From the sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini

[Alkman]

From the sayings of the disgusting Ayatollah Khomeini




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. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Gom, Iran, 1990]

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, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable. ["Tahrirolvasyleh"]

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.

Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not. If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid. During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.



A woman who has contracted a continuing marriage does not have the right to go out of the house without her husband's permission; she must remain at his disposal for the fulfillment of any one of his desires, and may not refuse herself to him except for a religiously valid reason. If she is totally submissive to him, the husband must provide her with her food, clothing, and lodging, whether or not he has the means to do so. A woman who refuses herself to her husband is guilty, and may not demand from him food, clothing, lodging, or any later sexual relations; however, she retains the right to be paid damages if she is repudiated.



If a father (or paternal grandfather) marries off his daughter (or granddaughter) in her absence without knowing for a certainty that she is alive, the marriage becomes null and void as soon as it is established that she was dead at the time of the marriage.

If a man commits adultery with an unmarried woman, and subsequently marries her, the child born of that marriage will be a bastard unless the parents can be sure it was conceived after they were married. A child born of an adulterous father is legitimate.

Ali [son in law of Mohammed], having cut off the hands of two thieves, treated their wounds and offered them his hospitality, and this affected them so much that they became utterly devoted to him; or again when he heard that the marauding army of Muawiyah had abused a woman of one of the tribes, he was so upset and moved to pity he declared: "If a man died after such an occurrence, no one could blame him." And yet, despite a nature as sensitive as that, Ali bared his sword and hacked the perpetrators to pieces. This is the meaning of justice. - "The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious" (The Little Green Book), ISBN number 0-553-14032-9.





Paedophilia legal in Iran


In June, 2002 Iranian authorities approved a law raising the age at which girls can marry without parental consent from 9 to 13. The elected legislature actually passed the bill in 2000, but the "Guardian Council", a 12-man body of conservative clerics, vetoed it as contradicting Islamic Sharia law. Iran's clerical establishment insists that the marriage of young girls is a means to combat immorality. The Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the elected parliament and the theocratic Guardian Council, timidly passed the measure.



The law however does not change the age at which children can get married (nine for girls and 14 for boys), but says that girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents' permission and the approval of a "Righteous Court." Reformists state that the new law does not protect children, since most of those who marry at such a young age do so by force. It is quite common in Iran for older men to marry children, as long as they pay the appropriate bride-price to the girl's family. This basically means that a father can sell his daughter to whomever he wants, whilst the mad mullahs see this as a means of maintaining purity. We prefer to call this child prostitution and rape, especially given that Iran's clerics approve of the 'tradition' of 'temporary marriage' (Sigheh), which can last less than 24 hours and may be repeated as many times as desired. This form of exploitation is widespread and legitimises sex with young children. The man may even visit his temporary wife every weekend at her father’s house, for about $10 per visit. How's pimping?



Australian Ethnikoi Hellenes

[Gil]

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, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

So... selling the meat of the raped animal (as a side note, who had no fault that the human was a despicable being) is OK if it's to the neighbouring village? WTF?

[Agrippa]

Some things sound realistic, others are so idiotic, I refuse to believe he said it. Thats just too stupid...

[Scoob]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Some things sound realistic, others are so idiotic, I refuse to believe he said it. Thats just too stupid...

The parts about sodomy and bestiality were unbelievable.

But as for the parts about marrying women young: some people have said that women aren't really suited for or inclined towards (male) adult public, political, or military discourse. So adulthood becomes a question of physical maturation and emotional readiness to be a wife and mother. From such a standpoint, "Women's Lib" seems highly ovverrated ("liberation" to what: work and take care of a family?), and some aspects of Islamic (i.e., traditional) attitudes towards women seem more reasonable and even respectful and sensitive.

[Agrippa]

Still there is a difference between "women liberation" and "emancipation" of that kind we see in the degenerated West, what some radical Islamists want and what might be a reasonable order for us Europeans and probably humans in general in the future. Both things are too extreme and to allow a man to take a 9 year old girl as wife and to do with her what he wants has nothing to do with reasonable rules.
But of course, even if I dont accept such "moral", some people might and I know that some do, so its "realistic" if someone says Khomeini said such things, it must not be the case, but it sounds possible, but the other things, oh well, thats so perverse or just stupid, I still refuse to believe that he said that...

[Helith]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Still there is a difference between "women liberation" and "emancipation" of that kind we see in the degenerated West, what some radical Islamists want and what might be a reasonable order for us Europeans and probably humans in general in the future. Both things are too extreme and to allow a man to take a 9 year old girl as wife and to do with her what he wants has nothing to do with reasonable rules.
But of course, even if I dont accept such "moral", some people might and I know that some do, so its "realistic" if someone says Khomeini said such things, it must not be the case, but it sounds possible, but the other things, oh well, thats so perverse or just stupid, I still refuse to believe that he said that...

Just a question...why can you not believe that he said that?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Helith

Just a question...why can you not believe that he said that?

Though I know Islam has many bad sides, this sounds too "un-Islamic" and barbaric to me, even too perverse for the Oriental culture, especially for Khomeini, who was, generally speaking, not an unintelligent or uncultured person from what I know, just a religious fanatic and political leader...

Probably some things are out of context and should have been like that, "you should not do it" = rule 1; but "if it happens - go on like that...", since homosexuality is not that accepted, neither some other things mentioned here...

[Helith]

Originally Posted by Scoob

The parts about sodomy and bestiality were unbelievable.

But as for the parts about marrying women young: some people have said that women aren't really suited for or inclined towards (male) adult public, political, or military discourse. So adulthood becomes a question of physical maturation and emotional readiness to be a wife and mother. From such a standpoint, "Women's Lib" seems highly ovverrated ("liberation" to what: work and take care of a family?), and some aspects of Islamic (i.e., traditional) attitudes towards women seem more reasonable and even respectful and sensitive.

Seem more reasonable and even respectful and sensitive???!!! May I ask you who these ' some people' you are talking about are?

But of course, we ARE all just eternal girls with underdeveloped brains and with utter lack of discipline...I'll say, why don't you just go ahead and say that to all of us proud Scandinavian WOMEN while you're at it. And as for 'traditional' attitudes towards women go I can assure you that the ' traditional' Scandinavian attitudes towards women run nothing on these lines that you here are describing and these are pure, nordic TRADITIONAL attitudes untainted by this Islamic garbage.

Good god...

[Scoob]

Originally Posted by Helith

Seem more reasonable and even respectful and sensitive???!!! May I ask you who these ' some people' you are talking about are?

But of course, we ARE all just eternal girls with underdeveloped brains and with utter lack of discipline...I'll say, why don't you just go ahead and say that to all of us proud Scandinavian WOMEN while you're at it. And as for 'traditional' attitudes towards women go I can assure you that the ' traditional' Scandinavian attitudes towards women run nothing on these lines that you here are describing and these are pure, nordic TRADITIONAL attitudes untainted by this Islamic garbage.

Good god...

It's just a point of view that's out there, that's all. In fact, such attitudes encouraging separation of gender roles are ubiquitous amongst the settled high cultures of history, including the ancient Greeks, Romans, and many others.

However, not just Germanic and Scandinavian, but also Celtic and even Steppe societies have given women a somewhat stronger role than in settled civilizations. This is part of the Northern European "barbarian" heritage that has typified the dominant Industrial nations of Europe. Relative gender equality goes along with the general openness and equalitarian spirit that is more typical of these societies. But of course, such attitudes are not without negative consequences. It is no coincidence that Italy encourages non-European immigrants to go to the North of Europe, where they will be more welcome.

One of the primary goals of the family is to invest quite a bit of care and training in rearing children. Gender equalitarianism in capitalist societies has simply led to households where both parents work to make ends meet, neither has time to spend raising children, and the children grow up to be rather weak-minded people. All this is an excellent way to have a society of mindless, directionless consumers seeking approval and direction from their job instead of their community/kin. It makes for a society where cultural transmission is "lateral/proximal" (popular, transmitted through peers and media) rather than "traditional" (passed down through family). Some social consequences of this are lack of regard for the past and history, lack of foresight, and small mindedness. In other words, pop culture dictated by chance, whimsy, and corporate agendas.

Women are first and foremost, mothers. Their wombs connect the past with the future for every people. However, they are not the primary builders of any civilization: men are. Look to Africa if you want to see cultures truly dominated by women (and where the men are irresponsible "baby daddies" who don't support or even acknowledge their children or families, much less raise them). All the hype against patriarchy has been an attack on European civilization. If there were no patriarchy, there would literally be no higher civilization.

[Agrippa]

In traditional societies the children had both, a strong father and a strong mother. In the modern West the children lost the male authority to those of the church and state, then they lost their father half to his out of the house wage labour, so he wasnt that often present any more. Finally the mother was going out of the house either, going for foreign wage labour too, so that not only the male authority but the family in itself was secondary after the foreign wage labour. Finally the father was abolished because of the "independent" female, emancipation and the high divorce rates and "sexual revolution".
Finally the children lost their siblings, so whats left is a half mother, imcompetent and manipulating institutions and the media, corporations and subcultures which lead the kids we have in the wrong direction.

Now the out of the house wage labour was necessary for a certain level of specialisation and it was therefore not bad only, but the associated ideologies, female masculinisation in behaviour and economisation of almost all areas of life and the dominance of individualistic and hedomatic and career oriented life concepts caused problems which could have been prevented while keeping the positive effects.

So its wrong to say that the female wagework is the only problem, in fact females worked in the past, they weren't "just" housewives usually, but what they did, they did mostly with the man or in his household, in the family and not outside of it, for foreign people. This was always the main problem. The problem is not the farmer wife working on the field, but the maidservant without a family and background - people which were like mobile and more free slaves compared to traditional societies, without a clan and family, something all Western Europeans except some fringe regions and the aristocracy get. Now even the aristocracy lost it and the fringe regions either. Of course Europe was overpopulated, so detached and childless life concepts were not bad only for a certain (medieval) time, especially if the better parts of the group had still enough children (what was not always the case unfortunately) and this social discipline offered more possibilities for further development.
Again, thats not only bad, since it allows a wider perspective (state wide, nation wide etc.) to the individual, free from family and clan, but the culture must balance things out to keep the group alive and to raise healthy children, sufficient in numbers and quality both if its about their genes and education, which has to be done in the families first or you need a totalitarian state...

In a traditional family the father and the mother worked oftentimes quite alot, but with their children, not without them, so there was no clear border and the identity was clear. That was lost in Europe both by Christianisation and new general socioeconomic structures. The balance was lost latest in the 19th century so new ideologies tried to solve this, and failed against an ideology which says that the chaos and lost structures are good, that the individual freedom is just great and that the control of economy, bourgeois and the market is good - Liberalism.

Of course we have to disagree with this "everything is fine and we must go further", but we must see how long some problems of Europe already last and the reasons for it, what was true in the 1950's is already no "tradition" and I question the worth of traditions to some degree anyway if the conditions changed. We must see whats necessary to solve the primary problems and the social structures, ideas of what life is of both men and women in the West must be questioned.

[Vojvoda]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Though I know Islam has many bad sides, this sounds too "un-Islamic" and barbaric to me, even too perverse for the Oriental culture

It probably has more to do with their culture than with Islam in general.

[Heretik]

Originally Posted by Vojvoda

It probably has more to do with their culture than with Islam in general.

Well, Islam doesn't have these things. It's just plain old psychotic imagination.

[Agrippa]

Where do you have this quotations from Alkman?

[Blood Axis]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Where do you have this quotations from Alkman?

Australian Ethnikoi Hellenes

[Alkman]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Where do you have this quotations from Alkman?

From the Australian Ethnikoi Hellenes site

http://ethnikoi.org/iran.html