"A man may have sexual relations with animals, but he must slaughter the animal after orgasm and sell the meat to infidels." -Ayatollah Khomeini (Founding leader of the Islamic regime in Iran)
Executive summary
The provocative line — “A man may have sexual relations with animals, but he must slaughter the animal after orgasm and sell the meat to infidels” — is widely attributed online to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and to his jurisprudential work, but the documentation in the reporting provided is limited to secondary websites, quote aggregators and blogs that repeat the claim without robust primary sourcing [1] [2] [3] [4]. At the same time, debates over the quote’s use in Western media reveal it has been contested as a mischaracterization deployed to smear Islamic jurisprudence [5].
1. Origins and circulation: who’s repeating this quote and where it appears
Multiple websites and quote databases reproduce the same formulation, explicitly citing Khomeini’s juridical compilation (Tahrir al-Vasyleh/Tahrirolvasyleh) and giving a publication detail of Qom, 1990, but these reproductions appear on blogs, forum posts and quote sites rather than on scanned primary texts or recognized academic editions [1] [2] [3] [4]. The uniformity of the wording across these secondary pages suggests a single source of transmission in the online ecosystem, but the materials provided do not include the original Persian text, a critical edition citation, or a page reference that would allow independent verification [1] [6].
2. Scholarly and journalistic pushback: how the quote has been contested
There is documented controversy over using similar attributions to Khomeini in Western commentary; critics have argued that invoking such a quote promotes an inaccurate stereotype and that bestiality is not condoned by Islam, with at least one media-ethics critique identifying misuse of the alleged quotation in public commentary [5]. That critique demonstrates an alternative reading of the anecdote’s role in public debate: even if a jurist discussed extreme hypotheticals, critics warn against portraying that as representative advocacy, and the reporting supplied notes disputes about veracity and context [5].
3. What the provided reporting can and cannot prove
The assembled sources consistently attribute the claim to Khomeini’s jurisprudential writings and repeat the same clause about killing the animal and selling the meat elsewhere, which establishes that the claim circulates widely online and has been repeatedly quoted in lay and polemical venues [1] [2] [7]. However, none of the supplied sources includes a scanned excerpt from Tahrir al-Vasyleh, a publisher’s page, a precise chapter and page citation, or an academic treatment that confirms translation accuracy; therefore the reporting provided cannot independently verify the authenticity, context, or precise wording of the alleged fatwa [1] [6].
4. Motives, spin and what to watch for in further research
The pattern of repetition on anti-Islamic blogs, quotation aggregators and forums suggests the claim functions rhetorically to shock and to delegitimize Khomeini and Shia jurisprudence; sources that amplify the line often pair it with broader denunciations of the Ayatollah [1] [2] [8]. Conversely, defenders point to broader religious-legal frameworks that distinguish discussion of ritual purity, hypothetical legal maxims, and condemnations of immoral acts—claims about practice must be grounded in careful textual scholarship rather than viral quotes [5]. Given those competing incentives, further verification requires consulting the original Persian text of Tahrir al-Vasyleh, authoritative translations, or academic commentaries, none of which are present in the reporting supplied.
5. Bottom line
The specific, lurid quotation is pervasive across non-academic websites and has been used in political and cultural polemics, but the material provided does not supply an authoritative primary-source citation or rigorous scholarly corroboration; therefore the truth value of the attribution to Khomeini remains unconfirmed on the basis of these sources alone [1] [5] [3]. Alternative viewpoints exist and have been raised in media-ethics critiques that caution against treating such circulating lines as definitive evidence of doctrinal endorsement [5].