Sahar Family Website

Rajavi; self-burnings were not enough, you should have sacrificed more

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part eighteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Soon after the arrest of Maryam Rajavi, Rajavi is said to have delivered a videotaped message to Camp Ashraf. What was the message about?

Batool Soltani: in fact, it was neither a message nor videotaped; it was a phone call. It was directed at the self-burnings remarking that whatever we had done through an individual or organizational endeavor, that is, by setting ourselves on fire and sacrificing lives at any cost, failed to be enough for the freedom of Maryam. Interestingly, he used the expression ‘dilly-dally’ meaning that the members had dilly-dallied in June 17 self-burnings and we had to, and have to if necessary, sacrificed much more. He was accusing members of dawdling while more than twenty members had set themselves on fire throughout the Europe and some were in serious condition in hospital. His words denoted that self-burnings had to continue until Maryam would be released but at the same time judged that the very same dilly-dally hade greatly affected the French judicial system. Actually, he was calling for intensification of self-burnings to achieve desired result.

I have to point out that the organization was facing serious restrictions following Maryam’s detention; there were heavily imposed controlling measures and further mass arrests loomed. In fact, part of these self-burnings was considered countermeasure activities to stop losing momentum or dismantling of the organization in France. I mean to say that although all self-burnings were directed for the freedom of Maryam, the organization was concerned about the aftermath that posed a threat and irreversible damage against the organization in France. It was much disappointing that all rankings present in Auvers-sur-Oise were arrested.

Rajavi knew all these and his stress on extension of self-burnings justifiably warranted the survival of the organization. Thus, rather than appreciating the self-burning operations, he encouraged advent of more similar efforts. It was all about his phone call which made a profound impact on all. Although at the time they strongly prohibited committing these suicide operations in Camp Ashraf, Rajavi was encouraging a morality in members and preparing them not to hesitate to engage in such activities within Camp Ashraf whenever necessary. His call instigated a widespread excitement among different ranks in the camp and many volunteered for the self-burning operations. However, they were rejected since self-burnings in the camp were of no use and they had to be carried out just in France and before the eyes of the western media.

SFF: What happened in Camp Ashraf after Maryam was released? I mean how they reacted and what was its impact on the camp?

BS: Massoud made more contacts after her release, with high rankings of the Leadership Council in particular. The first message was mainly centered on congratulation for the achieved victory which he said was the consequent of the members’ sacrifice. But he showed his double face by complaining that Maryam’s confinement could have been made shorter if we had escalated the operations in full-scale. It seemed as if all were, and had to be, indebted to the organization and had to make more sacrifice when commanded.

I remember him saying we should not have hesitated one hour to release Maryam and that we could have played a more influential role in her freedom. I believe if we had access to his phone messages to have a reevaluation, we would find out many things that we, the separated members, had hardly noticed at the time but can reconsider more realistically at the present. That how can one, under any title, allow himself to risk many lives to defy the legal measures of a country that is investigating someone for presumably founded allegations?

When inside the organization, we looked at these as values that had been violated; but now in an open world where we can freely reconsider the past, we see, alas, we had long appraised big lies as values and had deified people who had nothing of extraordinary. It is not at all justifiable even for great leaders of the world to become the object of worship let alone the leader of a group whose members never exceeded four thousand at the time. I believe Rajavi acted so cleverly in respect to Maryam’s arrest because if the legal actions had not been ceased by intimidating reactions for sure the surfaced facts would lead to disbandment of the organization in France or expulsion of all its leading ranks.

That is the reason Rajavi restructured members for prolongation of Maryam’s detention. Less has been talked about the destiny of the organization if Maryam’s detention continued its routine, legal process. All know well that French police and the judiciary, because of political, human rights, social and individual freedom causes under the constitution, hardly ventures in such sensitive cases.

Rajavi is well aware the unfounded claims that the whole case was the product of a political compromise between Iran and France and he knew there were enough evidences to prove the allegations and posed charges. The organization’s appalling reaction did shocked and paralyzed the French police and, as it felt a responsibility to prevent further bruise of public emotions, made it to withdraw. The authorities had been convinced that the immolation would continue for a year-long if they kept Maryam in custody; the awful impress on public opinion was not something the state could tolerate. The sole solution to end the social crisis was then to temporally set Maryam free.

You may remember the widespread hunger strikes of the sympathizers on the banks of Auvers-sur-Oise with many strikers collapsed here and there. Such scenes were too loathsome for the culturally tender French to tolerate. Of course, at the time I was not in the Europe but watched the scenes on Mojahedin TV; I think neither in the past had France experienced such scenes nor it will in future unless re-erected by Mojahedin there or any other European country. The incident opened a new chapter for the West to develop a new understanding of an organization that could so easily violate the social and human principles by setting themselves on fire before the eyes of the public. People could not believe that a group warranted itself the right to breach adopted social rules for the mere claims that could be dealt with through the legal system.

SFF: Of course, the incident granted some Western researchers and reporters to an opportunity to conduct some research. Antoine Gessler’s Autopsy of an Ideological Drift and or Alain Chevalerias’s Brulé Vif (Burned Alive) for instance. Interestingly enough, as it is typical of the organization when reacting against the opponents, it denounced the two authors and accused them of a give and take with the IR regime. You may have come across these accusations in web sites.

BS: unfortunately, not yet. But I will be grateful if you could help me have access to. It can help to fathom the aspects of the tragedy and how they may analyze such incidents. When you come across such human tragedies, possibly you can look back at the backgrounds that led to the instigation of disasters that seemed impossible to occur at the first look. But, unfortunately, we see how easily and fast all those analyses and theories happen to be materialized in a way that bewilders you.

SFF: You touched the point. Can you now speculate about the extent and potentiality of such operations that the organization may put into action when facing similar circumstances anywhere in the world?

BS: To tell the truth, I have been convinced that nothing can surprise me anymore. I do not intend to state that the organization has demonstrated its ultimate potentialities, it is the nature of the demonstrated objection, self-burning, that looks appalling and pathetic in general. Hardly can you stay long beside the bed of a burned man in a hospital while you may spend hours at the bed of any other patient. Now imagine what may happen if you see people spilling gasoline over themselves to become human torches burning before the public.

And all for claimed rights that can be easily solved trough legal procedures. Now imagine the extent of tragedy if the demands necessarily fail to be legally settled and go against any logic and impossible to grant. So, I have learned that anything is possible in this organization and nothing may hit as unexpected. Above all, the members have already been briefed theoretically and ideologically on any unexpected circumstance and the only left option is to push them into action to create a human tragedy in Camp Ashraf or any other place.

SFF: To what degree you think it is possible that they will prompt a human tragedy?

BS: It is really possible. You may not believe, but once Rajavi propound the possibility and enforced it a duty for all and even prepared the instruments to carry it out. The Camp Ashraf residents, for instance, are equipped with cyanide capsules and there are as plenty as gasoline and other inflammable liquids at hand. The human tragedy was an option the organization had adopted even in the reign of Saddam. Rajavi’s excuse is that if disclosure of Ashraf might lead to our annihilation, then, it is better for us to die all here inside Ashraf. His logic is that at least our death here is for the defense of something, the organization, without which we are the walking dead outside. Then let’s die in its defense with a brave death. It was all stated in a meeting before the fall of Saddam.

SFF: Thank you. There are more questions concerning Maryam’s release, but I prefer to continue in the next session, adieu.

To be continued

September 21, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi; the operations have higher potentialities to utilize

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part seventeen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, the June 17 operations, however, has recorded Rajavi; the operations have higher potentialities to utilize achievements for the organization. They can be summed up from two aspects. One is the negative outside consequences and another is the internal achievements the organization thought it had achieved. It is the latter aspect that I mean you explain exclusively from Rajavi’s point of view.

Batool Soltani: The achievements were specifically summed up by Rajavi in one of his messages addressed to the members of the Leadership Council. One significant point to mention here is that Rajavi critically evaluated self-immolations as ‘dilly-dally’ meaning that the members had dwindled in June 17 self-burnings which had diminished the expected resultant outcomes. Then he began to enumerate the achievements of the very same ‘dilly-dally’. The first resultant he stated to be the French police’s pullback. But I think he meant recession of the whole judiciary of France.

I have already made clear that Rajavi’s insistence on Maryam’s release was mainly because of the probable challenging consequences of the case. If the case pursued a routine, legal course, the outcome could be absolutely different. But he was clever enough not to mention the odds and probabilities and briefly alluded to police’s back off. In spite of the fact that efforts were directed at releasing Maryam, Rajavi referred to it as the second achievement. Here he paused to say that further goals had been achieved had the volunteers been much sincere in carrying out their operations.

SFF: Sorry for interruption. What did he mean by sincere?

BS: To tell the truth, I fail to make out an exact connotation for the term. Maybe he wanted to say self-immolations were deficient in number of volunteers and operations. But he would always say that by self-burnings he intended those episodes that would not be necessarily marginalized as pyrrhic victories and carried with them the needed push and effect. Rajavi would say that they knew that even multitudes of self-burnings inside Camp Ashraf fell short of imposing needed effectiveness to score a victory; all depended on a decision in due time and place. It was Mozhgan (Parsai) to make decisions in Ashraf as it was Maryam in Auvers and all senior rankings stationed in the organization’s offices throughout the world. In fact, he was stressing on the efficiency of actions if any responsible ranking would adopt in the sphere of his responsibility.
In general, he was not satisfied with the immediate outcomes and believed that if the organization had less dawdled, the existing potentials and effectiveness would have caused the immediate release of Maryam.

SFF: Sorry again Ms. Soltani. If self-burnings were committed all on organizational command, then, what Rajavi really meant by the members’ dwindling that had caused deceleration of outcome?

BS: It seems that you did not consider my points. The organization has adopted a double behavior policy vis-à-vis the outsiders and insiders …

SFF: I got the point but I mean if 25 have committed self-immolation on organizational command, then, the cease of the 26th means the compliance with the same very order. If it is true, then what does this ‘dilly-dally’ mean? Does it mean that you have been remiss in your responsibility or anything else?

BS: He mainly implied that a member of the Leadership Council that was fully briefed on the strategy of self-immolation had to rush to the first police station to set himself on fire immediately after hearing the news of Maryam’s arrest. Instead, he/she had abandoned what had to do and had put it off for the next day. Self-burnings had to be executed immediately while they had been postponed for a later time after arrangements. Maryam should not have stayed so long in the prison. Rajavi was very sensitive about the due time and place and believed that any delay contributed to loss of a remarkable percentage of effectiveness and all efforts proved to have been in vain.

You see, although self-burnings were organizationally arranged and ordered, there existed still factors so Rajavi could be critical of the members and berate them for negligence in the accomplishment of their duties. In reference to your bringing up the number of self-burnings and that the 26th was ceased by organizational command, I have to say that it is not as you think. It is not at all an issue of the numbers and quantity; they are only instruments to reach the desired outcome. Maybe that is why Rajavi criticizes members’ hesitation to start off self-burnings. You see, the initiation of operations share similar origin but the pace of process and other factors influence the acceleration and deceleration in achieving the final objectives.

To be continued

September 15, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi; you were derelict in performance of your duty to save Maryam

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part sixteen

Sahar Family Foundation: your explanations concerning the approach to carry out the June 17 immolations may indicate that ranking members like Sediqeh, Mozhgan, Beheshteh and more have undertaken the role of an intermediary to have the objectives of the leadership and the organization fulfilled. That is, they provoke others and then withdraw into the shadow or even they may directly engage themselves in the action and sacrifice.

In fact, they may either be instigators or professional activists who engender people like Neda Hassani to be victimized.

Batool Soltani: Somehow it can be said that they play a dual role. Some are stopped just before the attempt according to a schematic plan and some other continue to carry out the orders to the end and entice others to follow.

Furthermore, these intermediaries, as you call them, have a crucial role to play for the media. Much of the success relies on the spectacular achievements of propaganda and whatever the media are to air or release for the public concerning an incident; anything is already articulated and the interviewee selected. It is not so as you think that anybody at random happens to be interviewed by the reporters. Among the members who have set themselves on fire, for instance, Marzieh Babakhani had been selected to talk for the media, as she did with Algeria News Agency. Why did not they choose Hamid Orafa for the job?

Because he was not fully briefed on the whole issue and he could make things worse. Besides, Marzieh’s deformed profile could move people and cultivate in them what best helped organization to take advantage of the situation. She had been selected to be the spokeswoman for the organization and the leadership.

On the other hand, the organization had to first adopt a clear position vis-à-vis the victims, like Neda, and their families to fully figure things out to serve organizational interests. Second, the victim families’ position had to be a show of acquiescence of what their children had done for the organization. Neda family’s attitude had to be indicative of an unforced and arbitrary self-burning by their daughter as a display of her commitment to the leadership and the organization; of course, nobody could consequently condemn the organization and fill a complaint against it.

No doubt, the family had to be fully protected financially, emotionally and through encouraging media coverage to optimistically demonstrate its sympathy for the organization. A good model generated of its own vicious cunning, the protection provided for the family, the money spent, the blood and life of a beloved consumed, all serve to glorify the organization and the leader.

SFF: Does not it raise any question in the minds of the members where the Nada’s family has been to suddenly become the center of so much organizational attention?

BS: It is of no importance for the organization and Rajavi at all. I was in England for four years and Neda’s family were also there. There was no connection between the organization and the family in all these years and it all happened unexpectedly.

Following Neda’s self-burning, the organization exerted much energy to establish close contact with her family and have control over it to persuade it act in behalf of the organization before the camera. The founded intimacy with her parents was more a precautionary measure to avert any unexpected decision against the organization that could mess things up.

SFF: On the one hand the organization, as you say, tries to demonstrate Neda’s death as the outcome of an arbitrary act of immolation, but on the other hand seeks to glorify it within the organization and for the media as a sacred act calling Neda a martyr. How the contradiction is dealt with inside and outside of the organization?

BS: I was an insider and know well that the organization acclaimed Neda’s feat as it was organizationally decreed. The organization’s acknowledgment of her self-immolation bordered on idolatry because the feat was not self-induced but done in compliance with organizational order. It made no difference what they outside would say; the insiders were well aware of the truth.

SFF: Naturally enough, it is evident that the organization tries to justify her feat through an appeal to appraisal of her deed. And, of course, the insiders all know that it was organizationally enjoined.

But it is hard for the outsiders to believe the paradox. On the one hand, Maryam claimed that self-immolations were self-imposed and arbitrary and even accused the French police of preventing her messages to reach outside to stop self-burnings. But she is the first to pay tribute to her tomb to christen her a martyr.

And Massoud is the first to deliver a message to glorify self-immolations and Neda’s act. Mojahedi’s TV broadcasts programs and ceremonies inside Camp Ashraf to celebrate the feats. How, then, can the organization disavow its role in these actions? These are all evidences that approve the organization’s pivotal role. I mean, does the organization think that it can easily make the paradoxes acceptable for the outsiders, as it does concerning the members?

BS: Frankly speaking, the organization is not at all concerned about the prevalence of such contradictions outside let alone a convincing answer. The contradictions you refer to are absolutely natural. That is to say, if you are opposed to such actions, then, of what use are all these propaganda? When you idolize Neda, willingly or unwillingly, you are creating an archetype for others to follow to overcome organizational crisis as well as showing a way to salvation. What is of importance for the organization is the immediate interests and advantages it gains from these all. This is only one aspect of the issue. It is completely different inside of the organization.

Rajavi is frank and has no fear to unveil intended achievements behind the immolations. In answer to the question why people like Neda have to burn themselves for Maryam, Rajavi said when thousands of people were ready to kill themselves for (Abdullah) Ojalan, for Maryam all the organization had to. He compared Maryam with Ojalan in a videotaped message displayed exclusively for the members in the level of Leadership Council. He said nobody condemned neither the organizers and instigators of the mass suicide for Ojalan or Ojalan himself. In his message, Rajavi referred to at least 25 cases of immolations; he was displeased as he believed the members were indebted to Maryam and had not done all they had to.

He would say we had failed to do billionth of what we should have done for Maryam and that, it was Maryam who had suffered and shouldered all hardships. That is how they behave inside the organization. For the outside, it is not necessary to be privy of the details of the inside and the routine is to arrange a pattern not to embroil itself in any row or court case. The responsibility is thoroughly laid on the self-burners themselves.

SFF: forgive my interruption Ms. Soltani, are your explanations excerpts from the very Rajavi’s message delivered from the hideout?

BS: Yes, they are. They are parts of his message delivered for the Leadership Council from his hideout.

To be continued

September 12, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

The manipulated approach to spur immolations

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part fifteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, you averred that the reaction of the members of the The manipulated approach to spur immolations Leadership Council to Maryam’s arrest was a histrionic rather than genuine; a mixture of pretense, sincerity, and the agitated atmosphere that made quite an impression on the audience. Then, it becomes clear that in spite of the created flutter following the news of Maryam’s arrest, the shown sentiments lacked the needed depth and most were imitating and role playing feelings. In such an abrupt outpour of emotions, it won’t be surprising to see a senior member, excited and impressed by the atmosphere, set himself on fire. Imagine what would have been the effect on the lower ranks.

Now my question is, what process had it to follow to convince and instigate others to practically engage in self-immolations, peoples like Neda, Marzieh and many others. Of course, even Rajavi himself knew well that there was no rationale for such practices and maybe laughed at the simplicity of the suicide. The question is what were the factors that forced these emotionally grounded outbursts into action and what role did the organization play as the motivator? And how these ostensibly arbitrary actions could be tallied with their concretely orchestrated nature as a show of strong commitment?

Batool Soltani: It is a little hard to analyze the case. I mean, we cannot precisely decide about the motives and their classification. In one point, it is a matter of strong commitment among the high ranking members, that is, their step by step education to reach a point where you may call it transmutation, I call it commitment, but in organizational teachings they call it ‘unification point’ or identification of within and without. We have already talked about the sophisticated psychological techniques cults manipulate for coercive persuasion or thought reform of the insiders. There are so many cults that have professionalized their approaches and techniques of persuasion as you can well trace in Al-Qaeda. But I think it is much more complicated when we talk about the organization since it utilizes a combination of techniques just in the same way that its ideology is eclectic.

However, the organizational preparedness of volunteers cannot be disregarded. They are people who can be said to have reached a point of selflessness. They have been trained to do whatever they have been imbued with. Some of them may have reached top echelons through a cunning role playing but the majority has succeeded to convince seniors about their truthfulness of actions and intentions. Some are really nasty with repulsive behavior; they may even pass over their most beloved to prove their loyalty and commitment. These are the main actors of the case we are talking about and, consequently, the lower ranks are mostly impressed by the ideas they impregnate them with. Let’s return to concrete aspects of your question.

I assure you that if what happened in France was to happen inside Camp Ashraf. Mozhgan (Parsai) would be the first to take a gallon of gasoline to run towards Americans. Have no doubts that even me, who was skeptical of the whole issue, would follow her with another gal. Logically enough, other chief rankings would catch her to avert her act of immolation. But the story would not end here because her move had already agitated some in hot pursuit whom nobody came to stop and you could soon see human torches running around. It is a general formula within the organization and it makes no difference where the scenario is to be put into practice, in Ashraf, Auvers, or any other part of the world.

I have no doubt that in Paris’s immolations seven or eight seniors like Mozhgan had rushed to set themselves on fire. These are professional starters whose main role, as I explained, is to provoke others to follow. The members who set themselves on fire, like Marzieh Babakhani, Sediqeh Mojaveri and Muhammad Sani, were ranking members who had followed the professional starters who in turn had been stopped mid-way while the others went on to finish the job. None of these people, including those I named, immolated on arbitrary decisions and I am sure they had been fully briefed on the operations they had been chosen to carry out in the headquarters of Paris and London; they dad been fully crosschecked in a process of mood-altering program and relevant ideological commitment to leadership to avert any antagonistic attitude that might cause them to shrink from fulfilling the mission. To tell the truth, I closely knew Marzieh Babakhani; she was, I beg your pardon for using such terms, a real charlatan and quarrelsome who indeed played a key role to provoke others and charge the atmosphere with sentiments that could easily be a trigger for action.

Indeed, she played the very same role as Mozhgan, or Beheshteh Shadroo and other similar rankings under Rajavi’s direct command could have in the Camp Ashraf. I have no doubt that one or two of these seniors rushed into the street towards the Police with gallons of gasoline in hand; naturally sub-rankings like Neda (Hassani) and others dashed after them. On the way, the forerunner ranking, suppose she was Beheshteh Shadroo, received a message ordering her to return since she had no right to set herself on fire. It is a general process within the organization with numerous examples to spotlight. The scenario might be planned to be played either for immolations or other disciplinary cases.

For instance, one had to be rebuked and scolded before other members in a general meeting. While he was speaking, one like Abbas Davary, who had already been assigned for the purpose, started to assail him and yell at him. A few other members automatically stood to join Davary as assailants. Here, Davari’s mission was over and he would sit down to let others continue.

Most of the time, those who got involved in the assail had no real reason for what they were doing; the only thing they knew was that they had to enthusiastically continue along with the others in the raised fuss. In such an agitated climate, all tried to conform and hardly anyone opted to remain passive. It is the same scenario put into practice in the pattern of self-immolations; one senior starts and sub-rankings hurry after to take their opportunity of displaying commitment. They are the real victims who may be unaware of the good reason for what they are doing.

The organization sees no reason to brief victims on what they have to be sacrificed for. Only the seniors and those who are the leading starters receive the appropriate trainings and instructions concerning safeguarding the interests of the organization and leadership. They are trained how to start and provoke others to continue with the mentality of injustice imposed on the organization and a due responsibility to stand up for restoration of justice. The members never receive similar trainings in the organization. Marzieh Babakhani and I were both in offices in London and members of the Leadership Council but with different ranking status; there was a body called the Leadership Council but with a variety of hierarchical levels and what promoted members was the degree of their devotion and commitment to the leadership.

Sediqeh Husseini and I were simultaneously announced as the members of the Leadership Council but soon she was promoted to first secretary while I had made no advance to upper organizational ranking as I failed to follow her in growing the sense of commitment. They know on whom they invest for the critical situation as she did set herself on fire when the time came.

This is through such approaches that the organization prepares to counteract impending crisis. The death of Neda Hassani as a result of her self-immolation was the outcome of an abrupt emotional burst to rush after a catalyst who was never intended to commit the suicide. Look at Neda’s age, education and depth of her political background. She fails to be qualified and experienced enough to be included in the circle of senior rankings; she belongs to the class of the victims who was stirred into action just in the middle of an agitated climate to display her so-called commitment to the leadership.

It is in total contrast with what the organization usually advertizes for the public outside to boast about the rank and file and sub-rankings as the main body whose decision runs the main policy of the organization and affects the leadership’s decision makings. As Rajavi rudely put the responsibility of his egocentrically initiated armed phase on the members and claimed that it was the members who convinced the leader to adopt an inevitable decision.

Or when they referred to Ahmad Rezai’s suicide operation whenever talking for the rank and file, they intended to instill into them he was a leading ranking who had committed suicide to become an archetype for lower ranks to follow. The adopted approach has undergone a qualitative change through the years but the mindset of sacrificing for the survival of the organization and safeguarding the interests of the leadership have been increasingly fortified.

To be continued

September 8, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi, self-immolations forces French authorities to withdraw

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part fourteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, we intend to have a discourse on the issue of self-immolations in June 17, 2003. My first question is under what motives and ends were these incidents broached within the organization?

Batool Soltani: I was not present in the Europe at this phase, but the question was that the members’ main responsibility to repel the direct threat posed against the leadership’s interests was to make sacrifice in any possible way and degree.

SFF: I mean, through what clear process did the organization conduct such feats and what were the targets it directly aimed at?

BS: The main objective was to release Maryam Rajavi as fast as possible but hardly had they thought of possible controversial consequences of such operations. In the higher echelons there might have been a different analysis and conjectures concerning the incidents but in our membership level the stress was on the acceleration of Maryam’s release.

SFF: Maybe I have failed to properly phrase my purpose. So I phrase it anew with an explanation. The motives behind these self-immolations are a matter of dispute. It can be looked upon as a reaction against the leadership’s sacrilege. Or it can be a matter of infringing regulations, that is to say, if Maryam Rajavi’s case was to follow a legal process, especially with concern to the charges against her, she had to face legal trials and the consequent verdicts of punishments. Looking it from this aspect, could these anti-social deeds be challenging and charging Maryam Azodanloo with further allegations and their irreparable consequences? If you remember, prior to this session, you had a reference to Rajavi’s best position taking concerning Maryam’s arrest and explained that her arrest could have serious legal outcomes for her and the headquarters in Auvers-sur-Oise. Your reference to these deeds was from a precautionary point of view. The motives behind these self-immolations were only a reaction against the sacrilege to the leadership or coverage for allegations such as laundry, plot against the opponents and other charges of her case? Will you explain if in their inter-organizational analysis the issue was discussed from this aspect?

BS: What they mainly focused on in the organization was the very aspect of the leadership’s sacredness and that we had to do our best to force French judiciary into withdrawing or at least baffle their attempts to take serious decisions. Thus, it can be concluded that their principal objective was aftereffects of the arrest. If you may ask for the cause, the organization has already an experience of Rajavi’s expulsion from France. It happened at a time when Rajavi had resolved to join hands with Saddam and make an alliance. That is, the organization had prepared a de facto background to settle if expelled from France. Of course, there is also a possibility that France’s decision to expel Rajavi was in line of his own volition to leave France. That is why he showed the slightest resistance with the excuse that Iran and France had reached a compromise on his expulsion.
Naturally, when the expulsion by itself helped to actualize general objectives of the organization, it was in no way rational to show reactions like that of the 17 June immolations. Of course, such operations were on the agenda at that time but Rajavi had resolved on a willing decision to leave. But in the case of Maryam it was totally different; Camp Ashraf was no more a stable bastion to settle and her chance of relocation to Iraq had sank to zero. Furthermore, the strategy of the organization was to keep her in the Auvers and to fortify the new bastion there with her as the leader of a pro-democratic and counter-fundamentalist opposition. Naturally, accomplishment of such objectives required a timely decision and reaction. Just as the organization thought France was cozy up to her settlement there she was arrested on many charges that not only seemed to be a violation of the leadership’s sacredness but also could in itself lead to unpredicted consequences; she could even be possibly tried and expelled from France. There had to be taken a calculated risk since the organization lacked a brain at the top; one leader was absent and the other was arrested.
The immolations were the sole option to overcome the crisis, call it a reaction against violation of Maryam’s sanctity or anything else. What the organization needed at that critical moment was to strip members of their capacity for rational activity because it could not preach for them about the legal adverse consequences of Maryam’s apprehension. Then, what had to be done? It is already instilled into them to react whenever the leadership’s sanctity happens to come under direct violation regardless of any regulations they have to submit in the country wherein they are living. The sole goal becomes to release Maryam and they have nothing to do with the legal and illegal aspects of her arrest. The immolations were blind operation that could either aggravate the crisis or temporally tone it down.
It was all outside reflections. As soon as Maryam was arrested, Mozhgan Parsai held an extraordinary meeting in Camp Ashraf and announced that Massoud had delivered a message to inform the arrest of Maryam and a number of other rankings in France. The squall among the members of the Leadership Council disturbed the meeting but Mozhgan continued reading Massoud’s message saying he had insisted that for the release of Maryam, even one hour sooner, all the interests of the organization throughout the world, all its possessions and all the members failed to be enough to be set on fire. It was the reflection of her arrest inside Camp Ashraf. That is why I insist that the organization tried to keep the sacredness of the leadership infringed since it could easily stir the emotions if the sanctity was proclaimed to have been violated. As it was a question of the survival of the organization, leadership and ideology, Mozhgan persisted on emotional aspects of the issue to be magnified for the rank and file. She ended the meeting by saying we were all in our organizational preparedness.

SFF: What did she mean by organizational preparedness?

BS: Nothing in particular. It was only an emphasis on the normalization of the relations among the present members of the Leadership Council and that, all had to behave normally when encountering the lower ranks to pretend nothing serious had occurred. The mixed up appearance of the rankings, swollen red eyes and disorderly hair, could disturb and lower the rank and file’s morale.

SFF: How sincere do you think were the ranks in their emotional reactions?

BS: For myself, it was not sincerely at all. At that moment I had my own doubts. Among the members of the Leadership Council were those who had volunteered to set themselves on fire before Americans, but I believe it was nothing more than a histrionic behavior and there is no clear evidence to say if they were truthful in what they showed. In some cases, it was genuine emotions mixed with insincerity that had their impact on the others to create a homogeneous unity.

To be continued

September 5, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s interpretation of the holy and foul suicide

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part thirteen

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms. Soltani, in our last session, you mainly focused on theoretic and tenable aspects of suicide operations. Your explanations were nice but it would be much better if you elucidate the practical instances of suicides and self-immolations you have personally witnessed. There are reports of some cases committed for a variety of reasons. I mean how Rajavi reacted to these acts and analyzed them. Your explanations will shed light on ambiguities especially if the names of the victims are mentioned.

Batool Soltani: Well, many of these cases can be found happened within the organization. In many cases Rajavi exclusively referred to some instances as proofs when trying to inoculate his mentalities.

Of course, as I have already pointed out, such discourses were held only in the meetings of the Leadership Council and never leaked out. Bear it in mind that he never intended to compare anything with the opponent side or infer anything from these instances of suicide when referring to them. It was an issue discussed within the organizational sphere and, of course, deductions were generally related to internal relations. The main focus was differentiating between the holy and sinful kinds of suicide with the emphasis on romanticizing the suicide and describing it as a noble act which Rajavi theorized according to his interpretations.

I have to point out that some of these suicides were committed just following these meetings like the suicide done by Mehri Moussavi just as some had been recorded before. Of the significance was his skill in presenting examples that could well help to differentiate between the two, that is to say, the presented standards and motivations, which the ranking members were well aware of, behind these suicides could well help to identify whether it was esteemed a holy suicide for the cause of the leader and interests of the organization or despised a sinful suicide for individual weaknesses, flaws and ambitions. Of the suicides that offended Rajavi and made him erupt furiously to hold consequent lengthy meeting with the members of the Leadership Council was the suicide committed by Kamal Haddadi long after the beginning of these discourses. He was a ranking member of the Central Council and that was the cause for Rajavi to be sensitive about the incident.

A look at the list of the members of the Central Council at the time, dissolved after the initiation of the ideological revolution, indicate that he was a ranking commander deposed of his responsibility after the ideological revolution. The emphasis on him as an officer of high ranking is to know how Rajavi degraded such people when treating them for organizational concerns. Kamal was reported to have established a relation with a woman under his command.

The relation could be any organizationally unauthorized relation regardless of being ideological, emotional, moral or even a love affair. They said it was a love affair and the case was sent to Rajavi and Maryam to be dealt with. At the time Rajavi was stationed in Camp Parsian. Before transferring Kamal to Camp Parsian, Mahvash Sepehri began further investigation of the case and put Kamal in a prison cell called ‘Bangal’, an isolated, solitary confinement where they kept the culpable to be judged. She pressed him with recriminations and accused him of immoral relations with the woman. So harsh and disdainfully she treated Kamal that he could easily anticipate what awaited him before Rajavi. He could tolerate no more and committed suicide in his cell.

At the time, I was a ranking deputy in the Leadership Council and was present in the meetings particularly dealing with such cases. I remember the first words stated by Rajavi concerning Kamal’s suicide. He was much enraged by Kamal’s act and said he threw his corpse on the leadership’s table. I have to point out that Kamal’s suicide was never mentioned among the rank and file who thought he had died of a natural death. But all the members of the Leadership Council knew that he had died of psychological pressures impressed by Sepehri. In the very same meeting, Rajavi appreciated Sepehri and said Kamal deserved to be treated so contemptibly and unworthy way to commit suicide. Rajavi never mentioned anything about ideological deviation that could have affected Kamal because it could raise questions. Kamal was shown to have no ideological problem and that he had chosen his path rightfully; his death had to be looked and analyzed from a different angle to preserve the good image of the organization.

What Rajavi depicted was so easy to perceive. Among the members are those who set themselves on fire for the sake of the organization and leader’s interests; in contrast, some others commit suicide for deviant, immoral causes and threw their corpses on the table before the leader. Then he compared the different motivations behind the two acts. Those who committed suicide for selfish causes not only committed sin but also led the organization to the midst of a big problem hard to deal with. The former suicides solved a problem in the course of accomplishing a holy cause while the latter suicides burdened problems on the shoulder of the leader. People from each group lose their lives on their own but it is the contradictory motives that decides who is blessed or condemned; the former has succeeded to release himself of his own self to become selfless and attach to an ideological source without; the latter is a slave of his own self and is reluctant to discharge introspections in the arranged weekly ablution sessions to clean his inside.

Taking opportunity of Kamal’s case to illustrate intended motives of suicide, Rajavi presupposed that following the US invasion, the destiny of Mojahedin would be vague. We would be dispersed and sent to different parts of the world; a group to Iran, another to France, America or any other place. In that case, could we possibly carry the potentiality of being a mobile bomb ready to detonate to safeguard the interests of the leadership? To ideologically justify the suicide operations, he again referred to Kamal’s case and other similar cases of suicide for personal motivations; one killing himself for sexual impulses, another disappointed, flawed and depressed, and Kamal Haddadi who was in contradiction with himself and failed to appear before other members to confess his sins and purge himself. None of them, he said, had committed suicide for the sake of leader and their attachment to him. No status and value could be so noble as compared to that of setting oneself on fire for the leadership and Maryam.

Although motives for suicide varied, what differentiated between the individual and ideological motives, the former described as a sin in the Quran and the latter romanticized and glorified for organizational causes, was the pivotal point where one’s self met and attached itself with that of the leader who well directed the act onto the right path. It was no more suicide but martyrdom and even exceeded it in value. To give further explanation, he said; consider in this very moment something suddenly threatens my life as your leader. One of you may imagine that the threat is removed if you set yourself on fire. In his opinion, the suicide had committed a sin in risking his life to save the leader because the act was non-ideological and performed under no command by the leader; the suicide was now a foul corpse cast before the leader.

It was one of the instances Rajavi delineated and formulated the ideological suicide that differentiated it with a foul and sinful one; the holy suicide has to be performed only and purely by the permission and the command of the leader, otherwise it will be considered a big sin the ideological motives have spurred it. Thus, it can be concluded that the 17 June self-immolations, in contrast to Maryam Rajavi’s rejection to be instigated by the organization, were organizationally planned and orchestrated and approved by the leadership. None of the volunteers set themselves on fire entirely of their own volition; their acts to be esteemed holy, they had to follow the decree and command of the leadership. Does it mean anything else when they glorified the acts of Neda (Hassani) and Marzeh (Mojaveri), both died of the burning injuries, as holy feats? Their self-immolation before anything indicated the degree of their loyalty and submission to the leadership. These instances along with Rajavi’s ideological interpretation as well as his reference to the Quran as a subterfuge to justify his egocentric ambitions may lead us to the bottom of truth.

To be continued

September 3, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s passion for women and his ambition for leadership

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Final Part

When the so called detachment between women and Rajavi was removed, they were completely comfortable to speak about any sort of problem in the meetings. In fact, the ease in the Rajavi's passion for women and his ambition for leadership relationships was the outcome of those arguments made by Maryam about “traditional woman “or “woman in quotation marks”. Massoud Rajavi never limited himself to present any sort of problem. Even before marrying every woman in the leadership council, he was always relaxed to ask his questions or to convey his arguments in a manner he desired.

Even where there were some reports on immoral relationships in various levels of the organization, he simply asked detailed questions to know what he needed to know. He asked our opinion and what we knew about that immoral relationship. He never felt shameful among the members in every level of MKO to seek the details. He was totally open in his relations and behaviors.

Among the members, there were some people who left meetings after such cases were presented. It is worth knowing that Massoud’s reaction was so humiliating. He called them "peasants" or “mullahs”. Maryam also accused them of being superficial or reactionary.

Despite these reactions there were others who stood up and asked why they are saying so and that was not their problem. Thus they faced the case from a superior position. After some time gradually those so called "peasants" became relaxed in the meetings due to the process the leaders used in order to despise them.

As a matter of fact, those justification meetings lasted for around a hundred hours in order to achieve the desired result. The problem cannot be solved in a short-term meeting.

During the meetings some of the members protest, they leave the hall to think outside, and then they get back saying that they were wrong. They explain their reaction towards that case. The leader asks them what their problem is. They confess that they got angry regarding the discussed case.

To justify their reaction, Rajavi says that these thoughts are the remaining of the reactionary traditional thoughts of Mullahs. He relates the protests to different things and finally accuses the person of being under the influence of her ex-husband and then he concludes that “she hasn’t actually divorced her husband; her divorce is not a real one! She is basically problematic and that is why she doesn’t attend the meeting. She has to start from the beginning.” Such arguments sometimes last one to two hundred hours.

I think Rajavi stands on two virtual legs: One is his passion for women and the other is his ambition for leadership. These traits lead him to a totalitarian, power seeking personality.
I think he is able to achieve his ambitions using these two aspects of his personality. He is definitely capable of using them. I’ve already explained that he cannot bear the presence of a man among his so called leadership council. This certifies that he has a psychological problem. In a wide echelon (the leadership council) he gathers his passion for women with his ambition for leadership to accomplish what he wants.

Rajavi believes that a woman works more obediently than a man. He thinks that when he orders a man to do a job, he may ask why, but a woman never asks questions about the demands, she would immediately execute the order. And that’s exactly what Rajavi wants. This is the potential that he cannot see in his male members. What matters to him is that who the best to achieve his goals is. Comparing men with women, Rajavi believes that women are different phenomena whom he can invest on.

I think this approach has a very basic role and makes good tools to achieve further objectives.

Translated by Nejat Society

September 2, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Massoud asked arrogantly:”Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?”

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Part 22

The members of the Leadership Council were convinced to marry the leader with the reasoning Massoud asked arrogantly: "Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?" and logics that Maryam and Massoud gave them. They may simply be convinced due to the way Maryam viewed them. She had already spoken to the members in a humiliating manner in order to make sure that they would be persuaded that “ideological marriages are superior to normal marriages”!

This reasoning recalls Surdell’s dialectic that says:” to escape from humbleness, the individuals have to shelter before the one who humiliates them. Therefore, the relationship between leaders and members was managed in a way that the justifications were easily accepted. I would like to note some justifications Maryam and Massoud made to convince us.

Maryam accused us of having a reactionary mind that motivated us to feel a distance between Massoud and ourselves In order to convince us to marry him, Massoud Rajavi said in a meeting: “if the peak of sexual marriage is 10, then the peak of ideological marriage will be one thousand. Imagine that you are in a hall with a very high ceiling, if you are under a table, the top side of the table will be the peak of an ordinary marriage which signifies a wife-husband relationship, but the ceiling of the hall will be the peak of an ideological ideal relationship. Your mind is filled with old thoughts; you think that I am stranger to you, so you are not comfortable with me. Now that we want to remove this obstacle and we want to remove the quotation marks from the women, we use this scheme.” According to the leaders of MKO, “Women in quotation marks” (cult jargon) signifies women who have grown up in an ordinary society with normal regulations ruling it. They meant the traditional weak women.

Maryam Rajavi tried to degrade the traditional women who “are always owned by their husband.” She insisted that we were still in that situation and we didn’t pass over those old thoughts.

Naturally, we tried to remove that humiliating view from ourselves. The leaders looked dawn on us so we accepted everything they said. They always tried to make us doubt our individuality. If we were not able to present a case about one of our minor colleagues, Maryam would punish us. She accused us of distancing ourselves from Massoud. Then she concluded that the problem comes from our thinking. I could never convince myself to accept their justification from the bottom of my heart.

Maryam accused us of having a reactionary mind that motivated us to feel a distance between Massoud and ourselves. Then she concluded that in order to remove this distance, we should marry him. She made us believe that we never had the right to have another husband. Then in the meeting Massoud asked us arrogantly: "Does anyone claim to have a husband other than me?"

Then he added “if anyone feels she belongs to her ex-husband for the least part, she should get out of the room.”

In fact, with his reasoning, Massoud convinced the members that he sacrificed himself to release the women from the old, traditional, reactionary thoughts that always exploited women in the history.

In MEK, the leaders try to make you believe that Massoud Rajavi is the only one who is always ready for change and revolution; the only one who scarifies himself to solve others’ contradictions; he is the only one who accepts every responsibility. Therefore he is not an ordinary man! This is what the organization makes us to believe.

August 25, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part twelve

Sahar Family Foundation: Ms, Soltani, you pointed out something interesting concerning the Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi mechanism of suicide operations and self-immolations, that is, how easily one can carry out these organizationally inculcated operations just by making a liaison with a point out of one’s own self. That is, one overruns his individuality and will for a greater cause crystallized in another person called leader. The logic, regardless of its justifiably luring virtue, does not end here because any thought and attitude can easily justify itself through such a logic. That is true about many adherents of cults who do anything for the guru, preaching right or wrong notwithstanding. Following such logic, any group can claim to be rightfully on the right path and it has nothing to do at all with the nature of the source of liaison. There were people on the side of Yazid (a reference to a historical event when the army of Yazid massacred all forces on the side of Imam Hussein, the third Shi’it imam) who had accepted the leadership of Yazid and fought against Imam Hussein with a gesture of goodwill and for the sake of God. Is it right to say that liaison with a source of leadership justifies a truth? If so, there are many antitheses to discuss. Was there any opportunity to discuss these discrepancies and what were Rajavi’s responses?

Batool Soltani: Indeed there were many controversies and, of course, Rajavi insisted that the members of the Leadership Council take their time to solve any ambiguity and raised question. But his answer to these ambiguities was that first it had to be discovered why people had joined the side of the wrong. He insisted on recognition of what had motivated them to join. There was no question if they had joined for worldly and ambitious causes but it was different if they were fighting on the wrong front for the cause of truth. Then it turned to be a matter of the ideologically polluted system of the opposite front. He mainly focused on the polluted ideology of the followers of the opposite front. He gave example of the operation Eternal Light saying that we would call our killed forces martyrs as did the Islamic Republic and strongly contradicted its claims to be on the right path; he believed that the IR had deceived and misled who had come to confront the rightful Mojahedin’s forces. The IR forces had not erred in attaching themselves to the IR leadership but it was the wrong ideology that had misled them.

SFF: Then it was not totally a matter of ambitions since they too fought for ideological causes and had attached themselves to someone out of their own self.

BS: That is why he would say they had ideologically been misled and anybody following Khomein’s ideology failed to be accounted as our forces who could never be ideologically affiliated with the regime. None of the either sides could possibly agree on the oriented ideology of the opponent, but there were those who walked a middle path and dodged seeing their interests in danger. He would call them compromisers who never walked in a fixed front and changed their position whenever sensed danger from any side. Thos who shunned, for example, committing suicide or self-immolation when it was necessary belonged to this very same group. They are people of ambitions and opportunists who are enslaved by their whims and avarice and infiltrate into both sides to fill their pack and have nothing to do at all with the ideology and the leadership. In fact, he believed, they were attached to nobody but themselves while the real forces adherent to either ideology resisted to the end and never changed their positions.

Those who stood on Rajavi’s side were known to be the true believers of a right ideology while the others on the opposite front were perverted and aberrant. He would adduced the Quran as his proof for his theory and would say the Quran classifies people into four groups; the righteous, the martyrs, the faithful and the prophets. Nothing was to be told about the last group that was an exception. One way to recognize the sincere who assented to commit suicide operations was to see his frequent attendances of weekly hold sessions of ablution and confession*. It was the recognized boundary between the true ideological believers and the opportunists. It was Rajavi’s instructions preached in the meetings of the members of the Leadership Council and insisted that those who refused and dodged to attend weekly sessions of cleansing and confession would certainly stop midway in the path of struggle while others, who attended sessions, continued to the end.

These instructions were all included in the especial book prepared by himself for the members of the Leadership Council who had to attend weekly sessions as well to prove their sincerity. He would call the weekly ablutions a ‘great crusade’ through which one could unite his within with without and dared to outpour all counter-values that hindered when the time came to sacrifice to defend the leader and his interests. These were the faithful who had even outstripped the martyrs, that is what he believed in. There were sympathizers who came to take part in the demonstrations and would donate sums of money to help but never risked their life in practical struggle. They were the righteous but still lagged far behind the martyrs. Unlike them, the faithful risked their life anywhere in the world just to defend and safeguard the interests of the leadership by setting themselves on fire. They outshined the martyrs.

Now, what was the touchstone to distinguish them? They could be recognized in the frequency of taking part in the weekly sessions of ablution and who cleaned their selves by pouring out what was passing within them; their personal penchants, lust, insincere tendencies, and whatever hindered them to be unified with Rajavi. The ones that merged with Rajavi made no attempt to conceal anything from him and if they had to, it was a matter of submission to his order. Nothing could come between them and the leader and they had fused into one. No doubt, such devoted people never disappointed their leader when the time came to commit suicide and set themselves on fire. Thus, this is an answer to existing contradiction within Rajavi’s system. But I can give more details to resolve these contradictions. I think Rajavi followed a model that he had theorized in its most extreme form.

At times in inter-organizational relations and meetings, Rajavi would decry the idea of being touched by Khomeini. He meant that we should not do things to be afraid of being condemned of following the models and ideological guidelines of Ayatollah Khomeini. But then it changed. Rajavi resolved that his relation with the members and sympathizers had to be set on such pattern that was further explained in a speech by Mehdi Abrishamchi. What he said in general was that the organization should have no reluctance in abandoning fears of condemnation and following a pattern in its struggle to topple the regime. The best pattern at hand he recommended to adhere to and practice within the organization was Ayatollah Khomein’s relation with his followers, mainly founded on people’s compliance with him. Of course, they disregarded his charismatic influence on his followers that goes far beyond ordinary logic or self-interest and since Rajavi failed to understand and explain such devotional relationship, he tried to interpret it within the terms like detachment from the self and attaching to a source without; that is, the members have to be completely devoted to their leader and prepared to do anything he commands- even kill others, or themselves.

The more the time passed, the more he was obsessed with plans to become a magnet to draw devoted members and insisted to exactly, even if forcibly, accomplish the pattern he was holding onto. He was merging the principle of guidance with its authoritative aspects and opportunism to create a holy man of himself called the ideological leader. He dissolved all those assemblies and bodies whose role was to supervise the leadership and became the egocentric leader and center of all decision makings and identical to nobody in the modern world; a morally, ideologically and politically infallible leader who was even exceeding the pattern he had chosen. Thus, he became a leader from whom even the ideology drew its legitimacy.

To be continued

*. According to a recently published official report by RAND, the MeK holds daily, weekly, and monthly “sessions” that involve forced public confessions aimed at expelling deviant thoughts and behaviors that are believed to undermine group coherence. MeK members are required to keep daily records of their thoughts and nighttime dreams, particularly sexual thoughts and desires (which are, of course, forbidden), as well as observations about their fellow members. They must submit their journals to their supervisors. During large meetings, members often are forced to read their reports aloud and to make self-critical statements. MeK members are often required to admit to sexual thoughts.

August 24, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s leadership, the criterion to legitimize the ideology

Sahar Family Foundation: We continue with the question, in all aspects of the discussed suicide operations, what were the ideological foundations and historical backgrounds that theorized and justified application of such operations? Were there any reliable historical facts to refer to or Rajavi relied only on his own inferences to justify such deeds? As Rajavi usually theorizes anything before putting it into action, it has to be necessarily true in this case as well. I believe these are key issues, hardly discussed in detail, to help develop a better understanding of such reprehensibly ideological mannerism. So I think you can better disclose untold aspects since you have been so close to the nucleus of decision makings.

Batool Soltani: Naturally, as they stated, anything was founded on and done according to a series of presented justifications. That is to say, any resolution had to be justifiably fitted in an ideological apparatus to be practically conceivable. I myself believe that we cannot possibly develop an understanding of the mechanisms that are products of an egocentric will, and in many cases self-instigated, unless we can well analyze fundamental principles. Concerning your question, I will give some details of what I have observed in the different levels and in the level of the Leadership Council in particular.

Regardless of many subjects already discussed, once in 2002 we had a long discourse on the subject you broached. I have to point out that there was a especial book of the Leadership Council wherein you could find the questions, duties and responsibilities of the members of the Leadership Council. Particularly, an article exclusively concerned the subject. Of course, the book was only circulating among the members of the Leadership Council and none of the lower ranks were permitted to touch it. It was exclusively edited for the members of the Leadership Council and would be also referred to as “the Book of Guidance”. The book contained extended degrees of responsibilities as well as the limitations and whatever was considered to be an act of sin. In one of the meetings of the Leadership Council it was enthusiastically debated about the mentioned subject and the historical backgrounds of the suicide operation. In his speech Rajavi underlined that the act of suicide in itself was a big sin and homicide in Islamic teachings. He would say if according to Quran suicide was known to be a big sin then, why we were stressing on suicide and related operations as a working approach. Of course, it was before the widespread self-immolations of June 17.

He would continue focusing on the point that while it was a big sin then, why we took advantage of it for organizational interests and to defend Ashraf. In answer to his own raised question some stood to justify that the suicides were ideologically rooted and done for organizational and revolutionary interests that eventually benefitted masses. He taunted them all about whatever they thought to be serious remarks. He explained that it was all beyond our understanding since we lacked the sound political-ideological capacity needed to reach the accurate answer. The rationalized answer to his own posed question was that in all the wars and battles to which the prophets and imams dispatched their disciples to and also the armed struggle the organization was engaged in some people were inevitably killed. Then, was there any difference between the former warriors called martyrs and the latter combatants killed in the course of suicide operations? Both of the groups he explained to be of help to their leaders to carry out their responsibilities to affect their societies and the revolution they led. He meant that there was no difference between the two groups since both were killed in a battlefront to which they had been dispatched by the order of leaders who intended to accomplish the same cause.

Giving further explanations, he focused on Ahmed Rezai’s suicide act as a sacred feat beyond any regular suicide operation saying his act was sacred and distinguished because he, as the suicide-man, had reached a point where he had detached from his own self and had attached himself to a source without. Any act in any form, being suicide, self-immolation or else, done when the suicide detaches himself from his within and relies on a pivot without not only distances himself from any territory of sin but also transcends himself to a status even above the martyrs. He would interpret that the Quran regards suicide an act of sin because the perpetrator does it in the sphere of observing only his own self and as a result of failing to satiate his own personal will and whim. Then, it would be considered no sin if committed far from selfish tendencies and for a sacred causes to achieve some social and historical ends.

The Quran condemns suicide when motivated by individual urges and the suicide sees no obligation to follow the orders of a leader who intends to alleviate social problems and solve social controversies. It is no more a sin as it relies on and is guided by a pivotal element without who controls deflection when attached to. In fact, Rajavi was commenting on the application of one of the articles of his forced ideological revolution referred to as article F, Fardiyat (individual). The article in particular asserts the relation between the individuals and the leader meaning that it is the leader who legitimizes anything said or done by the individuals. He is the pivot on whom the individuals have to relay and attach themselves for interpretation of anything that happens to be practical and the criterion to assess the accuracy and soundness of thoughts.
SFF: What did Rajavi actually mean, attachment to leadership or ideology? Since it is the ideology, however, that crystallizes the values than the leader whose main role is to interpret and foster them. What did he really mean?

BS: He exactly intended attachment to leadership himself. There were controversies at the beginning on the ideological aspect and some would say that suicide draw its legitimacy from the ideology while Rajavi had a different opinion stressing on the leader as the matrix to which the individual had to secure a liaison. Although it may generally be considered the very same ideology, Rajavi believes that it is the leader who is the spirit without whom anything lacks legitimacy. It is main cause of his strife with the Islamic Republic regime. Attachment to ideology in his opinion is a general perception that actualizes by attaching to the leadership. Then, the matrix one attaches himself to far from his own self is the leader rather than the ideology since from the very beginning the leader has crystallized the ideology itself. As a matter of fact, both are regarded identical with the priority of the former over the latter to justify suicide tantamount to a de facto recognition of a sacred act wherever and whenever the leader wills. Looking it from the angle of Rajavi’s interpretation, the leader is the criterion and the grounds to judge what is lawful, permissible, prohibited and ideologically acceptable. That is where one’s suicide turns to be a big and unforgivable sin if it is unauthorized by the leader regardless of him being directly or indirectly attached.

SFF: What do you mean by directly or indirectly?

BS: By directly I mean a reaction against any direct attempt on the leader’s life when an individual risks his life to save the leader. Any reaction to protect the interests of the leader anywhere on the earth by risking one’s life is an indication of indirect attachment, a responsibility the individuals claim to defend the leadership, his security and interests. In both cases, whether the leader is exposed to direct attempts of assassination or indirect character assassination, one has to protect and defend the leadership and sacrifice himself. To actualize his justifications, he did not even shrink from identifying himself with the prophets and imams. He would say the one who sacrificed himself to protect the Prophet against the harms of the adversaries was identical with the same faithful follower who committed suicide or self-immolation away in the distance to defend his status and interests. Again the criterion was the leadership and his unlimited protection directly or indirectly.
I believe that Rajavi intended to completely remove the doubts formed in the minds of the members of the Leadership Council that suicide was in no way an act of sin and even sacred and glorified if it was committed under the command of the leadership in any form. The suicide who sacrificed himself for the cause of the leadership and his interests anywhere in the world would be rewarded far beyond that of a martyr who had been killed under the command of the Prophet or the leader of the organization.

SFF: At the first look, it seems that the priority is first to guarantee maintenance of the leadership’s interests and then survival of the organization. Can it be the basis for all justifications?

BS: Of course, in one aspect that is to guarantee the interests of both leadership and the organization. But there is one important point to notice, that is, the two are intermingled and inseparable with the priority of the former. The organizational interests can never be discussed separately unless accredited to the leader just as it is with the ideology that draws its legitimacy from the leadership.

To be continued
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

August 22, 2009 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts