Talk:Tahrir-ol-vasyleh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as stub on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article was previously considered for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Controversy

  • keep its a book page , it meets Wikipedia standards for a book article. User southercomfort is trying to censor content which he does not agree with his POV.--CltFn 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is a very ordinary book. All Shia marja has a book like this which are more or less copies of eachother. It is not specific to Khomeini, and the issues in the book have been copied by Khomeini from other books. This is a known trend. The page does not contain any useful information. If you want to learn about having sex with animals, do not bother to read this book. There are lots of western films and rock musics (all in English) which address the issue. In some countries, notably Scandinavia the Netherlands and Denmark, Mexico, and Thailand, live sex shows between women and symbolically stud-like animals (pony, donkey, large dog) took place up until recently. They probably do continue albeit less visibly and fewer. Here is a link for CltFn who seems to be very interested in animal sex:[1][2] Wikipedia is not a place for political war.--Reza Salem13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
CltFn... I am onclined to delete this... not because it was speedied before but because since it is contentious having the only source as a Greek Nationalist site is not very sound. I looked for it on Amazon and elsewhere but find a neutral scholarly source that tells us this book exists and the page would be perfectly fine... but as of now it's not well sourced. Instead of deleting right away I am going to put an accuracy tag and hopefully you will come up with something. gren グレン 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The only other source that he has quoted was http://www.homa.org [3] which is a virulently anti-Khomeini and anti-Muslim site. SouthernComfort 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is not a significant book (Very routine work by any marja, very basic islamic rules, copied from previous sources, no novelty). Khomeini is known for his novel and controversial works on velayate faqih. His main books are listed at the end of his page. --Mitso Bel15:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If this is indeed a book (I really don't know) then it probably is notable... because, we have very low notability standards for published books... so, even if it's relatively insignificant it will probably get a page... it just needs to be real. Do you know of something that can prove it is? gren グレン 18:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Gren , it is a book , the full version is linked at the bottom of the article. It is in Farsi, and you can have any of your Persian friends look it over and confirm its authenticity. They will also find the controversial sayings in there and more horrendous things. --CltFn 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm all out of Persian friends this lifetime... but, there are some things that Wikipedia verifiability mandate. That is not citing the thing as its primary source. Me writing a book does not make it notable. The fact that it's published and commented on does. So, please find sources that talk about this work. Linking to a copy of the work or a work of the same name from worldcat don't make this notable and don't explain what the book is. The article says "written while he was in Turkey". Where did you get that claim? You call it "controversial" a book used as a source cannot be controversial... someone needs to make a controversy about it. So, what makes it controversial? Explain and cite these things. Why is it "odd" that it condones homosexuality and adultery? Cite all of these things or this will be deleted in the near future even if you happen to be right. I don't know anything about this book and your sources prove very little. We are not creating scholarly work and an explanation of "read it in Farsi" does not help. I have seen something similar on an anti-Islamic site years ago but... this all doesn't meet our standards CltFn. The source for the book itself is also from a Greek Nationalist site that shows no reason why it should be trusted. You know policy well enough to know all of this. If you can't find us any more information then it's gone... if you can... well, then you can all argue out NPOV issues. gren グレン 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WorldCat lists a book titled "Ravishi navin dar bayan-i manasik-i hajj: mutabiq-i Tahrir al-vasilah va Manasik-i hajj-i hazrat-i Ayat Allah al-`Uzmá Imam Khumayni: hamrah ba jadidtarin Istifta'at va farhangnamah-i istilahat". (Accession number 29227107.) --Sneftel 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, who insists on the importance and significance of the book, does not even know the difference between Persian (Farsi) and Arabic!! The link that he provided is in Arabic not in Persian. I don't see why he insists on something that he clearly does not understand. --Mitso Bel10:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a book from Khominie and its very notable and generates a lots of controversy. Why are people suggesting its deletion? The reason that its contents are embarrassing to some is not a valid reason.--Matt57 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Just to make clear the web is full of fairly reliable references to this book, including many positive references from followers of Khomeini, pre-dating the present hassle about the sex-with-children quotes, here's a few more. I must say I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe that people honestly doubted the existence of the book. Seems like a pretty threadbare maneuvre to me: somebody published some (admittedly, polemic and probably out-of-context) embarrassing quotes from the book, it becomes a fad of anti-Islamic polemics on the web, and suddenly apologists try to pretend the book never existed. [4] (Amnesty International); [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (this one is a biography written by an admirer; includes the information that it was written during his time in Turkey); [10] (Human Rights Watch); [11] (Shia website; with a link to an English online translation that is unfortunately dead at the moment); [12] [13] [14] [15] Lukas (T.|@) 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lukas, if you glance through my comments and other comments, you will see that almost every body agrees on the existence of the book. The point is not this. The point is that, the book has become a target for attacks not only in wikipedia but also throughout the web. The book is not a significant book. And I also doubt that Khomeini wrote the book personally. The traditiom is like this: A Marja has a group of students. They will go and collect and write the book and even they will publish it and then they will bring one copy to the Marja for his signature. He will go through the book and will sign it and then the book will be distributed. The reason is that the content of the book is not new. Any Marja has to have such a book and that is more of a formality. In these books there are many thing that are not practiced like eating insects. Neither khomeini nor any other Iranian eat insect. But these issues are usually in such book because 1400 years ago prophet talked about these things. The same is true for sex. But some anti-khomeini guys want to abuse it and say that khomeini was himself such a guy. If you do not believe in me see [[Image:Khmeinichild.jpg this wikipedia] page which is initiated by User:CtlFn who also initiated Tahrirolvasyleh. The person in the picture is NOT khomeini ! But he is insisting that he is khomeini ! For any Iranian this is clear that the guy in the picture is not khomeini. It is so obvious. This is the story. But CltFn neither proves his claim that the guy in the picture is Khomeini , nor accepts what Iranian wikipedians are saying. If one brings this picture to iran and shows it to a random Iranian and insists that this is a picture of khomeini, people may think the guy is an idiot. --Mitso Bel10:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Mitso Bel, I think I've perfectly understood all that, and there's really no need to repeat yourself over and over. As for the doubts about the book's existence, at least User:Grenavitar had apparently understood that to be the issue, and it had been the apparent motive for the AfD and for several delete votes there. As for the rest, to me there's not the slightest doubt that the book as such is notable, not because it's particularly original, but because I see Shiites quoting it as a great authority all over the place. Whether the embarrassing quotes within it are notable is a different matter. But the controversy about the book is also a well-established fact and notable in itself. So, let's just find good sources describing the nature of the book (along the lines of what you say, which I find quite plausible), identify the exact text references of the embarrassing bits, possibly describe their context within the nature of that type of book, and then write a decent NPOV article about it, where's the problem? Lukas (T.|@) 10:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your comment. That would be also very good if you could also take a look at the image page that I mentioned. Because the two pages are quite related. --Mitso Bel11:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Another question: How many volumes does this book have ? My sources says it has only two volumes. But the claims about sex are in 4th Volume of the book!! [16].
I saw some discussion on the web (sorry, haven't retained the URL) where some bloggers had worked out this was a citation mistake: The original quoter meant to say "4th edition", and somewhere down the line this was changed to "4th volume". The homa website now as "4th edition", which seems plausible. The zipped electronic version isn't structured in "volumes" at all, but one or two dozen "books" (or chapters) as far as I can see. Lukas (T.|@) 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • More info:

Tahrir Al-Wasila, or Tahreer Al-Waseela

This title is a complicated one. The word Al-Waseela is a reference to an earlier work by Abu Al-Hasan Al-Isfahani, entitled Waseelat Al-Najat (The Way to Salvation).

Khomeini's book is conceived as an edited version of Al-Isfahani's book. In other words, it is "The Edited Waseelat Al-Najat."

It is common among Shi'i scholars of jurisprudence to author practical manuals named after previous manuals that are considered the bases for the present manuals. The new name gives tribute to the earlier work in the same way that Ahmad Shawqui's NAHJ AL-BURDA gives tribute to Al-Burda Al-Nabawiyya. If the new scholar is authoring a brand new work that breaks new grounds and departs from earlier works, then a new name is given.

Because of this complication, most English-language citations refer to Khomeini's book by its Arabic name in Latin letters. It is well-known by that name among scholars, regardless of language.[17] --Mitso Bel11:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

If the remaining issue is the factual accuracy of the incriminated sex-with-minors passages, let's try this.

[edit] Alleged Persian version

Here's a short excerpt of the Persian edition according to the photographed page on the Homa website [18]

Kitab nikah ('Book of marriage'?), masala 12:

كتاب نكاح.

مسالة ١٢

كتاب نكاح. مسالة ١٢ كسيكة زوجهاى كمتر از نه سال دار و طى آوبراى وى جاير نيست چه اينكه زوجۀ داءهى باشد، و چه منقطع، و امَا ساير...

[edit] Alleged translated version

Here's what it is claimed to be saying, according to the same website [19] and a lot of other web pages that have quoted ultimately from here:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, ..."

[edit] Alleged Arabic version

Here's the corresponding passage in the Arabic edition from the zipped download file of [20]. It's in file tahrir25.htm.

Kitab al-nikah, masa'lah 12:

كتاب النكاح [...]: مسألة 12

لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ،
و أما سائر لاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ،
و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ،
و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض
و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ،
و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث
و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية
و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ،
و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية
الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ،
و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ،
و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب

[edit] Automatic translation of Arabic

As I understand neither Persian nor Arabic, here's a (terrible, as usual) automatic online translation of the above Arabic [21]:

"Question 12: Does not be possible [wT'] the wife before completing nine ages, continuity was [aalnkaaH] or cut off, and mothers as for walking of the enjoyments as the touching in appetite and the joining the joining and [aaltfxydh] so courage in her until [fY] the infant, even though and paves her before the nine and blames does not open her does not become organized on him [shY] ['] other than the sin on strengthened, and indeed indeed ['afDaahaa] in to making [mslkY] the urine and the menstruation the menstruation one or [mslkY] the menstruation and [aalGaay'T] one ritual consecration on him [wTu'haa] never hit on [aalaaHwT] [fY] the image second, and on on any situation graduation about marital his on strengthened, so pulls me on her her arbitrators from the inheriting and wife of wife fifth and wife wife her of sister with her and changes her changes her, and be necessary be necessary on him her expense [maadaamt] live and indeed indeed free her yet and indeed indeed the divorce married after on [aalaaHwT] , yet [yxlw] from strength, and be necessary be necessary on him [dyt] the leading, and [hY] [dyt] the breath, so if was free so for her describes [dyt] the man added to the fillies who deserved him in the knots and the incomes the entering, even though his income in wife after completing the nine [f'afDaahaa] does not deprive on him and blames does not fix [aaldyt], and to is hit [aalaaHwT] the expenditure on her [maadaamt] live and indeed indeed was strengthened lack of the necessity."

It seems pretty clear to me that these two sources, at least, agree that this is the text in question. Which to me means we have done what is needed in terms of Verifiability. Anybody who has a friend who knows Arabic and has access to Interlibrary loan can now go and check if this is indeed what the real book says. Lukas (T.|@) 12:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a Persian native speaker. Here is my translation of the sentence:

Kitab nikah ('Book of marriage'?), masala 12:

كتاب نكاح.

مسالة ١٢

كتاب نكاح. مسالة ١٢ كسيكة زوجهاى كمتر از نه سال دار و طى آوبراى وى جاير نيست چه اينكه زوجۀ داءهى باشد، و چه منقطع، و امَا ساير...

My translation: Problem 12: Anyone who has a spouse (partner) younger than 9 years, sexual intercourse is not allowed, evenif they did permanent marriage or temporary marriage.

Now compare it to the following translation:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, ..."


Feel free to ask any Iranian wikipedians for Persian translation. We also need to make it clear that these are the rules of Islam and not Khomeini's personal invention. --Mitso Bel00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also verify on the photographed page at [22] whether it says something corresponding to the next bits in the purported translation? "... A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not comitted a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. ..." By the way, your statement about this being general Islamic traditional rules and not original to Khomeini might itself be in need of verification. Can you find corresponding passages in other similar, older works, or dig out what the ultimate roots are? Lukas (T.|@) 00:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points

I dont wish to get involved in this particular aticle. It is highly political, far more than I can handle, considering my personal situation.

However, some points I must mention:

  1. The Resalah Tawzihat that Lukas mentioned to me is not the same as this book. They are different.
  2. However they may harbor the same contents at times.
  3. This brings me to the point that such decrees (about having sex with ...) are not Khomeini's ideas in the making. He is merely passing on a view transferred to him that goes back to the age of Muhammad himself. Girls were married to men at very young ages back then.
  4. That's why you may find such contents in other Islamic fiqh books too.
  5. Furthermore, the Islamic tradition is not the only one that held such views. I do recall seeing similar obscene material in old copies of the Talmud.
  6. So this sex with 9 year old thing is being quoted out of context. One has to consider its background. 7th century pagan Arabia was so sexist that they buried their daughters alive.

Personally, and I repeat personally, I think the man was an anti-academic zealot. As is the case with people who twist and abuse religion, his fanaticism has left us Iranians a legacy that we (I) am not particularly proud of. The Islam I (and many others) adhere to is the non-political one such as that of Nasr, or even Avicenna or Biruni, where Islam and science tend to coalesce, not Islam and politics.

That being said, Khomeini was not the only such fanatic retrograde. The world is full of them, whether in Iran, or in the west. That's why I choose to avoid this debate. because people fail to see this last point. And his book was not filled only with such content. It had other contents as well. Focusing on a selected negative parts is an intentional undertaking which I do not wish to be part of.--Zereshk 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Makes sense to me. - As I said to Zereshk, I'll get the English translation of that Persian-language "Resaleh" book, which seems to be actually the one that the Persian quotes on the web are taken from, and check that one. From the comparison above it seems that its structure and overall content (down to the numbering of sections) correspond closely to the "Tahrir". Lukas (T.|@) 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some more open mindedness. If your also gonna put down quotes put justifications for some of the stuff he said. Many of the laws he stated have positive effects in a community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanthis (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Since the book is still quite disputed, could someone add to the "external links" or a section "history of book" some links or information that allows those unfamiliar to understand both sides of the argument and evidence of genuineness. Thanks. FT2 (Talk) 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism

Here are a few questions.

Can anybody answer them?

- Item 1: Why does the downloadable zipped file at the end of the article contain only html files? If the book exists, and the person who made that has the book, they can just as easily scan the individual pages, and make pdfs (that would in fact be easier than typing HTML documents).

HTML is not a photostatic reproduction of the original, and anyone can make some html documents, and claim that they came from some book.

- Item 2: Why is this reference supposedly contained in an obscure book, and not in any of Ayatollah Khomeini's main books (like his Resaleh)?

- Item 3: If it is OK to have sex with children according to Ayatollah Khomeini, why has the death penalty been applied to child molesters in Iran?

There was at least one sensational case of an elementary school teacher who was executed for that: this was covered by Kayhan and Etela'at newspapers during the late 1980's, and I distinctly remember it.

- Item 4: Why do we keep hearing about these allegations from people who aren't experts on Islam or Iranian history, and not from people who are?

What effort has been made to get an official viewpoint on these allegations from Shi'ite religious leadership?

[edit] Origins Of The Allegation

Its important to notice where these allegations came from.

The people associated with the Homa Darabi website - and people who have jumped on this Tahrirolvasyleh bandwagen - are politically motivated.

They simply want to condemn Khomeini.

They have proven to be fabricators.

The intelligence community, for example, has learned the hard way not to trust information coming from Iraqi or Iranian exiles. --Johan77 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no fabrication. Do you see the book cover? The book exists. --Matt57 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The book exists. At issue is what's in it.

That's where the fabrication comes in - (if you bother to read the Shi'ite reply to the allegations).

We have a photo of a book cover, this says nothing about whether the cover itself is genuine, or what's inside the book (else, the Hitler Diaries Stern magazine was hawking back in 1983, would have been accepted as genuine).

As for the photograph of the book cover, it says "4th Volume" (jeldeh chaharom. in Farsi).

Shi'ites who have actually read the book, point out that there is no 4th volume.

Then some people tried to pretend that the book cover says "4th edition" (which it doesn't).

Johan77 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So here's the big hint:

All the "good stuff" that the Khomeini haters try to use, is supposed to be in the 4th volume - which doesn't even exist, according to Shi'ite scholars. Johan77 04:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Shi'ites who have actually read the book, point out that there is no 4th volume." - who are these Shite scholars who claim that 4th volume doesnt even exist? If you find a reputable scholar saying that, you can mention this in the article whilre referencing the information. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Who are the people making the allegations that there is a 4th volume? They are the ones making an accusation - it is up to them to prove it in every respect.
, Also, why did they then change their story, and try to claim that it is really the 4th edition, not the 4th volume? Why did they change their story, if they are telling the truth?Johan77 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking links

[edit] Who Is Attracted To These Allegations?

People who don't really want to learn anything about Islam or Shi'ism. People who just want to condemn it.

They are frankly excited by the allegations, and are too interested in their agenda to be cautious.

You won't see any of these types actually researching the book, or inquiring about the punishment for child molestation in Iran (click http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4353449.stm here, for an example - there are others - including a case in Tehran - for anyone who spends time looking).

If someone has a genuine interest, they should have been able to come up with these things, by themselves, without someone else having to spoon-feed them.Johan77 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt get your point. Which allegations? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes you did, Matt. You know exactly which ones I'm talking aobut.Johan77 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tahrir-ul-Vaseela.jpeg

Image:Tahrir-ul-Vaseela.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When written?

There is a note on where it was written but not when. Can we get referenced answers on that? RJFJR (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)