Rajavis and Cult Leadership

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

Maryam Rajavi

Agents of crimes in Ashraf held solidarity in Paris

Holding ceremonies on ridiculous occasions, with the presence of tarnished guests in Auver Sur d’Oise is just a resort for political show-off and it is never worth to discuss but Maryam Rajavi and her flatterers’ speeches are worth to discuss, while Ashraf residents are at the edge of Rajavi’s armed strategy (treason and spying);in the worst possible situation, they are compensating for Maryam Rajavi and her clandestine husband.

The most controversial statement in Maryam Rajavi’s speech on the occasion of solidarity ceremony for the killed residents of Ashraf is this one:”I wish I were with you”. This statement was said in the most deceitful manner in order to incite the audience’s emotions. She is absolutely the best student of Massoud Rajavi’s class. For further complaining, in her show, she continues:
“These days, in every minute and every moment, I wonder what I am doing here; why I am not in Ashraf with you to accompany you in this prideful, sacred, splendid struggle.”

Definitely the question that is posed here is that: what stops you (Maryam and Massoud) going to Ashraf? Why did you prefer to escape from the camp rather than staying with other residents after American invasion to Iraq?

Do you really wish to be in Ashraf now?!!!

Don’t you remember what you said in your last meeting in Ashraf before all the residents (a few days before American invasion to Iraq in 2003) ? Didn’t you say that you should stay with your fighters until the last moment? But a few months later you were in France?

The residents of Ashraf didn’t know that you fled to France until you were arrested by French police.

Although your so-called respectful foreign guests have no idea of your unstable strategy during four–decade history of your cult and they are good sympathizers for you, as an ex-member of MKO,I would like to clarify that your insistence to stay in Camp Ashraf is not for the lives of the member but for the survival of your last executive arm since the loss of Ashraf base in Iraq equals the political death of Rajavi’s cult. And those rented respectful European and African audience will not accept your nonsense any more.

By the way, if you are so concerned about Khalq’s children in Ashraf, why haven’t you planned for their respectful departure from Iraq months after Iraqi government’s ultimatum for their expulsion from Iraq?

If you feel so pity for Ashraf residents, why did you order them to go on hunger strike?

Why didn’t you order your companions in Auver to go on hunger strike?

We declare that despite your claims of support for Ashraf residents, you are ready to cause more members to die for political survival of your cult and for achievement of your notorious intentions. The massacre of Ashraf residents is because of suicide operations, hunger strike or Iraqi Police raid …

Based on our past experiences, we reveal that for MKO leaders, members’ lives have no value!!!
Unfortunately, the proof of our testimony is the mass murders of a large number of MKO members during political phase which ended with the acceptance of Velayat – e- Faqih (Islamic Republic Regime) by Massoud Rajavi and his letter to Majles-e-Khobregan (Experts Council) and Maryam Rajavi’s suggestion for returning to Iran. The whole MKO’s strategy ended with Massoud and Maryam’s confession that they have been in the wrong way for thirty years, while they were victimizing Iranian children.

August 20, 2009 0 comments

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 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

A report of purges within MKO- part two

Once in a letter addressed to Christopher George of Human Rights Watch/Middle East entitled Human Rights Abuse in Rajavi’s cult, Nowrooz Ali Rezvani, a disaffected and former member of MKO, presented documented reports of many physical and psychological mistreatments of the members by the leaders within the organization.

The following is a detailed and proven list of engineering operations plotted in years 1981 to 1994 in an attempt to purge some members for certain organizational reasons. The confessions by Mr. Rezvani well indicates the potentiality of the organization in subjecting the life of those in Camp Ashraf to severe jeopardy through a preplanned scenario and under the cover of defending the camp against the lawful interference of the Iraqi police to take the control in its hands.

It was a detailed account of human rights violation and now let’s point to some indications of Mojahedin’s inter-organizational relations to develop a better understanding of its anti-human nature and to what degree it respects the principles of democracy and human rights.

In winter 1982, Mojahedin Khalq forces stationed in the northern Kurdistan executed three POWs, one of them underage. The commander on the scene were Mr. Mesbah, a member of the central cadre, Mr. Assad, a deputy of the organization’s leadership from Tabriz. The commander of the firing squad was Qudrat-allah Heidari and the firing party was constituted of Mr. Karim Turk and a woman whose son had been executed by the Iranian regime.

In Spring 1984, four more POWs were executed in Kurdistan border zone, the jungles of Shah Nosqeh region just in the vicinity of Pazhveh Village. The executioners were Morteza, working in armory, from Hamada, Naser Turk known as Naser Gestapo, Karim Turk from Tabriz known as Karim fascist, Mr. Assad from Tabriz, Mahdi from Hamadan, and Reza Karam-Ali also known as Yaqub from Tehran.

In 1984, six dissidents were executed in the jungles of Shah Nosqeh region in Kurdistan as they were opposed to Rajavi’s announced imamate. The executed were pseudonymously called Saeed from Tabriz, Qasim from Zanjan, Naser from Shiraz, Rasoul from Kermanshah, Qulam from the northern Iran, and Suhrab from Tehran. The executioners were Karam from Hamadan, Reza Karam-Ali from Tehran, Naser Turk, Karim Turk and Ibrahim Zakeri, the commander of the execution.

In 1985, more than 700 members of the organization were imprisoned in the Iraqi Kurdistan region in jails located in suburb Saveh, Kahrizeh, and Camp Ghayur. Other imprisoned were some members of political bureau and central council including Ali Zarkesh along with other 117. They were all condemned to death and following their preliminary investigations they were sent to prisons in Suleymanieh.

In 1985, more than 50 recalcitrant members of the organization were imprisoned in the Iraqi Kurdistan city of Suleymanieh and built jails in camps Mesbah ans Ghayur. Some were also imprisoned within the safe houses in Kirkuk.

In 1990, more than 500 recalcitrant members of the organization were imprisoned in the castle-like Debs Prison in the vicinity of Kirkuk. The prisoners’ seven day-long hunger strike is an indication of their protest to drastic shortages and harsh prison condition.

In 1991, there were numerous jails and cells inside Camp Ashraf, some of them were the prison of the municipal building, the prison of college, the prison behind the rifle range, the residential prison, and prison H which was one of the most horrible solitary confinements with cell cages in size of graves, there were other prisons in headquarters and army regiments as well.
In 1992, there were prisons and safe-houses set up around Baghdad including prison Muhammad zabeti, prison Saadati, prison Seifi, prison Akbarzadegan, prison Malik Marzban, a prison known as the camp of the members of the National Council of Resistance close to American Embassy, prison Mirzai, prison Dr. Muhammad Tabatabai, prison Rezai, and more.
Pakistan, 1987. Asghar Mirzai working in the Voice of Mojahed from the northern Iran was sent to Pakistan after engaging in some inter-organizational friction. After a while the organization announced that he had broken with the organization and had reported information about the camps of the National Liberation Army and headquarters of leadership to Iranian regime. Still the members were digesting the story that there came the news of his assassination by the regime. His wife was in a state of mental imbalance since it remained an unsolved question why her husband was killed soon after his separation.

Explanation: Asghar had been long working in Rajavi’s private bastion known as Camp Badi-zadegan located 45 km. west of Baghdad in Abu-Ghurib region where he made programs for the Voice of Mojahed. Thus, he had proven information concerning Mojahedin’s implication in Haj massacre and he was also the link between the Voice of Mojahed’s broadcasts and the Iraqi regime.

Of other obliterated members to name was Bahram Turk from Tabriz who worked in Rajavi’s private bastion known as Camp Badi-zadegan located 45 km. west of Baghdad. He knew anything about Rajavi’s residential and its secrets. Later, he was identified as a troublemaker and was degraded to work as a simple gardener in Rajavi’s private courtyard. It did not take long to be announced that he had been found drowned in the camp’s pool. He was reported to have fallen into the pool and drowned as he could not swim and there was nobody around to help him. Bahram was a real source of information and knew things about the organization’s association in Haj massacre. His wife was six month pregnant when he died and the baby was named Bahram after him.

Explanation: Reza Asadi was once a pilot in IR Air Force who had his hand in the escape of Dr. Banisadr and Masoud Rajavi from Iran. He was a comrade working close with Bahram and knew him well. A detached member, now he is living in Netherlands. In a letter to a friend, he gave some details about Bahram’s skill in swimming.

On the day we met, we talked about the article you penned for the Nimrooz. Now I try to give some details. For two years I was working with Bahram in a garage in Baghdad. He was one of those who lacked the proficiency to be invested with responsibility but was enthusiastically devoted to Maryam (Rajavi) and was ready to dive through a window hearing her name. The devotion branded him an ideological element with consequent conferred responsibilities. They say he was drowned in an ordinary pool. Your article in the Nimrooz made me recollect a joint travel I had with Bahram. We were en route to Kirkuk from Baghdad on a hot summer day in month Ramazan. We stopped the car on the bank of river Takrit, a big, rapid and raging torrent, to swim. I am a good swimmer and can swim in any condition.

But Bahram was many times better and swam easily in the deepest part of the river where hardly anybody, and even me, could swim. He swam so comfortably as if he was lying on a soft, flat mattress enjoying himself.

August 18, 2009 0 comments

Members of the MEK

MKO Leaders Forcing Members into Hunger Strike

Leaders of the anti-Iran terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), force the group members into hunger strike in a bid to exert pressure on the world public opinion and international bodies.

Reports from inside the camp said that the move by the MKO leaders is aimed at securing their stay inside Camp Ashraf (now known as the Camp of New Iraq) – the MKO’s main training center and headquarters – by any means.

Iraqi security forces took control of the training base of the MKO at Camp Ashraf – about 60km (37 miles) north of Baghdad – last month and detained dozens of the members of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi authority also changed the name of the military center from Camp Ashraf to the Camp of New Iraq.

Amid seizure of the MKO training base by Iraqi security forces, leaders of the terrorist group started forming a human chain against the Iraqis in a bid to increase costs of the camp’s seizure for Iraqi police and army.

The MKO top figures, including ringleader Masoud Rajavi, had assumed that the former US administration would issue the permission for attacking Iran so they could fight against the Islamic Republic together with the US forces.

Now the single goal of the terrorist group is preserving the training camp.

The MKO has been in Iraq’s Diyala province since the 1980s. The Iraqi government and parliament has announced that it would not tolerate the group anymore and is seeking to expel the group from the country in the near future.

The anti-Iran terror group has been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by many international entities and countries.

The MKO is behind a slew of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, a number of EU parliamentarians said in a recent letter in which they slammed a British court decision to remove the MKO from the British terror list. The EU officials also added that the group has no public support within Iran because of their role in helping Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988).

Many of the MKO members abandoned the terrorist organization while most of those still remaining in the camp are said to be willing to quit but are under pressure and torture not to do so.

A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report accused the MKO of running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations.

According to the Human Rights Watch report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.

The group started assassination of the citizens and officials after the revolution in a bid to take control of the newly established Islamic Republic. It killed several of Iran’s new leaders in the early years after the revolution, including the then President, Mohammad Ali Rajayee, Prime Minister, Mohammad Javad Bahonar and the Judiciary Chief, Mohammad Hussein Beheshti who were killed in bomb attacks by MKO members in 1981.

The group fled to Iraq in 1986, where it was protected by Saddam Hussein and where it helped the Iraqi dictator suppress Shiite and Kurd uprisings in the country.

The terrorist group joined Saddam’s army during the Iraqi imposed war on Iran (1980-1988) and helped Saddam and killed thousands of Iranian civilians and soldiers during the US-backed Iraqi imposed war on Iran.

The MKO was put on the US terror list in 1997 by the then President, Bill Clinton, but since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the group has been strongly backed by the Washington Neocons, who also argue for the MKO to be taken off the US terror list.

August 18, 2009 0 comments

The cult of Rajavi

Temporal Marriage, Rajavi’s Latest Scandal

After the appearance of the first round of interviews of Sahar site with Mrs. Batool Soltani, a female member of council of leadership of MKO that has recently managed to escape Camp Ashraf, many noted the necessity of the continuation of these interviews. Now there are more than 20 episodes of these statements in Sahar site that confirms their accuracy and truthfulness. The surprising nature of her statements was anticipated yet the great extent to which they have caused surprise in readers was unexpected. She implies the fact that the extent of disclosure against the organizational activities of MKO depends on the extent of direct contact and interaction of members with the top layers of the organization. In other words, the closer the detached members to the top layers, the more shocking would be the exposé of the internal relations of the organization. The significance of her statements lies in the fact that she is the first female detached member of the organization from the highest echelon of MKO and one of the closest to the leadership. Therefore, she is an eyewitness and her statements are not but the description of her own observations in the organization.

It is evident that her statements on some aspects like the relation of Rajavi with the members of leadership cadre are so shocking for other detached members since as she asserts, even the ranks below the level of leadership cadre have not been aware of these affairs and Rajavi has insisted on secreting these information in the council of leadership. Consequently, members of a high organizational status that have been unaware of these relations appear terribly surprised. The statements of other detached members like Mr. Shahsavandi confirm the hierarchical order of MKO and its intra organizational censorship. Control of information is the common practice of Rajavi in all organizational issues. For example, what Mr. Shahsavandi knew about the trial of Ali Zarkesh as well as his own discussions with Rajavi in this regard was buried away up to his separation from the organization. This is another cultic profile of MKO reveled by many detached members like Mr. Shahsavandi and Mrs. Soltani.

Likewise, the issue of Rajavi’s temporary marriage with the female members of council of leadership has to be investigated from a cultic point of view as it is a common practice almost in all cults in which the leader has relation with female members. This is the latest news on the scandals of MKO leadership leading to numerous negative consequences. Before, many detached members as well as dissident opposition groups to MKO condemned the marriage of Masoud Rajavi with Maryam Azdanlu and considered it the result of love affair between the two while Rajavi tried to prevent its internal and external feedbacks by calling it an ideological marriage. Despite all the accusations made by MKO dissidents against Rajavi in this regard, we held out hope that this marriage was merely a solution for ending the political and ideological cul-de-sac of the organization rather than a love affair. Unfortunately, the statements of Mrs. Soltani raise our doubts in this regard.

A brief look at the past and the time when Mrs. Soltani escaped MKO and the intentional silence of Mojahedin on her first interviews refraining from confirming the news of her escape indicates that there was a rationale behind the silence of the organization. It is the common practice of the organization to take a hostile position toward any detached member (even of the lowest organizational status) and publicize a writing of the member implying that all his/her future statements against the organization would be baseless as it was practiced for Marzieh Qorsi and many more after their separation. Surprisingly enough, Mojahedin have refrained to take any position against Mrs. Soltani or accuse her abusively, why? Some reasons on this silence were elaborated on before. However, the statements of Mrs. Soltani give us a better understanding of the issue.

The silence of the organization as well as making contacts with Ms. Soltani on the part of the organization promising to prepare the ground for her to live wherever she likes with her children has its roots in the fact that the organization is well aware of the negative consequences of her escape and revelations so is making its utmost efforts to convince or tempt her to maintain silence on the secrets of the council of leadership. Undoubtedly, her statements on the temporal marriage of Rajavi with the female members of council of leadership would raise many complaints, doubts and questions like that of the marriage of Maryam and Masoud. Likewise, it is likely that Rajavi’s justifications for these marriages would be similar to that of his marriage with Maryam.

The only persons to answer the questions on this issue are Ms. Soltani and those aware of it yet taking silence due to some reasons. Therefore, Sahar site would act as a bridge between Ms. Soltani and the readers in this regard. Also, those researchers studying on cults and MKO in particular are supposed to devote a part of their efforts to this subject and publicize the results of their studies. Evidently, this was an introduction to the issue that will be followed by more specialized and detailed articles in this regard.

August 18, 2009 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

MKO’s Outlook on Democracy and Government

The methodology and worldview of MKO as well as the picture Rajavi depicts of the world is fundamentally in conflict with the principles of civility and its components like reason, rationale, interaction, forum and relativism in thought. In fact, he considers the truth as an absolute concept monopolized in the ideology of his organization. In other words, truth for Mojahedin is not a relative concept but a kind of dogmatic notion that has its roots in empirical sciences and ideology.

As a result, only one group, trend, worldview, and ideology has perfect legitimacy and there is no room for other ideologies, trends, and doctrines. Based on these understandings,

Rajavi came to the conclusion that his ideology could auto dynamically eliminate the outside forces to assume its hegemony and dominance step by step. He even criticized the structure of western knowledge and derided their offspring like liberalism and individualism as well as the theories of the intellectuals and theoreticians of capitalist world and American pragmatism in order to prove his philosophic and ideological inferences that were based on the principle of polarity.

Taking a look at the doctrines and principles of the organization extracted from the theoretical book “The way of Hussein” may give us a better understanding of the real viewpoint of the organization and its leadership on democracy and other manifestations of civility.

It will give us other instances of MKO methodology to prove the fact that Rajavi has temporally deviated from the organizational principles of Mojahedin that the organization strongly adhered to. Unlike the past, now Mojahedin pretend to move on the same line with Western-favored concepts like private ownership (equal to robbery in the doctrines of MKO), open-market economy, and capitalism in recent years to win the support of westerners and the US in particular. In the book “The Democracy Betrayed” that includes answers to the accusations of the declaration of the US State Department, it is claimed that the founders of the organization had no objective but modeling the American society. In other words, Rajavi seems to have yield to capitalism,

American democracy, as well as all its cultural and ideological accomplishments based on liberalism and pragmatism.

Of the challenges facing Mojahedin in the US State Department’s statement is that they are accused of ideological inclination toward a totalitarian government and supremacy of the minority: the ruling of minority over majority is an indication of the direct effects of Communism on Mojahedin. These concepts having their roots in historical materialism and the principle of polarity, are opposed to Imperialism and consider modern concepts like democracy as well as social and individual freedom mere slogans for deceiving the masses.

The following excerpt may prove that Mojahedin refrain to believe in democracy, the vote of majority yet consider these concepts as the main enemies of their ideology. On the other hand, Mojahedin believe in the rule of minority over majority and refusal of democracy and the freedoms promoted by liberalism. An important point is that Mojahedin rely on a dynamism without which there is no possibility for understanding Qur’an. This is the boundary drawn between the interpretations made by MKO founders from Qur’an and the classic ones from their early years. The following is an excerpt from the book “The way of Hussein” based on which the ideology of the organization is to be analyzed:

By accepting the dynamism of the Qur’an and understanding its attitudinal basis, we will find no justification to adapt it to capitalism or separate it from government. Particularly, it has to be pointed out that the Islamic government is rich in respecting freedom and the will of man yet has no similarity to the democracy promoted by the West that is mere superstition. On the other hand, it promotes a kind of power enforcement and council leadership and in general, the ruling of the pious is its final manifestation. In this frame, the pious who are recognized by their more awareness of social issues lead the society and move it toward the fundamental of Qur’an.1
It is concluded that Mojahedin recognize no legitimacy for democracy or election for choosing the type of government. More importantly, in contrast to what they propagandize on the separation of the state and religion, they fundamentally believe in an ideological system rooted in the religion and consider religion and government as two inseparable issues in opposition to the belief of capitalism and modern societies. They also believe that performing the dynamism of Qur’an is impossible but by grabbing at the combination of the state and religion on the one hand and negation of democracy on the other. It has been pointed out that they believe in the ruling of a particular group rather than election and democracy.

They refrain to see ruling based on the vote of majority of people and consider it based on the doctrines deducted from this dynamism and take its legitimacy from their ideology.
The only difference between the ideology of Mojahedin and Marxism is the substitution of common terminology of Marxism with new ones. Both are based on disagreement to election, social and individual freedom, rationale, reason, consensus, civil law, etc. A brief look at the history of Marxism in recent decades may give us a better understanding of the belief system of MKO in which modern concepts like separation of government and religion, election and democracy, respecting social and individual rights, freedom and other democratic concepts are considered superstition and nothing more.

References:
1. The Way of Hussein, MKO Publication, Tehran, 1980, p. 22.

August 18, 2009 0 comments

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 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts