Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

MeK Deserves To Be Legalized

Ana K. Sami - 7/7/2008

This text is being written in response to the article written by Ahmad Baaran on June 1, 2008 entitled "Errors in UK Court Decision on MEK". Baaran heavily criticizes the "lack of sophistication" within the UK legal system in regards to a recent decision by their Court of Appeals to remove the PMOI (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) from their list of terrorist organizations. The author provides a grossly inaccurate and distorted view of the PMOI's positions and core ideology, in addition to a skewed definition and use of the word "terrorism."

First and foremost, Baaran cited two recent excerpts, both translations from the original in Farsi, of the former PMOI Secretary General (Mojgan Parsai) and the current, Sedigheh Hosseini. While these translations are accurate, Baaran in contradiction to his own evidence claims that the PMOI has "refused to denounce violence in its Farsi (Persian) publications." In fact, Sedigheh Hosseini's statement that "We have said before and reiterate now that we are categorically opposed to and condemn any type of violence…" was made at a massive event in Ashraf City Iraq, in front of thousands of Iraqi locals and members of the PMOI, and of course in Farsi. The same goes for Parsai's statement. In addition, each statement was officially placed in the MEK's newspaper,"Mojahed," which is widely circulated.

According to well documented resources, such as speeches and statements, the MEK have not shown to be lustful towards violence or the use of weapons. This fact is quite often misconstrued and manipulated especially by the Iranian regime, all the while being masters of brutality themselves, claim that the MEK and associated groups are "terrorists" simply because of the fact that they believe in an armed resistance against the Iranian regime. The MEK established their military wing, the NLA (National Liberation Army), in 1987 on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border in the southern Iraqi province of Diyala. From there, they conducted several military operations throughout the late 80's and 90's on specific targets and nerve centers belonging to the Iranian regime, the most famous of these operations being "Operation Eternal Light" or "Forough-e Javidan." During this particular operation, the NLA was able to enter Iran and progress through to the western city of Kermanshah.

In addition to the more recent statements by Parsai and Hosseini, the PMOI in actuality has a history of denouncing violence and terrorism as stated consistently by MEK leaders. In fact, in Massoud Rajavi's (leader of the MEK) yearly address on the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, he has stated multiple times that if the Iranian regime were to agree to a free and fair election under the auspices of the UN, that the NLA would willingly put down their weapons. In addition, the MEK would accept whoever the Iranian people freely and fairly choose to be their political leader. Make no mistake, the MEK do not "whisper" with any audience in regards to their political stance, they aptly bellow in the hopes that their message of freedom from the Iranian dictatorship would be heard.

It would be easy (not to mention lacking in any accepted standard), just as Baaran did, to speak of the PMOI (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) in isolated terms labeling the organization and judging it without consideration of context. The rigorous exercise of making comparatives (making an argument credible) with sound analysis is ignored in Baaran's argument. Mentioning a few historical occurrences fittingly places the PMOI, MEK, and NLA as revolutionary bodies wishing to bring freedom and democracy to their oppressed and downtrodden people. Historically, the use of an armed struggle to free a subjugated population is recognized as a legitimate form of resistance. Namely, the American Revolution's success (1775-1883) was based in an armed struggle with the British Empire who had imposed excessive control over newly established American colonies. Patrick Henry's famous words "…give me liberty or give me death!" was instrumental in America's armed strategy during the revolution and paved the way for its independence.

On another note, in the newly released book Partisanas: Women in the Armed Resistance to Fascism and German Occupation (1936–1945), emphasis is placed on women who played a key role against Adolf Hiter's fascism as they "planted bombs" and "shouldered guns" to fight against tyranny. While official accounts are lacking in these historical occurrences, these women played an exceedingly active role, declaring their own armed struggle. These women are revealed to have been breaking stereotypes, which is contrary to traditional perceptions of women working on the sidelines in factories or waiting for their men to come home; they actively played an invaluable role in the fight against German occupation. An answer to Baaran's "simple question" of the MEK's views on their past activities is a resounding no. The MEK do not consider any of their past actions as terrorism. Would Baaran call those who participated by way of an armed struggle in the American Revolution and resistance to Hitler's fascism "terrorists?" The MEK are no more "terrorists" than the brave American revolutionaries and courageous women mentioned above.

Baaran then claims that the MEK emblem somehow proves the organization's commitment to violent activities. His analysis of the MEK emblem is severely lacking in factual information, not to mention a misrepresentation of each symbolic item displayed. Baaran cites the Qur'anic verse (4:95) that is displayed on the top of the logo and has interpreted what he calls an "informal" translation which is incidentally a skewed and unusual translation. In the most widely accepted translations of the Qur'an by Yusf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, or Muhsin Khan, the word that Baaran has translated from Arabic as "warriors" (Mojahedin) and "non-warriors" (making only a secondary reference in parentheses to a more common translation of "sitters") shows a manipulation in translation. "Non-warriors" was used to juxtapose and legitimize the first translation of "warriors" which has been translated as "strive," or "strivers" by all commonly used English translations of the Qur'an. Clearly the connotations of the word "warrior" are meant to include one who is engaged in warfare (a soldier) while "strivers" and "sitters" are much more interpretative and can mean a vast array of things; rarely related to violence. For the MEK, the purpose of using such a verse is symbolic; it is in essence a call to activism. With consideration of the grave human rights abuses occurring in Iran, it is naturally expected for those freedom loving entities to actively participate in encouraging those in exile to abolish dictatorial and abusive regimes.

As for the remaining parts of the logo, according to one of the earliest publication of the PMOI written in 1966 called "Shenakht" or "Knowledge," the purpose of the latitude and longitudinal lines was meant to state the PMOI's desire to see "justice, fairness, and equality" prevail throughout the world and the rifle depicts the organization's belief in an armed resistance as elaborated above. Note there is no exertion or act of force implied within the symbolic items placed on the logo, simply a desire to see basic human values overcome existing oppressive political forces. It is an interesting comparative to note that during the American Revolution, a flag carried by Bedford Massachusetts minuteman Nathaniel Page at the Battle of Concord depicts a fist with a sword in hand supporting a banner that reads "Vince Aut Morite" in Latin meaning "Victory or Death." Theirs was an imminent victory, and so too shall be for the people of Iran and their resistance movement.

In the parliamentary debates that ensued in London on June 23rd, several members gave statements that can only be described as ground-breaking as the UK government officially removed the PMOI from their list of terrorist organizations. In fierce support of the PMOI, Baroness Harris spoke of the plight of Iranian women and cited that Ashraf City (NLA residence on the Iraqi side of the Iran/Iraq border) as individuals "who are fighting for the freedom of their country and who hope, one day soon, to be able to live there in peace."

Perhaps Baaran should familiarize himself with the Persian motto used frequently by the PMOI to describe women who fight against the misogynistic Iranian regime, Shir-zan literally "lion-woman." Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, president elect of the NCRI, Ms. Sedigheh Hosseini, secretary general of the NLA, and Ms. Mojgan Parsai, former secretary general of the NLA are perfect examples of women who bear "lion-like" strength; their commitment and belief in freedom, equality, democracy, and progressive Islamic values is unmatched to any organization in the world. Just as a lion roars to claim his territory in the wilderness, so too is the valiant roar of freedom emanating from Mrs. Maryam Rajavi's speeches claiming imminent victory heard far and wide, for the eyes that would see, and the ears that would hear.