should be:

22-One of things which will cause an animal to be Haram, although it was originally Halal, is a human having sex with it and … because of this work (sodomizing the animal) its meat and the meat of its lamb which will be born after sodomizing will all be Haram, along with its milk, wool, and hair.

23- If the animal which someone had sex with is an edible animal like a sheep, cow, or camel it should be killed (Zebh) and burned. If it is one of the animals which is not usually eaten but is used for riding and transportation, like a horse or donkey, it should be taken out of the city and sold in another city.

This being the straight dope, I wouldn’t like to attempt to give a definitive verdict without knowing for sure one way or the other. You can download the book itself from here but it’s a hefty tome in two volumes and it’s all in Arabic, so good luck with that.

Or you can write to the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and ask him. Apparently he does actually reply to questions.

A couple of other points:

• muslim sites often refute the quotes on the grounds that, when the quotes are listed, they always state that they are from the 4th volume of the book whereas the book didn’t have a 4th volume. However this just seems to be an error - they are from the 4th edition of the book not the 4th volume (if they exist at all that is).

• some of the quotes are from a different book - the Little Green Book - which you can find on the prophet of doom website.

• the quotes seem to have originated (on the web at least) from one website - homa.org which is a faith freedom type site run by a dissatisfied Iranian. Doesn’t mean they’re not true, of course, but always nice to know the source of things to weigh up the possibility of bias.

[Moirai]

Wait, so sodomizing an animal will make it Haram? Damn, you learn something new every day on the Dope…

[CaerieD]

As sodomy is generally considered to be taboo in Islam, I sincerely doubt that passage is correct.

[Argent_Towers]

A lot of people tend to make up stuff about Islam nowadays, just like a lot of people in the Muslim world like to make up things about Judaism. This passage seems like one of those things that gets made up and then spread around to try and get people to hate the Muslim religion.

I mean, if you’re looking for things to hate about a religion, there’s usually enough in the actual text that you don’t need to resort to making things up. That’s just a low move.

[mutantmoose]

It’s not advocating sodomy or bestiality. It’s just saying that, in the event an animal has been sodomised, you can no longer eat it.

Seems a little superfluous declaring the meat haram after having just committed the even bigger sin of buggering the poor thing but he’s just covering all the bases I suppose.

Personally I’ve always thought that if you’re going to be hung for stealing a sheep, you might as well shag it as well.

[slaphead]

@mutantmoose

It’s not advocating sodomy or bestiality. It’s just saying that, in the event an animal has been sodomised, you can no longer eat it.

Seems a little superfluous declaring the meat haram after having just committed the even bigger sin of buggering the poor thing but he’s just covering all the bases I suppose.

Personally I’ve always thought that if you’re going to be hung for stealing a sheep, you might as well shag it as well.

But what are your thoughts about being sold some lamb chops from sheep someone else has shagged?

Sounds to me like Khomeini was writing some consumer protection rules to prevent tainted (or at least molested) meat being sold as halal. Protecting his flock, so to speak.

[sweeteviljesus]

You can spend you whole life studying the Koran and not be called a Koran scholar, but you fuck one sheep…

[Will_Repair]

It make more sense to accept the translation that says don’t eat meat that someone has porked.

[Chimera]

She slandered someone saying she shagged some sheep?

[mswas]

Interesting about the bestiality thing.

Anyone have anything on the question in the OP though? Tamerlane?

[sqweels]

@Chimera

She slandered someone saying she shagged some sheep?

Say that 3 times fast while facing Mecca.

[sqweels]

@slaphead

But what are your thoughts about being sold some lamb chops from sheep someone else has shagged?

Sounds to me like Khomeini was writing some consumer protection rules to prevent tainted (or at least molested) meat being sold as halal. Protecting his flock, so to speak.

But how dumb do you have to be to think that a guy sticking his dick in a female animal will result in its muscle tissue getting infected?

Certain cultures make no distinction between genuine physial infection by diease orgainsm and things being “tainted” by purely symbolic associations. That’s just foolish, and yet if you point that out, they go all PC on your ass.

[sqweels]

@Will Repair

It make more sense to accept the translation that says don’t eat meat that someone has porked.

Oh, I get it. I think the Muslims are taking that verb too literally.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@sqweels

But how dumb do you have to be to think that a guy sticking his dick in a female animal will result in its muscle tissue getting infected?

Certain cultures make no distinction between genuine physial infection by diease orgainsm and things being “tainted” by purely symbolic associations. That’s just foolish, and yet if you point that out, they go all PC on your ass.

There’s no particular link between whether consumption of a particular foodstuff is Haram and disease.

Consumption of donkey meat may be haram for practical reasons- donkeys are much more useful for carrying things (and people) than as dinner. There’s no particular practical reason (AFAIK) for the Jewish and Muslim prohibition of pork, however. Pork is no more likely than beef or mutton to carry disease.

[clairobscur]

@sqweels

But how dumb do you have to be to think that a guy sticking his dick in a female animal will result in its muscle tissue getting infected?

Food being haram has nothing to do with it being infected. It just mean that it’s forbidden. It’s exactly the same as non kosher food for the Jews.
Apart from that, I notice that the part of the OP about paedophilia has not yet been answered.

[Tamerlane]

@mswas

Anyone have anything on the question in the OP though? Tamerlane?

No definitive answers from me, sorry. Neither my Arabic nor Farsi is up to snuff ( i.e. they are nonexistent ) and while I did poke around a bit, mutantmoose apparently stuck with it longer than I did. I wore out about google page 5 and three dueling message groups arguments in.

Ervand Abrahamian in Khomeinism:* Essays on the Islamic Republic* ( 1993, University of Cali9fornia Press ) reports it as Towzih al-Masa’el ( ‘Questions Answered’ ), the de rigeur qualifying theological publication required to establish Grand Ayatollah status and reports it as being published at Najaf in 1961. Another report claims it was first collated and released in 1965 at Bursa, during his first year of political exile, but I’d tend to go with Abrahamian. However Abrahamian doesn’t really go into it much, except as it tangentially implies some of his political leanings at the time.

Some of it has been translated and placed on the web, but it appears to be an ongoing project and the relevant sections haven’t seen the light of day yet.

So whether it is out and out vile calumny, a mistranslation or taken out of context, or an entirely accurate representation of his theological stance in 1950’s and early 60’s ( he would have worked on it for some time, while studying to be a Grand Ayatollah ), I have no idea.

[mswas]

I took the advice and sent a letter to Sistani asking him about it.