PDA

View Full Version : From the Sayings of the Filthy Ayatollah Khomeini



Alkman
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 01:09 AM
FREE PERSIA NOW!

From the Sayings of the Filthy 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 maintaing 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?




http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16794&stc=1 http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16796&stc=1 http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=16795&stc=1


Victims of the Islamic 'Revolution'
Let the bastards know we're watching!

http://www.holycrime.com

Shapur
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 03:05 AM
I hate Islam! One day all Iranians will be again Zoroastrians!
The first step did for this, the youth begin to belive to Ahura Mazda and not Allah. The second step will be a other goverment which allow the Iranians that they can choose every religion. Then 5-10 million Iranians will convert official to Zoroastrians. Every who will not convert will see as pro-Mullah so he has only one choose Zoroastrian!

Mraot Ahuro Mazdao Iranighan Azadia Mikhad Biahad!

CelticofArabia
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 02:52 PM
I hate Irainans that openly hate on Islam. If it wasnt for the Islamic Union against the Ikkahidan Mongols at one point in time, the Mongols would have slaughtered all the Iranians, and present day Iran would be called Mongolia.

The Islamic Union of the Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, and other deviant tribes of Muslims joined forces and got rid of the massacring Mongols.

Because of Islam the Iranian race exists today.

Kamangir42
Saturday, August 7th, 2004, 05:36 PM
I hate Irainans that openly hate on Islam. If it wasnt for the Islamic Union against the Ikkahidan Mongols at one point in time, the Mongols would have slaughtered all the Iranians, and present day Iran would be called Mongolia.

The Islamic Union of the Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, and other deviant tribes of Muslims joined forces and got rid of the massacring Mongols.

Because of Islam the Iranian race exists today.
Does the Qoran not say "There is no compulsion in religion"? Why should a true Muslim hate the "misguided"? Should you not pity them?

I think your knowledge of history is a tad limited shall we say. For one thing there were never any "Ikkahaidan" Mongols. Perhaps you mean the IlKhanids? And for your information there was a genocide of Iranians when the Mongols invaded us and none of our Islamic "brothers" lifted a finger to save us.




1200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1200), Northern China - Unknown number killed
1215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215), Yanjing China (today Beijing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing)) - Unknown number killed
1221 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1221), Nishapur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishapur), Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia) - ~1.7 million killed in assault
1221, Merv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merv), Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia) - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Meru Chahjan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Meru_Chahjan&action=edit), Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia) - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Rayy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rayy&action=edit), Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia) - ~1.6 million killed in assault
1226 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1226), Tangut Campaign - Gengis Khan launches war against the northern China people of Tangut.
1236, Bilär (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bil%E4r),Bulgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar) cities, Volga Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria) - 150,000 or more and more (nearly half of population)
1237-1240, Kievan Rus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27) - half of population
1241, Wahlstatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlstatt) -- defeat of a combined Polish-German force in lower Silesia (Poland); the Mongols turn back to attend to the election of a new Grand Khan.
1258 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1258), Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad) - ~800,000 people. Results in destruction of Abbasid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasids) dynasty
1226-1266 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1266), ~18 million reported killed in conquest of northern Chinese territory. This number estimated by Kublai Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kublai_Khan) himself.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols

The Ilkhan Mongol dynasty in Iran was destroyed by Timur Lang (who was also a Mongol) not your non-existant "Islamic Union".

CelticofArabia
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Does the Qoran not say "There is no compulsion in religion"? Why should a true Muslim hate the "misguided"? Should you not pity them?

Well, I have just started studying Islam. I am not an Mullah on Islamic thought.


I think your knowledge of history is a tad limited shall we say. For one thing there were never any "Ikkahaidan" Mongols. Perhaps you mean the IlKhanids?

There were called the Ilkhanidian Mongols also, checking and correcting spelling errors doesnt make you right about your other points. But good nitpicking.


And for your information there was a genocide of Iranians when the Mongols invaded us and none of our Islamic "brothers" lifted a finger to save us.

The Ilkhan Mongol dynasty in Iran was destroyed by Timur Lang (who was also a Mongol) not your non-existant "Islamic Union".

There is the Iranian ego again, Iranians truly belive that they are better than anyone else, and they generally compare themselves to the Aryans. Iranians are mutts. Mixed with bloods of different conquering nations. They are just as Aryan as the Pakistanis, Afghans, or Indians. Sure there is Aryan blood there, but its so small that its irrevelant.

Anyway back to the question at hand, it was the Mamluk's who suppressed the Mongols in Iran. And the Mamluk army consisted of Turks, Kurds, Iranians and Arabs. The Islamic Union.

Kamangir42
Sunday, August 8th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Well, I have just started studying Islam. I am not an Mullah on Islamic thought.

Come on! A true Muslim would know that. No doubt about it.



There were called the Ilkhanidian Mongols also, checking and correcting spelling errors doesnt make you right about your other points. But good nitpicking.

You called them the "Ikkahidan" Mongols not "Ilkhanidian". Anyway, let's not waste time over this rubbish.



There is the Iranian ego again, Iranians truly belive that they are better than anyone else, and they generally compare themselves to the Aryans. Iranians are mutts. Mixed with bloods of different conquering nations. They are just as Aryan as the Pakistanis, Afghans, or Indians. Sure there is Aryan blood there, but its so small that its irrevelant.

Sounds more like your inferiority complex than my ego. :) Iranians are Aryans. It's an ethno-linguistic term not a racial one used by Iranians since ancient times.

We know that the Greeks record that it was the original name of the Medes. The Persian kings referred to themselves as "Aryans". Darius the Great proclaimed:

"I am Darius the great King... A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage...".

Iranians have always called themselves as such and their country Iran (or Iranshahr). These are cognates of "Aryan". The sedentary eastern Iranians (Avestan speakers) used it to distinguish themselves from the nomads. The Kushans regarded the language of the Bactrians as "Aryan", and the ancient Indians used the term to describe persons of virtue amongst their populations. Anything else is simply and purely presumption, and unsupported by facts.

So we don't compare ourselves to Aryans, we are Aryans. We (along with perhaps the Indians) are the only people who called ourself as such. You should be questioning the "white" nationalists who try to steal our culture and our history by calling themselves "Aryan".

Of course, no population is genetically pure. That does not make them "mutts. (It might make you an intellectual "mutt" for using that term though. ;) ) But the vast majority of Iranians are not mixed from the genetic evidence I have seen. Perhaps you should prove your assertions or admit you are just engaging in "wishful thinking".



Anyway back to the question at hand, it was the Mamluk's who suppressed the Mongols in Iran. And the Mamluk army consisted of Turks, Kurds, Iranians and Arabs. The Islamic Union.
No Mameluk ever set foot on Iranian soil. The Mameluks managed to save Egypt from the Mongols but the rest of the Middle East was devastated by them (even the Ottoman Turks were crushed). I hate to repeat myself but Timur Lang the Mongol destroyed the Ilkhanid dynasty in Iran.