Former members of the MEK

MKO former members

MKO Leaders’ seditious acts condemned

Nejat Society,Western Azarbayjan Branch condemns MKO leaders’ seditious acts

The recent incidents at Camp Ashraf where a number of residents, incited and organized by the cult leaders, confronted the Iraqi Police, ended with the death and injury of some of them. The act once again showed the brutality of Rajavi’s gang in rising crisis and creating constant tension for their propaganda. They never matter the victimization of their rank and file but they only matter how to feed their deceitful propaganda machine as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said about the move of Iraqi Police to Ashraf :"It is a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve,"

We deeply believe that MKO leaders try to maintain Camp Ashraf as their ideological and strategic container by launching false propaganda and mongering crisis, they violate all international laws based on the right of sovereignty of the nations on their own territory.

We as the ex – members of MKO, who returned to our homeland and now are living in Iran peacefully, condemn MKO leaders’ plot to create crisis and tension by warmongering, terrorism and violation of international laws and finally victimizing Ashraf residents for their own inhumane cause. We know that MKO leaders are terrified by easy access of Iraqi police to their base since it will pave the way for the access of International human rights bodies and also residents’ families to them.

The ideological leader of MKO knows well that if their base is supervised by Iraqi officials, the release of captured members will be more likely. Therefore they try in any way to stop Iraqi supervision over the camp to prevent the decline of their forces.

Their anti-democratic acts contradict the most basic human rights.

We want them to stop crisis mongering in Camp Ashraf and provide the residents a peaceful relaxing atmosphere, without any control or supervision by their authorities, so that they can visit their families in mental security and can decide for their future by their own free will.

August 31, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

MKO former member open letter to Vidal-Quadras

I am responding to your recent speeches in the European Parliament in relation to Iran in which you express support for the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization led by Massoud Rajavi. As a former member, I have known this group since 1979. Because of them I spent five years of my youth in Mr. Sadeqi: As a former member, I have known MKO group since 1979 Iranian prisons; including two years in solitary confinement in Gohar Dasht in Karaj. I also spent the years from 1997 to 2006 as a prisoner of the MKO in Camp Ashraf, Iraq.

I was sent to Camp Ashraf after several years of fundraising work for the MKO in Canada. I was originally sent for a six month military training stint, but in fact they never allowed me to leave. (As you know, none of the people at Camp Ashraf have any legal status in Iraq and their passports and personal documents are confiscated by the MKO leadership to prevent them leaving. Ref. RAND report.)

After considering your support for this military cult, I just want to ask you, and give you the benefit of the doubt, if you honestly and purely, as the freedom lover you make claim to be, believe in your own use of the term ‘democratic’ in relation to the MKO. How do you know that? By visiting Camp Ashraf?

I should remind you and your colleagues that these are visits carefully pre-arranged and organized by the MKO leadership. Where did you go while you were at Camp Ashraf, to whom did you speak? I was there while so many people like yourself and like Paulo Casaca visited. We saw by whom you were escorted and of course we were not allowed to approach you and talk to you. All those people around you were MKO intelligence and security personnel, the same people who are responsible for the suppression and mistreatment of rank and file members.

Did it ever occur to you that everybody you were introduced to and allowed to speak with was saying exactly the same things like a broken record. Maybe you didn’t think of this because when it comes to it the MKO are expert at manipulating and deceiving people with their red carpet treatment and their provision of gifts like Perisan rugs and fancy goods.

In your speech you used the words ‘pressure’ and ‘harrasment’. Do you have any idea what your Rajavi has done to us? The beatings, humiliation, swearing and constant mental pressure aimed at anyone who wants to leave, or even to say anything critical of what Rajavi has ever said. Where you then? Why has no one asked any international human rights organization to come and visit Ashraf independently?

Many tragedies have taken place within the confines of Camp Ashraf. But no more, not for the rank and file members like myself. On the contrary, with the takeover by the Government of Iraq in January 2009, and the recent publication of the RAND report, they see some light at the end of the tunnel at last.

But as for Rajavi and his high rank killing machine, of course you said that you recently visited Camp Ashraf and that such allegations are absolutely unfounded. Are you a man of your word? Are you prepared to return to Camp Ashraf with a different, non-MKO organized delegation to see if you are right or not? I make only one suggestion; that I be permitted to come along with that delegation and show you the real Camp Ashraf and take you to places so that you could freely talk to the rank and file members. What do you say about that? Since your speech is presumably not political and is purely humanitarian, so you should not have any objection to this suggestion. In fact, I am sure you will be happy to prove your words, especially as you think that everybody in Camp Ashraf is there voluntarily.

In the end however I have so many things to say and explain to you and your colleagues. But for now I just wanted to ask how you can be so sure of what you say? How many former members, or even ordinary Iranians have you spoken to before you came to your conclusions? I myself am ready to come and talk about freedom and democracy and voluntary action and anything else that you and your colleagues want to discuss.

Don’t you think for one moment how strange it is that everyone who backs the MKO repeats exactly and precisely what Rajavi himself says? But that when it comes to listening to what former members say both MKO backers and leaders alike scream their hearts out that they are all agents of the Iranian Intelligence ministry?
Why is that? Could it be that Rajavi doesn’t want people like yourself – western, liberal, democratic, freely elected representatives – to talk to people like me?
Rajavi knows that if you talk to us you will have to think twice before you repeat whatever they want you to.

If you are truly a freedom lover, I think it’s only fair, not for me, or even for the Iranian people, but first for yourself to take these steps. Because I believe that if you are a humanitarian person then one day, maybe not long from now, as events unfold, you will see the truth and you will think back to this day and wish that you had taken a different stand. I just want you and other purely humanitarian people to remember that, along with my fellow brothers and sisters, victims of the Rajavi cult, I would remind you that little streams will, at last, join the ocean.

Reza Sadeghi, Paris

August 30, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Sobhani broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

Sobhani was separated from his daughter and wife for more than eight years.

A former member of the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) claims the US turned a blind eye to the terrorist nature of the ‘Rajavi cult’.

Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani, 49, from the central Iranian town of Saveh, came into contact with the MKO two years before the 1979 revolution in Iran, which overthrew the pro-US Iranian monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Five year later, after working in the organization’s administrative and student departments, he was whisked away to Iraq to assume his role”as a unit commander at the training school for urban guerrilla warfare.”

After questioning the organization’s”armed struggle and presence in Iraq”, Sobhani claims he was beaten, tortured and”held in solitary confinement for eight-and-a-half years, from September 1992 to January 2001.”

“The reason why I started to raise my objection was that I believed that the strategies employed by Masoud Rajavi were meant to secure his domination on its members,”Sobhani said in an exclusive interview with Press TV.

The former senior MKO official said Rajavi resorted to”cult-like”practices, including forced divorce and celibacy.

He would separate couples claiming that”such practices would liberate the members”from competing loyalties. Their children were also sent to European countries, Sobhani said.

“Rajavi would justify forced divorces by claiming that these practices would free a member, and pave the way to transform a micro society into a macro one and overthrow the Islamic Republic,”Sobhani said.

During his interview, he also claimed that because”the organization forbids matrimony, for the past 25 years no child has been born to a man and woman inside the organization.”
He said the US had committed a colossal mistake in not dealing with the residents of the MKO training camp in eastern Iraq, known as Camp Ashraf.

The camp, home to 3,400 Iranians loyal to Rajavi, was the base for operations against the Tehran government during the eight-year war as well as operations against Iraqi Kurds and Shias during the 1991 uprising against former dictator Saddam Hussein.

“Rajavi maintained a mercenary-like relationship with Saddam Hossein, after Iraq’s invasion he wanted to forge the same relationship with the Americans so he announced that he was ready to [willingly] lay dawn his arms,”Sobhani explained.

“Although the Americans were fully aware of the fact that the MKO was a terrorist organization, they still cooperated with Rajavi,”he claimed.

Americans in Iran were one of the primary targets of the group throughout the 1970s. They assassinated a number of American citizens, namely William C. Cottrell, Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins, Donald G. Smith, and Colonel Jack Turner inside Iran.

“As a former member of the group, I feel that the Americans have made a grave mistake with regards to the organization. Six years after overthrowing Saddam, the MKO is still brainwashing the residents of Ashraf Camp with the help of the Americans,”Sobhani said.

The MKO was founded in Iran in the 1960s, but its top leadership and members fled the country some twenty years later after carrying out numerous acts of terror inside the country.

The group masterminded a series of assassinations and bombings inside Iran, including the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 senior Iranian officials were killed, including the then Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti.

Click here to view the video file Download MKO dissident broaches US ties with Rajavi cult

August 27, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Nejat Society Azarbayjan Branch letter to ICRC

Dear Mr. Fredrick,

ICRI deputy In Tehran,

A number of defectors of Mujahedin Khalq Organization who were assisted by the respectful authorities of ICRC to return home, declare their position on recent incidents in Camp Ashraf where a group of members have been victimized by MEK leaders’ Machiavelli’s tricks to violate international and Iraqi laws:

Your Excellency,

Regarding the crucial fate of the members who are under the organizational restrictions in Camp Ashraf and have no idea of what is happening outside the Camp and also considering their families concern about their situation and their desire for their beloveds’ return to Iran, we ask your Excellency to provide the possibility for the return of those physically and mentally captured ones in Camp Ashraf.

Dear Mr. Fredrick,
The letter signed by MKO defectors residing in Western Azarbayjan Province on August 2nd, 2009, is published on Nejatngo website:

Arash Rezaie
Marziye Qorsi
Gholamreza Shirdom
Saied Baqeri Darbandi
Hojat sayyed Esmaili
Hamed Mehmankhah
Ali Namakian
Qader Rahmani
Shahram Dehqan
Naser Sayyed babayee
Mansur Tanhaee
Farhad Purmeshki
Afshin Jafarzade
Morteza Jaafarzade
Mahmud Akbari Moqadam
Fathollah Amani
Sajjad Purhashemi
Mohammad Araghi
Naser Shirdom
Saieed Yaldaiee
Alireza Pejmanfar

CC:
International Committee of Red Cross in Tehran & Geneva
HRW
Amnesty International
Iraqi Human Rights Organization

August 26, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

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

Memoirs of Ms. Batoul Soltani – Part 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 25, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Weekly sessions, a process to secure obedience to Rajavi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued

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

August 24, 2009 0 comments

Former members of the MEK

Rajavi’s leadership, the criterion to legitimize the ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SFF: What do you mean by directly or indirectly?

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

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

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

To be continued
Translated by Mojahedin.ws

August 22, 2009 0 comments

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

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

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 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts