Mujahedin Khalq 's Function

Unconscious Intelligence Sources!

As the crisis on British sailors happened, remnants of Rajavi who thought they could take advantage of the issue tried to win the attention of public opinion.

One of their moves was to reveal so-called intelligence claimed by the group to have been received from revolutionary guard!

The alleged intelligence indicated that detention of sailors had been planned before and that it was supervised by Iranian supreme leader!

The MKO’s project, called "Hostage taking Crisis", was aimed at instigating British government against Iran. They tried to convince Britons that Iran’s move was in response to UN Security Council’s resolution.

According to the analyses of Rajavi’s gang, this crisis could last for months and they had to do their best to prevent a diplomatic resolution.

However, stupid remnants of Rajavi’s gang were wrong from the beginning:

 

1. British government was well aware of espionage mission of its soldiers in the Iranian waters and therefore paid no attention to the stories of MKO.

 

2. As usual, the gang of Rajavi had no proof to present and this added to reporters uncertainty so that all news wires reporting MKO’s claims said that the group had presented no documents.

 

3. In an interview with the Sky News before the detention of British sailors, their commander had stressed that they had espionage missions in the Iranian waters. This also adds to the failure of MKO’s scenario.

 

Now, the question is that why MKO’s intelligence sources, who are allegedly aware of even top secret meetings of Iranian leaders and IRGC commanders, didn’t say anything of Iran’s plan to release British sailors! Why aren’t there any words by them on the reasons why Iran freed them?

It seems as if MKO’s sources become unconscious when there’s no crisis and they start making stories as they feel there’s a crisis.

This is called "intelligence unconsciousness at the time of scandals"!

 

Irandidban – 2007/04/07

 

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

The Islamic Republic Referendum, an Issue of Challenge

The presence of Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in the run of Islamic Republic Referendum in 1979 and its support of the move is an underlying matter of dispute between the Iranian opposition groups, and in some respects the US State Department, and MKO. The group has constantly reiterated that from the very beginning of the Islamic revolution in 1978 has taken an opponent position against the move and its leadership. To justify its congenial attitude in some phases based on existing and unquestioned evidences, MKO claim it was a force of circumstance to follow a conciliatory attitude towards the revolution and the leadership. Mojahedin say they could well have been liquidated unless they moved on a front of accommodation.

No doubt, both in the issue of referendum and the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, Mojahedin were very critical, mostly not of the moves but of the contents. In fact, their dismay was the result of the group’s political and ideological teachings that did not evaluate the two moves coinciding with their strategic ends, that is to say, to escalate a gross military tension with the US. In general, their main objective was aimed at heating up the created tension between the US and Iran to a point that lead to a military face-off according to Mojahedin’s antagonistic ideology. In other words, more than any thing else Mojahedin were focusing on the counter-imperialistic aspect of the Islamic Republic, as they said:

The main issue is not what the form and the name of the regime should be, the most important goal and the attempt of the imperialism is directed at keeping our society fundamentally unchanged and non-reformed so the move could be totally shifted towards the imperialism and bolstering up the bastion of non-revolutionary elements and links. [1]

Somewhere else, in an attempt to intensify the challenging attitude, they said:

From now on, Shah is no more a protector of the imperialism’s interests but, in respect to your [Khomeini] decisive leadership, more known as a nemesis and a cause for a greater, violent anti-imperialism revolution. [2]

 

Addressing Ayatollah Khomeini, they also said:

The imperialism well understood that further confrontation with people and you would lead to a deliberately aggravated public rage. [3]

Indeed, Mojahedin position at the time, in contrast to their present claims of willing to establish freedom and democracy, persisted in political standstill and anarchism, which they called revolution, and establishing a form of conductible democracy or, according to Mojahedin’s ideological trend, a revolutionary democracy modeled in Stalinism. It was the absolute form of the democracy they deemed for the Islamic Republic. In a statement they said:

Our congratulation carries the hope that in future the flaws and errors of this prime democracy in its revolutionary concept are corrected, so there would be no dispute in the form in the coming elections. [4]

Based on their ideological trends, Mojahedin had the same Marxist-based interpretations of other issues in Iran including the human rights. They believed that the issue of human rights in Iran was an instrument for the Shah’s regime to prevent any revolution. In a statement congratulating the initiation of the Islamic Republic they said:

No doubt, the traitor Shah was the most servile puppet of imperialism. So it was impossible for the colonialists to anticipate totally ignoring so anti-national a puppet. Thus, by scheming a totally imperialistic plot called the human rights, imperialism tried to lessen the burden pressing on the proxy regimes to prevent possible burst of revolutions in those societies. [5]

Such views work as a good yardstick to have an analysis of Mojahedin’s antagonistic positions against the Islamic Republic and its principles with the exception that today, because of the grave political situation they are entwined with, their views are tainted with a liberal and American culture. No body is in the doubt that Mojahedin from the very beginning were challenging the Iranian revolution. However, as mentioned, their today’s position is completely different with their past in respect to the issues of imperialism, liberalism and bourgeoisie which indicate that Mojahedin, following an ideologically opportunistic policy, seize the opportunity in any position taking.

Mojahedin’s earlier confession of their perforce coincidence with the Islamic Republic at its early days and their present adaptation with the West in general and the US in particular carries the message that zigzagging position taking [6] is an innate feature of hypocrite Mojahedin. Moreover, Mojahedin, besides zigzagging tactics, never retreat from their ideological and cult-funded teachings. Now the question is that how much are the Americans convinced, being aware of Mojahedin’s opportunistic nature, [7] to manipulate Mojahedin as an instrument against Iran? Although not exposed before the eyes of the world, the evidences tell a possibility of the US maintaining contacts with Mojahedin.

 

Notes

 

[1]. A collection of MKO’s statements and announcements, vol. 1, MKO Publications, Bahman 1358.

[2]. ibid.

[3]. ibid.

[4]. ibid.

[5]. ibid.

[6]. Radio Farda interview with Saeed Shahsavandi.

[7]. In a part of the US State Department Announcement about Mojahedin we read “It is difficult to accept at face value promises of future conduct when an organization fails to acknowledge its past”. 1994.

 

Bahar Irani – April 7, 2007 – Mojahedin.ws

 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Iraqi Official and Terrorist Logic

Day by day, more facts are revealed about the people involved in Iraqi political issues and now people understand that they have tied their political thought and will to those whose behaviors result from terror and terrorism. Such contradictions have turned Iraq to the center of disasters and this can be viewed in plots against Iraqis.  Sometime ago, Khalf Al-Alian, member of "Accord Front", took part in a TV debate with Ali Al-Dabbagh (Iraqi government’s spokesperson) on Al-Jazeera news channel to discuss the issue of MKO’s presence in Iraq. He defended MKO’s presence in Iraq and Dabbagh insisted that the group should be expelled from the country. Dabbagh had some reasons like: MKO’s terrorist organization and has committed terrorist acts and that MKO’s presence in Iraq contradicts the Iraqi constitution, which bans the presence and activities of terrorist groups in Iraq, and that the presence of this group is against the policies of government in its efforts to establish good relations with Iran. Despite these reasons given by Dabbagh, Khalf Al-Ayan expressed his opposition to the expulsion of MKo from Iraq and called it a humanitarian organization. He claimed that giving shelter to exiles from neighboring countries and giving shelter to criminals and terrorists, particularly those involved in suppressing 1991’s uprising, was legal! This very group executed anyone who escaped the fronts during Iran-Iraq war. The comments of Al-Ayan were made in response to the services of MKO for him (they paved the way for his trip to Europe and his meetings with EU representatives).  It seems that Al-Ayan has forgotten his own controversial comments in which he said Iraqi Shiites were Iranian Safawis and that MKO (hypocrites) are from Safawis and they are Shiites! How long would he continue to talk nonsense?

Shoqi Alisee/Sotaliraq –  2007/04/07

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization

A letter to the “Friends of a Free Iran”

I would like to directs your attention for a few moments in order to give you a different view of the Mojahedon-e Khalq of Iran and why we think that they should stay in the EU terror list.

For the exile Iranians living abroad, and for those who have fought for democracy and the separation between state and religion it is a regrettable day when a terrorist leader can be so enthusiastically received by a number of the EU parliamentary Members.

The MKO (Mojahedin-e Khalq) or NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran) has in our view a dark history in regards to fighting for democracy and human rights. They are responsible of killing thousands of Iranian civilian with acts of terror and bombings of public places. They were regarded as the trusted partners of Saddam Hussein. In the rebellion of the Kurds in 1991, the Mojahedin in support of Saddam Hussein were responsible for the killing of tens of Kurdish citizen of Iraq. Many of our organizations members were members of the Mojahedin at that time and will never forget the famous words of Maryam Rajavi who gave these orders to his army: “do not waste bullets on the Kurds but rather roll over them with your tanks”.

The Mojahedin, under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi oppressed the Kurds in north of Iraq, and gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to gather his forces and crush the Shi’a uprising in the South of the country.

Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, controls the organization with iron fists and look upon themselves as god-like figures sent to rescue Iran and Iranians and are only accountable directly to god. They have turned Mojahedin into a religious cult. They forced every husband and wife to get divorced and made sure that any feelings directed towards family, friends, mothers and children became a crime in of it self. The only “legal” feeling of love was to be held for the Rajavis.

In our view, there is no pride in supporting of a organization and individuals who have no belief in human rights and resort to torture and murder of those who believe differently then themselves.

In order to better understand the Mojahedin-e Khalq cult status, we remind you that after Maryam Rajavi’s arrest on 17 June 2003, over 10 member and followers of the Mojahedin set themselves on fire in protest to the arrest. This action can only be attributed to a cult where individuals are brainwashed and made to believe that their lives mean nothing and can be used as a tool.

I hope you would be able to find the time in order for us to sit down and talk about this in greater detail.

We are delighted that you spend time from your busy schedule to pay attention to the current situation in Iran and what’s happening in and around the Middle East. We hope that you will continue to show your interest in this very troubled area of the world.

As you know there are two sides to any story, and now that you have heard the Mojahedin’s side, you should also make an effort to listen to our side of the story. As both victims of the Iranian regime and the Mojahedin-e Khalq, it is necessary to get to know both perspectives.

 

With best regards

Karim Haggi

Iran Peyvand Association

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Former members of the MEK

The speech delivered by Mr. Sobhani to the European Parliament

Transcription of the speech delivered by Mr. Sobhani to the European Parliament

Explanation:

In an assembly held on March 27, 2007 at the invitation of the European Parliament in Brussels, the topic of "maintaining the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO) in the list of proscribed terrorist groups after the verdict of the Luxembourg Court" was discussed. The assembly was chaired by Ms Angelika Beer, the member of the European Parliament responsible on the Iranian affairs. In this Assembly more than 70 individuals including members of the EP, particularly from the Green Party, experts on the issue of terrorism, and journalists were present. Groups of former members of the MKO who represented some human rights and anti-cult and anti-terrorism societies and centres were also present in this assembly.

 

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani:

I salute the respected ladies and gentlemen here. I particularly wish to thank Ms Angelika Beer the respected chairperson of the assembly. I also thank Senator Josie Doubiee for his valuable speech on the MKO. I am most pleased to be present in your assembly and I will try to use the limited time that I have to describe my bitter experiences during three decades of my activities and cooperation with the MKO as well as my research on this religious cult. My past organisational position in the MKO is quite clear according to the organisation’s publications and documents. I was a member of the central council of the organisation; therefore I am presenting my own experiences of my close involvement inside the organisation. I have gained these bitter experiences through much suffering and pain. I spent more than eight years “ I emphasise more than eight years “ in the solitary confinement of the MKO in Ashraf Camp since I criticised the strategy of armed struggle and terrorism and cooperating with Saddam Hussein. The related documents have been published in Mojahed publication No. 592 dated August 2002; you can see the actual publication here. According to this document, the MKO has published my handwriting which they forced me to write under torture. This of course is my handwriting, but as I explained, I was forced to write it under torture. According to this letter in my handwriting which has been published in Mojahed, the weekly publication of the MKO, No. 592, page 3, I was jailed in solitary confinement in Ashraf Camp on September 1992. Then after eight years, by the order of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi the leaders of the religious sect, I was submitted to Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and security prison in Baghdad. I was in that prison for 35 days and then I was transferred to Abu-Ghraib prison in which I remained for one year. What I am unfolding now are not just my own experiences and are not just those which were imposed on me. There are a number of individuals in this assembly who were also subjected to violations of human rights and there are many others who could not appear in this session. Therefore I must declare that Ms Angelika Beer’s valuable speech based on the report given by Human Rights Watch is a drop in the ocean of the violation of human rights in the MKO religious sect.  I have been invited to this assembly and I deliver my speech here as an expert and researcher on the MKO affairs. If there was a session to speak about the violation of human rights in Iran, I would naturally speak about that subject.

The point I wish to bring up is the fact that the MKO claims they have not attempted any armed or terrorist operation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The organisation has therefore presented this to the Luxembourg Court as evidence to require its name be extracted from the list of terrorist groups issued by the EU. Nevertheless it is well clear that when the former dictator of Iraq was toppled, the organisation had no backup of arms and ammunitions to carry on any sabotage activities. Therefore the matter brought forward by the MKO that they have not committed any terrorist activities since the invasion of Iraq, by no means proves that the organisation has ruled out the idea of armed struggle. The MKO is based on a deep cultic ideology which was well shown in the speech delivered by Senator Josie Doubiee and I along with my colleagues have witnessed these matters very closely. The position of the leader in the organisation is such that he must be totally praised. Several times a day, in the mornings at noon and in the afternoons, the slogan of salute to Rajavi must be shouted loudly in special ceremonies and this is repeated everyday. I would like to ask those who support the MKO, and I am glad that they are present here at the moment; would a liberal or democrat individual submit to the self invented rule of abandoning marriage? Why is the marriage of men and women forbidden in the organisation and why is the punishment for adultery the death sentence? Why was Ali-Naqi Haddadi executed on this charge? Why have many discontented members of the organisation been jailed in Abu-Ghraib prison? An organisation which violates human rights within its own establishment could not call for democracy and claim to be striving for it. The MKO, falsely, I emphasise falsely, claimed after the verdict given by the Luxembourg Court on 12th of December, particularly in Ashraf Camp, that the name of the organisation has been removed from the EU list of terrorist groups. Referring to the explanation given by Mr Passau as one of the legal counsellors of EP in this assembly, such claims are baseless and not true. I draw the attention of those who support the MKO (Mr Sobhani was referring to Mr Paulo Casaca MEP from Portugal) and other participant in this session to an interesting point. You are now seeing a publication which belongs to the MKO and it is its official organ. In the emblem of the MKO a Kalashnikov firearm appears as a symbol of armed struggle. If the MKO is serious about ruling out terrorism and the use of violence, why do they not change this emblem and remove the sign of violence and terror?

Since my time is very short and Ms Angelika Beer has already spoken relating to this matter, I wish to pay my gratitude to the Council of the Ministers of Economy and Finance of the EU which issued a declaration relating to the EU Court verdict and emphasized that the MKO is a terrorist group. I also wish to draw the attention of MEPs to the very fact that since the MKO is a terrorist group with deep cultic structure, we should not neglect them due to the problems with the Islamic Republic. This would be in contradiction with the primary principles of human rights and democracy. One should bear in mind that the MKO has a record of assassination of Americans in Iran in the era of Shah and has carried out hundreds of street clashes and assassinations during the rule of Islamic Republic. They have also killed many of their own discontented members both before and after the revolution. Therefore my colleagues and I, as persons who have illustrative experiences from this organisation could not easily accept that the MKO be removed from the list. Unless the leadership of the MKO, namely Mr Massoud Rajavi and Mrs Maryam Rajavi, bear their responsibility of more than two decades of bloodshed, armed struggle and terrorism which delayed the process of moving toward democracy in Iran. In this case there are International Courts which, naturally, would deal with the matter according to their own rules and regulations.

My time is over now, I am most grateful for your attention to my speech.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

MKO Supports Terrorists

Zari Al-Fahad Al-Asadi, senior member of Governor’s office in Diyala province, said: "citizens of this province will never forget crimes of the MKO during the uprising of Shaabanieh in the south and Kurds’ uprising in the north in 1991; their operation was performed by the assistance of Saddam regime."

"People of Diyala have repeatedly asked for the expulsion of this group from the province but Americans refuse to accept it," he added.

In response to the comments of MKO representatives, published in Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Al-Asadi told a PUK reporter that: "On their comments that 132000 Iranian agents are working in important Iraqi posts, government and parliament should respond. But as far as the governor office of Diyala is concerned, I should stressed that residents of Camp Ashraf are still involved in terrorism and they support anti-government rebels and give them shelter. This organization has close ties with terror groups. This organization, unlike the claims of Noroozi, is not in financial crisis and even rewards its supporters with millions of dollars."

"Ashraf residents continue political activities and they have been able to attract pro-Baathists. They cooperate with some former intelligence officers and some tribes. They have established so-called "Diyala’s Salvation Association", headed by former governor "Abdullah Jaboori," he added.

He also said that: "This group claims that it enjoys political refugee status, but I say that it’s a sheer lie. We have asked the government and parliament to expel these people from our country but the US obstructs our requests."

"This regime has a long history of cooperating with the former regime and no one can forget their role in suppression of uprising in the south and killing the people of Kalar and Kafra. They still hold conferences and welcome terrorists. They claim that their camp has school and hospital and that it has served local residents for the past 20 years, but I should say that no one has access to their remorse camp. The simplest reason is that Saddam’s secret agents who work with this group have warned the residents that no one should near the camp because they are familiar with Farsi (the language of MKO members) and this may lead to the leakage of intelligence.

He stressed the requests of people of Diyala and called for the expulsion of MKO members from Iraq, saying: "We ask for the expulsion of this group from Iraq because we are living in the neighborhood of Iran and establishing good relations with Iran benefits us. Not supporting this group means no interference in other countries’ internal affairs and we don’t want our soil to become a haven for terrorists. We should avoid issues that create tension. Destruction of cities like Mandali, Ghoranieh, Khaniqin and … is enough for us." 

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK; Baath Party Accomplice

Baqubah, Terrorism and MKO

The MKO is a remnant of former regime that has remained active in our country by deception and its goal is to disrupt the situation of new Iraq.

The organization, which acted under the control of former regime and enjoyed considerable equipments and facilities, is still trying to keep its sabotaging role since it’s aware that a fate like that of former regime is awaiting it. The hostility between Iran and occupiers, of course, has delayed the fate of this group.

What we see today in Diyalah (killing Shiites, terror and …) are all backed logistically and the terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalq has a history of such attacks. What’s happening inside Iraq is not irrelevant to the group. Group’s long presence in Iraq has helped the group to get good information about Iraq. This organization was a tool for former regime in suppressing opponents and attacking them. The group maintains its capabilities and is fully aware of developments in Iraq.

The comments of Iraqi interior minister on the MKO and their activities in Iraq exposed part of realities on terrorist operations in Diyalah and showed that the MKO was involved in the activities.

Controlling this organization will decrease terrorism in the province. They are terrorists and we should get rid of them.

It’s surprising to hear that it’s trying to maintain its presence in Iraq by slogans of democracy and liberty. In fact, they want to go on with their destabilizing activities. However, we are not surprised to see hypocrites appearing each day with a new face to get to their filthy goals.

I should repeat that former Baath party and its partners, including the MKO, is the major drive behind all problems and disasters in Iraq

Marwan Tofiq/Barasa news agency

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Belgium

Meeting with Senator Luc Willems of Belgium

A committee from Iran Peyvand Association represented by Mr. Behzad Alishahi and Karim Haggi met with Mr. Luc Willems from the liberal democrats. The private meeting which took place inside the main senate building lasted more then two hours.

AS the head of the judiciary committee of Belgium, Mr. Willems also overlooks the state of cults within Belgium. Mr. Behzad Alishahi & Karim Haggi explained in detail their own personal experience with the cult of Mojahedin. They went into great details of the inner workings of this cult (MKO).

Mr. Willems confirmed that Belgium regards the Mojahedin-E khalq of Iran as a dangerous cult, and that his talks with both gentlemen further confirmed his stance.

Finally there was discussion on how to go about limiting the works of the cult of Mojahedin.

Iran Peyvand Association, April 03, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The Ideology of the MEK

Why Mojahedin Shun Manifesting Contents of the Ideological revolution? (3)

As mentioned before and according to a traditional tendency within Mojahedin, they deliberately conceal the events and happenings. An example to mention is the ideological schism within the group in 1975. In this phase, they ducked to impart the news of schism before the declaration of the ideological schism by Taqi Shahram. On the other hand, they strived to convince the converted Marxist members in the prison not to reveal their conversion and keep behaving as a religious member. It was only after the declaration of the Marxist wing that Mojahedin announced the so-called twelve-clause statement. Many separated members of Mojahedin, including Saeed Shahsavandi, Lotfollah Meisami who were in prison at the time, have talked about the issue in detail.

Mojahedin insisted on holding in the schism at a time when such events and splits were common and inevitable in any revolutionary organization. But Mojahedin, believed to be a political group, chose to impart no piece of information. It could be that the group was worried to lose the support of the religious forces at the time. That is to say, Mojahedin utilized the concealment as a tactic in continuation of taking advantage of the financial aids and recruiting the religious, political forces. Following such a double-faced policy, it was the same case with Mojahedin’s position towards the Islamic revolution in 1979 and its cleric leader. In fact, the adopted tactic granted Mojahedin an opportunity to reorganize as well as to recruit and train new forces.

In the historical process of Mojahedin there can be found numerous instances of adhering to the tactic of camouflage for organizational, political, and … interests. But, following the ideological revolution inside Mojahedin, they took a different trend. The only thing sneaked out of the organization was its qualitative echoes on the members and sympathizers. Of course, the left impression differed in respect to the ranks and organizational echelon. Those nearer to the leading cell at the top felt a closer pertinence to the issue and, as a result, showed more emotional and sentimental reaction. Mehdi Abrishamchi quoting Massoud Rajavi talking about the impact of the ideological revolution on Mahmood Ataei, a member of the Central Cadre, said:

Don’t you remember that Rajavi in his speech referred to Mahmood Ataei who had written that ‘let me cut off my hands so you may believe’? What does it mean? It means that Massoud’s self-confidence does not mean self-confidence in himself, Massoud’s self-confidence means trust of Mojahedin in Mojahedin. [109]

In a report prepared following the video-taped display of the ideological revolution in an organizational meeting in the Europe, Mojahedin talk of similar impacts on lower rank sympathizers residing in European countries. In a part of this report annexed to the pamphlet “The ideological revolution within Mojahedin Khalq” Mehdi Abrishamchi states:

England – A lady who had a Ph.D. in political science said while crying ‘so long I have studied in the university but after my few hours of being present in this meeting, I felt I have learned something and came to know what position a woman occupies and what price should one pay to perceive it. I bow my head. Anybody who conceives should bow his head.’ This lady at first refused to watch the video-taped ceremony of the Norooz meeting; she at times got angry and swore at the organization.

Somewhere else, reporting the reaction of a woman while watching the video display, the report reads:

France – An Iranian woman said ‘the move dissolved the inwoven complex in women. I was not a sympathizer but tonight, for the first time, I quivered and cried. I have bought the book “woman on the course of freedom” and a poster of Ashraf to hang it before my eyes. Tonight, I have achieved freedom’.

Here is another remark:

Germany – An Iranian carpet dealer: ‘I underwent a change. I could not believe. For the first time in my life I sat motionless for 5 hours not knowing how it passed. I had improper ideas about Women but now they are corrected. The words changed me. I want to write a letter to the leadership.’

Regardless of these claims whether being true or not, the importance lies in the irrational and sentimental aspects that have impacts on people. They are the factors that are in themselves considered unconventional in relation to conducts within other similar political organization and which turn to be the criterion to gain organizational legitimacy. Talking on the primary importance of this aspect to comprehend the ideological revolution, Niyabati in his book “The Mojahedin ‘s ideological revolution” writes:

It is obvious that the process does not follow a rational approach. The dominant element in the process is not “logic and reason” but “love” and “emotion”. The means are not dispute and contentment but devotion. That is the point wherein Massoud claims the heart of Mojahedin. [113]

And so as to apprehend the evolution:

In this great scene neither is the campaign background of any importance nor the organizational qualification and even the political conscious. [114]

Actually, the benchmark that qualifies a member to be received in the precinct of the ideological revolution is thus defined:

The wayfarer devoid of any will should stand like a log surrendering himself to the axe of the carpenter to be carved in any form he wills.

To have a good understanding of the correlation, it is necessary to have a good recognition of the content which Mojahedin strongly shun to be revealed. However, the Niyabati’s book as well as the detached members’ testimonies there can be found details of some kind.

Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – April 15, 2007

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts