A sheepish qualification.
A letter in the current issue (June 2008; Vol. 316, No. 1897) of Harper's Magazine (you have to be a subscriber to view their current or recently-published content on-line, but they have a few blogs and the occasional old article they'll let the general public read) from right-wing (and right-wing America-loving...) Canadian columnist Mark Steyn, in response to the Canadian Islamic Congress's human rights complaint (Steyn in his letter refers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission as "so-called") against Canada's only national weekly news magazine, Maclean's, for remarks that the CIC claims Steyn made within Maclean's pages, raises more questions and concerns than it alleviates.
In their March 2008 issue, Harper's ran an excerpt in their "Readings" section (wherein they reprint or extract previously-published articles, lectures, manuals, transcripts, pamphlets, etc.) from the Canadian Islamic Congress's list of "assertions and implications" of Steyn which they feel are prejudicial towards Muslims. The first item in this excerpt (which Harper's titled "Islamopocalypse") reads: "Muslims are 'sheep-shaggers'" (p. 25, Mar. 2008).
The stated purpose of Steyn's letter to Harper's is to clarify some of the "assertions and implications" of the CIC that Harper's republished: "Alas, because careless statements about Islam can be injurious to one's life expectancy, I wondered if you might publish the following clarifications".
Steyn's first "clarification" is worth quoting:
"Point One, on the matter of Muslims being 'sheep-shaggers.' This was not my assertion but that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini on the important question of whether one may eat, post-coitally, one's sexual partner: 'A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin.' Good to have that cleared up."
-- p. 5 (June 2008)
Wait. Assuming that Steyn is correct here, and that this is an actual quote from Khomeini, this is absolutely mind-boggling. It's not a sin to commit bestiality, but it is a sin to eat your animal friend "post-coitally"? WTF?!? Does all of Islam permit bestiality, or only the Shi'ite branch? (Or, to break it down further, only the Twelver branch, which Khomeini belonged to, and which is the largest within Shi'a?) Either way, how on earth did Philip José Farmer not drop this tidbit into his feelthy, feelthy take on Tarzan and Doc Savage, A Feast Unknown?
It's a pretty sorry state of affairs if Khomeini felt that he had to issue a ruling on the ethics of devouring your partner in bestiality after the lovin' (as Englebert Humperdinck once put it...). Think I'll pass on the lamb kabobs, just to be safe, thanks anyway.
But, come to that, what was the position of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches on this? Muslims are far from being the only religious believers with a strong sheep-raising association. What was considered ethically proper for the shepherds of Arcadia and Sicily?
Wow. This puts an entirely different -- and entirely unwelcome -- spin on Christopher Marlowe's "The Passionate Shepherd to His Love"....
In their March 2008 issue, Harper's ran an excerpt in their "Readings" section (wherein they reprint or extract previously-published articles, lectures, manuals, transcripts, pamphlets, etc.) from the Canadian Islamic Congress's list of "assertions and implications" of Steyn which they feel are prejudicial towards Muslims. The first item in this excerpt (which Harper's titled "Islamopocalypse") reads: "Muslims are 'sheep-shaggers'" (p. 25, Mar. 2008).
The stated purpose of Steyn's letter to Harper's is to clarify some of the "assertions and implications" of the CIC that Harper's republished: "Alas, because careless statements about Islam can be injurious to one's life expectancy, I wondered if you might publish the following clarifications".
Steyn's first "clarification" is worth quoting:
"Point One, on the matter of Muslims being 'sheep-shaggers.' This was not my assertion but that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini on the important question of whether one may eat, post-coitally, one's sexual partner: 'A man who has had sexual relations with an animal, such as a sheep, may not eat its meat. He would commit sin.' Good to have that cleared up."
-- p. 5 (June 2008)
Wait. Assuming that Steyn is correct here, and that this is an actual quote from Khomeini, this is absolutely mind-boggling. It's not a sin to commit bestiality, but it is a sin to eat your animal friend "post-coitally"? WTF?!? Does all of Islam permit bestiality, or only the Shi'ite branch? (Or, to break it down further, only the Twelver branch, which Khomeini belonged to, and which is the largest within Shi'a?) Either way, how on earth did Philip José Farmer not drop this tidbit into his feelthy, feelthy take on Tarzan and Doc Savage, A Feast Unknown?
It's a pretty sorry state of affairs if Khomeini felt that he had to issue a ruling on the ethics of devouring your partner in bestiality after the lovin' (as Englebert Humperdinck once put it...). Think I'll pass on the lamb kabobs, just to be safe, thanks anyway.
But, come to that, what was the position of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches on this? Muslims are far from being the only religious believers with a strong sheep-raising association. What was considered ethically proper for the shepherds of Arcadia and Sicily?
Wow. This puts an entirely different -- and entirely unwelcome -- spin on Christopher Marlowe's "The Passionate Shepherd to His Love"....