Batul Soltani

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 comment

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 comment

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 comment

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 comment

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 comment

Former members of the MEK

No member of Leadership council dares to tell his personal problems

Memoirs of Batoul Soltani –Part 21

The affairs of the Leadership Council including marrying Masud are never revealed to lower ranks, due to the fact that Maryam and Masud believe :”the lower ranks will not understand it because the pupils of their eyes are sexual.”

“Pupils of the eyes are sexual” is a jargon expression in the organization which is used for those who allegedly judge the affairs sexually. In their opinion the case of such marriages is something that the others are not able to realize.
No member of Leadership council dares to tell his personal problems
I don’t think that anyone in lower ranks know about the marriage agreement announced for women of the Leadership Council and Masud Rajavi. As a high ranking member who was responsible for meetings of lower ranks,

I don’t remember (at least as far as I was involved) the case of marriages was presented. Maryam and Masud insist that there is no need to present such a case in lower ranking meetings and also they do not have the capacity to realize it. They said:” we set such an arrangement to solve a historical problem. For me and other members of the Leadership Council, everything presented by Rajavi was acceptable. We had to discuss the most detailed problems of our minor members for Rajavi, For example we talked about their health problems or other problems, based on the content of reports of weekly cleansing meetings (cult jargon) for male members. The reports included their sexual problems or many other problems that no one dare to propose.

Of course, the men’s problems were never presented in front of us (as female members). Their contradictions were not told directly to us. At first, they were presented in men’s meetings, under particular regulations because these contradictions shouldn’t be presented in public meetings unless it was a public case. If the contradiction was sexual, it should be written to the male superior. The latter would add the names. The name had to be written on a separate paper and attached to the report [The name of the female member whom he had emotional or sexual feelings for]. If a man wrote the name of a woman in his report, he would be punished.

At the end of the day, the male superior handed the reports to the female in charge and ultimately the reports were handed over to the highest ranking member in the highest level. There, the reports were investigated and the names were read. Then they immediately changed the position of that female member and moved her to another unit. So, even the lowest ranking members could guess that she had some problem.

Sometimes the problem had happen between two male members. Then the superiors organized both to change their positions. After the changes were done, the two men became subjects of a series of meetings. They had to deal with a project with its specific outcomes.

There is no female member under the supervision of a male member. All women of course were only under the supervision of a single man, Massoud Rajavi. Before the evolutions in the leadership Council, the meetings were held with the presence of both men and women, but later Rajavi said that he didn’t want any female member to be under the responsibility of a male member. He believed that men’s hegemony upon women would definitely end in sexual problems. The relations were managed in a way that all reports were presented and discussed with Rajavi in daily meetings. For example the members reported that such and such person had emotional and sexual thoughts about such and such person.

Before marrying Massoud, none of the female members had the nerve to present such cases in the meetings with Massoud or Maryam. Therefore marrying Massoud was proposed. They told us:”You are all Massoud’s wives, so you could easily speak of everything to get the solution.” If someone didn’t accept the marriage, she would automatically drop from that level.

August 19, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Execution, the approach to repel dissenters

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

Sahar Family Foundation: since the deployment of the American forces in the region and even before that the serious agenda before the organization has been the resistance of Camp Ashraf. That why it is of such significance for the organization is another issue to deal with. But the question here is implementation of the means, explicitly suicide operations, to defend Ashraf as the strategic bastion. That is the fact we have already talked about when referring to human tragedy and human shield, the members’ risking their life in defense of Ashraf. Rajavi has reiterated that ‘if Ashraf resist, the whole world resist’, in fact, such mottos show clear dispositions of the leadership and other rankings towards Ashraf for its strategic importance. Will you give further details on anything untold concerning this issue and even what approaches did Rajavi take to deal with those members who would resist against plotted suicides in defense of Ashraf?

Execution, the approach to repel dissenters Batool Soltani: well, here are a nexus of issues that can be discussed separately. One is the vow to defend Ashraf through any possible means. First it was resolved to fight in defense of Ashraf tooth and nail but circumstances proved to be more serious and they had to think of a different approach to resist, that is to say, human shield. Once they resolved on urgent transfer of the cadres of the Leadership Council from Iraq to France and they even provided passports for high rankings to get them out of Iraq. In 2003, Massoud Rajavi, the beating heart of the organization, made a call insisting that Auvers-sur-Oise, Maryam’s residence, was the brain of the organization while Ashraf was naturally the heart; the brain would naturally collapse if the heart’s beating declined, and it is a question of how the brain and heart interrelate.

You know, after the fall of Saddam, the organization concentrated all its propaganda capacity on Auvers-sur-Oise to present it, along with Maryam, as the organization’s headquarters of the political leadership in the West. They began to maneuver on Maryam as a political engine there just after experiencing the failed tactic of electing her as the president-elect. Just after her sham election, she was sent to France to play her role there but it proved to be a big failure and she was returned to Camp Ashraf to be conveyed back right before the fall of Saddam. A new round of propagation began since they were of the opinion that now,

After the political fluctuations in the region, the West would have a differently positive opinion of Mojahedin. They targeted two aims simultaneously; to stabilize their political bastion in the West by attracting attentions to Auvers-sur-Oise, and second, to continue an increasing protection in favor of Camp Ashraf for two reasons. First, it has been regarded the organization’s ideological receptacle that has the potentiality of rendering members’ ideological readiness.

Second, it is observed to be a potential armed force just within the reach of the coalition forces to be used against Iran if they had any plan. The organization’s analysis of the regional crises had convinced it that American’s military interference against Iran was decisively inevitable and was planning to fan the fire to accelerate what it imagined had to happen sooner or later. Thus it was all conditioned on the preservation of Ashraf as a future lever for America against Iran that could possibly lead to Mojahedin’s seizing of power, the key issue on the back burner that required the organization to be disarmed but remain under the protection of a second patron and to unwillingly consent to the wills of the Iraqi government until the due time came. So Ashraf had to be preserved to invest the organization with a promising future. After the 17 June tragic incidents, Massoud Rajavi insisted on a new role play for the Leadership Council, the human shield to defend Ashraf. It was just coincident with Rajavi’s two-year pledge that ended with Bush’s presidency.

Rajavi knew well that out of Iraq would be the end of road for the organization and insisted on staying in Iraq at any cost in hope of a miracle that could open the gate to drive through into Iran. In an earlier analysis he had stated that the organization’s permanent stay in Iraq meant destruction of the organization in whole; it was only a short stay to move to Iran. But now there was another analysis that contradicted the previous; to leave Iraq was equal to complete annihilation. The sole solution was to preserve Ashraf; they could either wait to fish in the troubled waters of intensified crises in the region or all would be buried in Camp Ashraf. The approach for the latter choice was a mass suicide. But then they conjectured that there could be other solutions as well. On was based on the promise that because of the Geneva’s fourth article they could not be forcefully repatriated. Then they draw a picture that they would fight tooth and nail if there was any plan to relocate them forcefully.

The last proposed resolution was a mass suicide; two deaths were the outcome of this decision. A number of members dispersed after the invasion of the coalition forces were returning to the camp when en route they were informed of the camp’s siege by American forces. Two members the Leadership Council, Marzieh Ali-ahmadi and Nazhat Arzbeigi, immediately set themselves on fire to execute their organizational duty. In fact, they carried out the mission Rajavi had assigned members to do in case American forces occupied the camp. On two conditions members were told to commit mass suicide; the incursion of either Americans or Iraqi Shi’its into the camp. Just when Americans were behind the wall of Ashraf, many members the Leadership Council were preparing to commit suicide. Rajavi had even issued an ultimate for the disobedient who refrained to commit suicide, it was revolutionary execution. No doubt, no outsider could draw any distinction between a voluntary suicide and revolutionary execution following a mass suicide. Rajavi has thought of slightest details concerning his mass suicide program at Ashraf; nobody has to be survived, the willing and the unwilling have to be burn together.

Notably, there were other deterrent decrees issued by Rajavi in private and in a meeting of higher echelons; the lower echelons were unaware of the decrees. The escapees had to be targeted and executed by others; it was the same fate that befell the disloyal and betrayers. The deserters for the opposite front would also face the same destiny. Interestingly, if anybody failed to commit suicide, others had the responsibility to help him/her accomplish the job. Thus, the human tragedy in defense of Ashraf is a program that has to be possibly brought into actuality and there are a variety of approaches that will act to remove deterrents.

August 16, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Masud Rajavi Married every woman of the Leadership Council

Memoirs of Batoul Soltani – Part 20

As I explained previously about Masud and Maryam’s Marriage, it was a solution to remove the last obstacle between the leader and Maryam since no obstacle is accepted in this relationship. In the case of the leadership Council of which the members are all women, there was also the same legal, moral and religious contradiction that has to be removed.

Any woman who wants to enter the Leadership Council should obey the article B of the Ideological Revolution, which was actually related to “Joining the leader”. In this article the women are told to marry Masud Rajavi as soon as they are accepted in the Leadership Council.

As a matter of fact this article is mentioned just after the person has become a member of the Leadership Council. I remember Maryam discussing the argument for us saying: ”Now you are exclusively considered as Msaud’s wives”. Therefore the contradiction was removed. And only Masud could hold meetings for women of the Leadership Council since in his opinion when a woman is a member of the Leadership Council her relationship with the leader is totally different from the other members.

Thus, through a series of long-term meetings, the members of the Leadership council are convinced that the extent of their relation with the leader has changed due to their presence in the Leadership Council. Distinctively after that Masud is their husband. Then, he introduced a marriage certificate for each member of the Council.

It is worth informing that there were official ceremonies specifically held for the above mentioned marriages and I was present in one of them. Before the start of the ceremony, Maryam explained the article B again discussing its differences for a man and for a woman.

They presented some arguments on the issue but unfortunately I don’t remember them in details since they are related back to 1999. In fact the bottom line of those arguments was as Maryam said: ”you are not a divorced or abandoned woman any more … You are Msaud’s ideological wives”. She meant that this type of marriage is not ordinary but it is spiritual.

About the formation of the ceremony, Maryam herself was the one who hold the meeting. The scenario was like this “At the beginning Maryam asked Masud to enter the meeting and Masud refused at first and pretended that he was forced to come in. Apparently, Masud wasn’t willing to attend the meeting and Maryam insisted him to do so.

Even Maryam told the members of the Leadership Council that she was doing so to remove their contradictions. She said: ”Your minds are still bounded with legal and traditional restrictions and this might cause problems in the future”. She emphasized that marrying Masud would close their minds to any other man. Finally Masud got into the meeting and he himself announced the marriage agreement and each member said “I do”.

For the ceremony, after Masud went into the meeting, he gave a break. Then everyone made wudhu (ablution) and came back, Masud himself announced the agreement and the women said “I do” one by one. Apparently, they were not forced to say so.

It was a routine ceremony which was held for each group of the leadership Council members who were replaced. I myself attended the forth ceremony.

Before the ceremony, the meetings were completely different; members didn’t talk about anything; but after the marriage ceremony, the atmosphere was so different that the women could talk about their most personal and sexual problems.

Once, I remember a woman who didn’t say “I do” in the marriage ceremony. Then I saw that she was automatically excluded from our meetings. We never saw her in the meetings in that level anymore.

SFF – Translated by Nejat Society

August 8, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi; set your body on fire to defend Ashraf

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

Sahar Family Foundation: In our last talk you pointed out that the prerequisite for membership in Rajavi; set your body on fire to defend Ashraf the organization is to volunteer for self-immolation. Does it mean that the organization reacts against the reluctant and how does it deal with such instances?

Batool Soltani: The organization takes no clear position to directly confront in such instances. To answer the question, we need to conduct a deep analysis of a whole organizational reaction against already confronted cases. There was a female colleague who had refused to volunteer for self-immolation but the organization showed no antagonistic attitude towards her before others. It was not the end of the story and the organization commanded me to watch her closely since they believed that she was in trouble with herself and cared not the least for the organization. They would justify that now even ten days after the detention of Maryam in France, she had refrained to be an abstentious volunteer. In fact, the organization avoided to tackle with these members just before the eyes of others and pretended to overlook them. In this way, many others would be impressed to join the side of majority since the impartiality proved to be a working propaganda to attract more than to repel. Furthermore, nobody could accuse the organization of coercing members into acts of suicide and the acts would be propagated as personal outbursts of passion and consequent of strong devotion to the ideology, Maryam and Massoud. The process of indirect control of the disobedient would continue until through an excuse they would be seriously censured. There were some among the rankings of the Leadership Council who refused to volunteer for suicide operations but after a while were suddenly evanesced from the council. In my opinion, the use of clever mechanisms of control to undermine the dissidents functioned much better than exploiting levers of pressure and coercion. And so far it has succeeded to expand glorification of suicide operation as a token of devotion among the insiders.

SFF: You have already stated that self-immolation as a kind of suicide operation has been innovated by the organization. Can you say exactly when the organization selected it as a working lever, and who was the first to suggest it and for what reason?

BS: Well, I have already explained that the suicide operation is not new but was innate in An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations organization from its very formation.

SFF: I mean in its novel form of self-immolation.

BS: Well, it was first conducted to be committed in 17 June operations. We have never witnessed it before.
SFF: To make it more clear, when it was first suggested as a solution and by whom?

BS: It returns to Massoud Rajavi’s last meeting in Camp Ahraf before the fall of Saddam. It was a well known meeting called ‘the meeting of flag’. Of course, the issue was not explicitly mentioned there but it was later discussed in a meeting of the Leadership Council that what should have to be done to defend if Saddam collapsed and Camp Ashraf came under unexpected threat from the outside. For the first time Massoud suggested self-burning as a defensive advantage to safeguard Ashraf. He frankly stated that to repel any threat intended to dismantle Camp Ashraf all had to sacrifice and set themselves on fire. Of course, at the time the organization was not suffering the deteriorating condition of being disarmed and it was still equipped with a variety of heavy and light weapons that could defend itself to some extent. But it seemed that Rajavi was anticipating a near future of invasion that could seriously challenge the organization before it could use its arms. So the best defensive measure was resolved by Rajavi to be suicide through self-immolation. We never saw Massoud again till the manifestation of his novel suggestion in the incidents of 17 June.

SFF: To remind you, I have to point out that the issue of self-immolation emerged for the first time in the letters of the members who wrote them to Massoud Rajavi following his ideological revolution as an indication of devotion to him and his revolution. I remember a letter in Jafarzadeh’s handwriting published by a website in which he had volunteered to commit self-immolation to show his loyalty. These letters date back to 1985 and I mean to say that the issue was first proposed at that time as the letters indicate. Furthermore, even when France was expelling some members to Gabon, Maryam Rajavi is quoted to have said Massoud Rajavi had stopped remonstrant self-immolations as a raised objection against the decision taken by France. Your reference to the meeting dates back to 2002, then, can you remember any earlier occasion when the issue came under notice?

BS: To correct, I was not in the organization at the time you are referring to. I joined in mid 1980s and I have seen none of the things you say in the sources published by the organization.

SFF: All of the instances I stated you can find in the publications of the organization if you have access to them.

BS: It seems that my information as a member of the organization fails to surpass that of yours. I would be grateful if you could give me the address to these sources.

August 6, 2009 0 comment

Former members of the MEK

Human tragedy in prospect; Mojgan Parsai the first volunteer

An interview with Batool Soltani on MKO self-immolations – Part 8

Sahar Family Foundation: In our last session we talked about the possibility of a human tragedy. You said that all volunteers had signed a written pledge for self-immolation. The question is to what degree the organization can exploit these signed pledges to stage a human tragedy?

Batool Soltani: This is an issue of high potentiality. In fact, these letters helped the organization have an effective evaluation to plot its future scenarios. They are substructures on which the organization will lay the groundwork for its political strategies. But regardless of these potential means and developing a true assessment of the devoted on whom it can relay, it shows the organization’s own fascination in such activities that are some true aspects of cultic relations. Admittedly, most cults behave according to pre-planned scenarios in their relations with the outside world. It is also the same with Mojahedin.

When a member like Sedigheh Mojaveri commits self-immolation, for sure her feat has been already discussed in detail in higher echelons of the organization. It fails to be an arbitrary decision, not even one percent, to step into the street and set oneself on fire; any instance of unbridled passion is absolutely rejected by the organization and fails to be accounted as an organizationally directed objective.

Frankly speaking, no member of the organization with whatever ranking, being in charge of any post or else, hardly takes a step uncontrolled and uncoordinated by the organization. In a hierarchical order within an organization with tight discipline and very limited internal democracy, the responsible ranks have to be aware of the slightest overt and covert things about the members under their authority and there is nothing kept secret about the members in respect to their status.

For example, I was in England for four years and my massul (the one in charge) was aware of the single moments of my stay there; it was the same with the members under my authority. Hardly can you find an organization with so strong sense of cohesion and tight internal discipline. Consequently, no decision of self-immolation remains concealed from the ranks in charge and nobody ever dares to disobey the organization to engage in any self-motivated act of suicide.

SFF: From what layer of the organization were specifically the first volunteers of self-immolation in Camp Ashraf? Can you, for instance, name the first volunteer?

BS: You know, anything in an organization emerges from the top layers and gradually, through a well orchestrated mechanism, is spread to lower layers. It is done so skillfully that after a while those in the top can hardly believe that what is so easily embraced and theorized among the lower ranks is a magnified reflex of what had been originated in the top.

SFF: Now, can you name the first volunteer for self-immolation in Camp Ashraf when it was resolved on the act?

BS: In the department I was, Mojgan Parsai was the first who broached the subject and she was also the first volunteer. Her first sentence to begin was ‘It is worthwhile to set on fire whatever we have in Camp Ashraf for Maryam’s freedom’. Of course, what she said was another interpretation of Massoud Rajavi’s message stating that we had to make use of all our facilities and potentialities wherever we were to set Maryam free. He would say any Mojahed breathing on this planet had to be ready to sincerely sacrifice and set on fire whatever he had for the sake of Maryam. Thus, it all began in the echelon of the Leadership Council and the enthusiast slid down to the lower layers. It is also the same with other issues. Consider, for instance, they want to elect a first secretary.

The candidate would be elected in the first layers of the Leadership Council but remained secret. Idiomatically they would say ‘let the string of anything loose and it will unwind to the lowest layers’. They meant that whatever they decided on would be indirectly conveyed to the lesser ranks down to the bottom where it again quickly and energetically bounces back to the top layers as something new. Now it was our time to galvanize them into action and arrange a formal meeting to elect the one we had already decided on. None of the members present at the meeting knew what was really going on and how they had been inculcated to vote for Mojgan Parsai or Sedigheh Hussaini for example. Anything would end happily. On the one hand the top layers had picked up their favorite one and on the other hand, it would be propagated that a candidate had been elected through a totally democratic process. Everyone thought that his/her has been respectfully accomplished. Now suppose that somebody from the top layers had decided to commit self-immolation.

The decision had to be discussed in detail in all three layers of the Leadership Council before being approved by the first secretary and the leadership. I mean to say again that nobody with whatever ranking and organizational status, even if a proxy for the leadership, could take a perverse and decisive action or decision for whatever personal and organizational objective. Only those familiar with the layers of the Leadership Council can understand what I mean.

Systematically, when one from the top volunteers for self-immolation, as I did, it denotes that the person has grabbed at the loosed string whether he accedes to it or not. When I myself unwillingly volunteered for the act, in fact, I was sizing the string Mojgan Parsai had let down to let it pass to lower levels. It was only a reaction to what the organization tried to instill into the members. When I saw how devoted Mojgan was when she announced her readiness to burn herself for the sake of Maryam, although I did not know how sincere she was in what she claimed, naturally it could impress me to be the second to volunteer. Of course the sincerity is not at all a matter of any significance but the enthusiast and incitement such an atmosphere created among others.

Now the question is how the incitement could provoke the human tragedy you mentioned. Through the same mechanism of the idea being passed down from the top to the down, the crystallized ideas in the lesser layers very easily generate actions and the created enthusiast erupt into actions that may lead to human tragedy. It is much expected among the lower layer than the top since the rank and file are more emotive and impulses from the top easily impress themselves on them. Of course, you may notice that the top layers never fail to show off their emotions but for sure they are rational and reasonable when they have to act.

That is why they are the first to volunteer but hardly the last to put the words into action; unlike them, the lesser layers are resolute not only to do what they volunteer themselves for but also enter a compete and try to outstrip each other. That is how it may end to a human tragedy in its worst form. When I see that a ranking member like Mojgan Parsai volunteers for self-immolation, what do you expect of me as a subordinate! To be sure, as I have been already notified, I will not be the one to set myself on fire when the time comes because I know they will never let me harm myself as one belonging to the higher echelon. However, the occurrence of a human tragedy inside Camp Ashraf depends on Massoud Rajavi’s will and a number of other factors well identified by him to trigger the disaster. And it is all because of the strategically decisive role Camp Ashraf plays in Mojahedin’s existence and survival. So important an issue it is for Mojahedin that it requires a long discourse.

To be continued

Translated by Mojahedin.ws

July 22, 2009 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts