On Islam of Iran

It is not surprising to find an exiled person interested in understanding what exactly is the nature of Islam introduced by Khomeini. However, in my argument I will attempt to make logical derivations based on the fundamental principles on which Islam rests. So, I begin by listing the principles that I accept as axioms.

Prophet spoke the words of God.
Prophet announced that he is the last.
Prophet declared it is fine to lie for Islam.

The first axiom substantiates the two axioms following it. We make some conclusions from each of the two axioms, starting with the first, namely that the Prophet was the last human to speak with God, directly or indirectly through an Angle.

The main branch off of Islam is Shia. Now, if Shia did not add to the religion there would be no argument. However, Shia adds a whole new principle known as Immamat. The dominant version of Shia in Iran is the one that believes in Twelve Immams.

The problem here is that the principle of Immamat is an addition to the religion, not even implied by the Prophet. Therefore, to make such an addition a human must be able to speak with God. However, the Prophet has explicitly refuted such a possibility. The simple conclusion is that Shia is a religiously illegal deviation from the Islam proclaimed by the Prophet. Interestingly though, Shia in Iran is attempting to convert Sunnah! Oh well?

Now about lying for Islam. By now everyone knows that Khomeini completely changed his words about a year after his arrival in Iran. When asked about the change of heart he simply mentioned that he lied for Islam (as encouraged by God).

Let me first make a mild conclusion, and then a dramatic one. Suppose Bernard Madoff took all the money he received via deceptions, and added some of his own to build a mosque in New York. In accordance to Prophet, and clear interpretation by Khomeini, Madoff will receive a free pass to paradise probably with 40 virgins awaiting him.

Now let’s derive a more dramatic conclusion. It is easy to conclude from the principles that God is liar. Simply put, the Prophet spoke the words of God who permits lying for his religion. One who permits lying could also lie.

Well now we have a problem. When did God tell the truth and when did he lie? We know the Prophet said one thing in Mecca and another in Medina, just like Khomeini did. So, which version is the true Islam? Is it the peaceful poetry spoken in Mecca, or is it the bloody version of Medina?

This ends the argument. The rest is personal opinion based on observations.

Basically, God can lie and I must follow his words without questioning. I must do as he says either in Mecca or in Medina, precisely as instructed by some religious authority like Khomeini.

If I choose to convert from Islam, I must be beheaded immediately so God Almighty can begin torturing me in his hell without delay. So, the God of Islam can lie to turn me into a Muslim. Once converted, I have surrendered my soul, which sounds more like a contract with Satan.

This Almighty God cannot do anything to me until I am beheaded. A simple corollary to this is that God cannot interact with me in this world. Well then how was he able to speak with the Prophet at first place? After all he could have blinded me just before I posted this note! How is it that the mercenaries of the Mullahs in Iran have to discover this note before I can be executed in Evin (a jail in Iran)?

I am having trouble accepting the teachings of a Lying Supreme Being. I wish to return to Zoroastrian teachings in my ancient land of feasts, music, dances, joy and love. I am tired of all the killings for a Lying God.

A father that teaches his children to lie for the protection of the family must do the same himself. Furthermore, the protection of family could legitimately mean protecting friends of the family and destroying those who may not wish to build a friendship with the family. Otherwise put, once permitted there will be no limit to the interpretations of situations where one can lie.