The People’s Mojahedin has long been a target of name calling. SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, mischaracterized the resistance organization as “Islamic Marxists” to undermine its support by the Iranian public, which is highly devout. The Shah feared the PMOI because of its potential to mobilize Iranians, particularly young people, against the monarchy.

After the 1979 Revolution, the mullahs – and later the Ministry of Intelligence and Security – continued the fraud in their propaganda, mislabeling the Mojahedin as godless Marxists. Its resort to name calling is on a much larger scale than SAVAK. The mullahs consider the PMOI to be an existential threat and are similarly alarmed by its popularity.

Another name-calling tag employed by the MOIS to vilify the Mojahedin is “cult.” Whenever the MOIS mentions the resistance organization, it nearly always adds the false attribute, hoping by repetition the deception will come to be viewed as the truth.

From its early history, the Mojahedin has been maligned and misbranded by its opponents. Many people know the organization only from the negative propaganda. To set the record straight, this website provides information on the false descriptions of the PMOI perpetrated by SAVAK and the MOIS to damage the organization’s reputation, and presents and overview of the PMOI’s political views and its modern interpretation of Islam.

Islamic Marxist

The term “Islamic Marxist” was employed by SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, to disparage political opponents of the monarchy.  As explained by the “Economist” in 1978, the phrase was “in much vogue with the Shah and his subordinates.¹ The PMOI was one of many opposition groups falsely tagged with the label. Even clerical members were not immune.  Ayatollah Shariat Madhari was publicly branded as an “Islamic Marxist” after he turned against the Shah in 1978.²

Among the Shah’s political opponents were “leftist students, Western-educated liberals and other dissidents demanding more political freedoms.”³ News articles regularly grouped them together when mentioning political organizations in opposition to the Shah.  It was not uncommon for the  People’s Mujahedin to be listed in the same paragraph as the Tudah Party (Communist Party) and the Marxist People’s Fedayeen, giving the false impression their politics could be similar.

The People’s Mujahedin never referred to itself as Marxist and “intentionally shunned Marxist philosophy in order to protect its religious susceptibilities,” according to Ervand Abrahamian, an historian on Iran.⁴  Additionally, Abrahamian explained, “The [MEK] has in fact never once used the terms socialist, communist, Marxist or eshteraki [Communist] to describe itself.”⁵

---

“As [PMOI leader Massoud] Rajavi admitted years later,” Abrahamian wrote, “the organization avoided the socialist label because such a term conjured up in the public mind images of atheism, materialism, and Westernism.  For exactly the same reasons, the [Shah’s] regime was eager to pin on the [MEK] the label of Islamic-Marxist and Marxist-Muslims.”⁶

The People’s Mojahedin derives its political positions based on its interpretation of Islam.  The original members of the group spent six years studying Islam, philosophy, history and economics.  From this effort, they formulated a democratic and tolerant interpretation of Islam and a strategy to pave the way for a democratic government to replace the Shah’s dictatorial monarchy.

The PMOI believes Islam is an inherently tolerant and democratic religion and fully compatible with democracy, human rights, and the values of modern-day civilization.  As explained by Mr. Rajavi in 1982:

“The Islam we want is nationalist, democratic, progressive, and not opposed to science or civilization.  We believe that there is no contradiction between modern science and true Islam, and we believe that in Islam there must be no compulsion or dictatorship.”⁷

After the Shah was deposed, the PMOI worked to establish a democratic government.  Ayatollah Khomeini and other mullahs wanted a fundamentalist theocracy.  The two groups clashed.  Just weeks after the Shah left Iran, the mullahs began to attack the PMOI, directing their Hazbollah gangs, called “club-wielders,” to strike PMOI offices, rallies, and supports.  The mullahs also replicated the name-calling propaganda tactic employed by the Shah, mislabeling the PMOI as Marxist.  Mr. Rajavi discussed the false description of the Mojahedin in a 1981 interview:

“Every high school student knows that believing in God, Jesus Christ, and Muhammad is incompatible with the philosophy of Marxism.  But for dictators like Khomeini, ‘Islamic Marxist’ is a very profitable phrase to use against any opposition.  If Jesus Christ and Muhammad were alive and protesting against Khomeini, he would call them Marxists, too.”⁸

Since the mullahs came to power more than 30 years ago, they have relentlessly attacked the PMOI, mislabeling the organization as Marxist.  As a result, many people have come to believe the falsehood.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  The mujahedin are freedom fighters, named after themujahedin constitutionalists who came to the aid of Iran’s first democratic government during the Constitutional Revolution of 1906-11. The PMOI specifically rejected Marxism.  They offer a modern view of Islam and support democracy as the best way to solve Iran’s social and economic problems.

---

1. “Time and Oil Run Against the Shah,” The Economist, March 4, 1978
2. Ibid.
3. “An AP News Special,” Associated Press, November 9, 1978.
4. “The Iranian Mojahedin,” Ervand Abrahamian, Yale University Press, 1989.
5. “The Iranian Mojahedin,” Ervand Abrahamian, Yale University Press, 1989.
6. “The Iranian Mojahedin,” Ervand Abrahamian, Yale University Press, 1989.
7. “Mujahidin’s Masud Rajavi: “We are the only real threat to Khomeini,” MERIP Reports, March-April 1982.
8. “We Are On the Offensive,” Time magazine, September 13, 1981.

---

Modern Vision Of Islam

U.S. Undersecretary of State George Ball chastised the press in 1981 for misdescribing the PMOI as Marxist. “The sloppy press habit of dismissing the Mujahedeen as ‘leftists’ badly confused the program,” he said. “Massoud Rajavi … is the leader of the movement. Its intention is to replace the current backward Islamic regime [Khomeini’s mullahs] with a modernized Shiite Islam drawing its egalitarian principals from Koranic sources rather than Marx.”¹ (emphasis added)

Mr. Rajavi joined the PMOI in 1967 and sat on the original Central Committee. He and other early members of the organization spent years studying Islam, history, philosophy, and economics, seeking to develop a new pathway to restore democracy to Iran.

The three founders of the PMOI were previously members of the Liberation Movement, created by Medhi Bazargain in 1961, to promote “democratic principles enshrined in the fundamental laws of the 1905-09 Constitution” of Iran. After operating for just two years, the group was shut down by the Shah. Bazargain was arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Repeating Bazargain’s footsteps, the PMOI realized, would lead to the same fate. Their intellectual inquiry led to a new vision of Islam, based on a modern interpretation of the Quran and the traditions and teachings of Prophet Muhammad, Shiite Imams, and leaders.

Mr. Rajavi and other original members of the PMOI were “skillful men of ideology,” according to Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iranian-American professor at Syracuse University.² The PMOI’s interpretation of Islam proved to be politically very popular and succeeded, he said, in “exhorting a great many Iranian youth to rediscover Shi’ism and return to the Muslim fold, which they were deserting in large numbers.”³

---

Rejected Marxism

When the PMOI was established in 1965, Marxism enjoyed a large following in developing countries, especially on university campuses. Iran was no exception. The PMOI’s political platform was at odds with the two major Marxist political organizations, the Tudeh Party, the communist group supported by the Soviet Union, and the Fedayeen, a Marxist-Leninist group.

The PMOI argued the restoration of democracy and its modern vision of Islam, as opposed to Marxism, were the best way to remedy Iran’s social and economic ills. It said only Islam was “capable of mobilizing the masses for such a colossal struggle.”⁴

Mr. Rajavi presented the views of the PMOI in lectures he gave once a week at Sharif University. He contrasted the PMOI’s vision of Islam with Khomeni’s fundamentalist interpretation, at one extreme, and Marxism, at the other extreme. An article in “Le Monde” by Eric Rouleau described the occasion:

“One of the most important events not to be missed in Tehran is the courses on comparatiave philosophy, taught every Friday afternoon by Mr. Massoud Rajavi. Some 10,000 people present their admission cards to listen for three hours to the lectures by the leader of the People’s Mojahedin on Sharif University’s lawn.”⁵

Rajavi’s lectures were recorded on video cassettes and distributed in 35 cities throughout Iran. They also “were published in paperback and sold by the hundreds of thousands of copies,” Rouleau said.⁶

The lectures were later combined into a three-volume book titled “Tabyin-e jahan” (Comprehending the World). It presents the PMOI’s beliefs on the nature of existence, humans, history, and epistemology. In the lectures, Bouroujerdi explained, “Rajavi saves his most extensive critical commentary for Marxist materialistic epistemology.”⁷ Bouroujerdi continued:

“By subjecting the materialistic doctrines of [Aleksandr Ivanocich] Oparin and a host of other orthodox Marxist thinkers to a religious critique the Mojahedin hoped to challenge the more vigorous presence of Marxism within Iranian intellectual circles.”⁸

Bouroujerdi stated the PMOI “remained skeptical of Marxism’s philosophy postulates and rejected the latter’s cardinal doctrine of historical materialism. They held firm to their beliefs in the existence of God, revelation, afterlife, spirit, expectation, salvation, destiny, and the people’s commitment to these intangible principals.”⁹

Given the above backdrop, it is clear the PMOI is not, and has never been, a Marxist organization. It politically opposed the Marxists, offering a pro-democratic Muslim alternative.

The mullah’s name-calling propaganda campaign to label the PMOI as Marxist would likely have met limited success in western countries had it not been for the U.S. State Department. To gain the support of Iran’s mullahs in freeing American hostages, the Department agreed, as part of a deal, to publicly brand the resistance organization as Marxist.

---

1. “Iran’s Bleak Future,” Washington Post, August 19, 1981.
2.  “Iranian Intellectuals and the West,” by Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Syracuse University Press, New York, 1996
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. “Enemies of the Ayatollahs,” Mohammad Mohaddessin, Zed Books, London, 2004.
6. Ibid.
7. “Iranian Intellectuals and the West,” by Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Syracuse University Press, New York, 1996.
8. Ibid
9. Ibid

U.S. State Department

Nothing unusual was expected at a subcommittee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 24, 1985.  Richard Murphy, a high ranking State Department official, was scheduled to give testimony on “recent developments in the Middle East.”

But to the surprise of everyone, he want off on a tangent and began to discuss the People’s Mojahedin.  He alleged they had “advocated violence since their inception, and have worked for a re-emphasis in Iranian society of Shia Islam reformed in the light of Marxist principals.”1  He also said the Mojahedin was “anti-democratic, anti-American, and anti-Western.”2

Members of Congress could not explain the reason for the unsolicited remarks by the State Department official.  The PMOI was equally taken aback and issued a response the following day.  Massoud Rajavi, believing the mischaracterization of the PMOI was an honest mistake, exclaimed “to my sorrow, the background information provided to the American State Department was incorrect.”3

The reason for Murphy’s diatribe was not revealed until two years later, during an investigation of the Iran-Contra scandal by the Tower Commission.  It obtained a letter, dated July 9, 1986, written by Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former SAVAK agent, that was addressed to a high-ranking Iranian official.

Ghorbanifar was working as an intermediary between the U.S. and Iran to help gain the release of Manuches Ghorbanifar, a former SAVAK agent, was an intermediary between the US and Iran’s mullahs. He sent a letter to a top Iranian officials listing “goodwill” gestures by the Americans, including “an official announcement terming the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization terrorist and Marxist.”American hostages in Lebanon.  The U.S. had taken numerous steps to encourage Iran’s assistance and Ghorbanifar wanted Iran’s mullahs to reciprocate. In the letter, he listed “positive and constructive steps as a sign of goodwill” taken by the U.S. during the previous year.  Number four on the list, Ghorbanifar wrote:

“[Issuance] of an official announcement terming the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization terrorist and Marxist….”4

Richard Murphy’s testimony, it turned out, was a “goodwill” gesture the mullahs had demanded to gain their support to free the U.S. hostages. Terming the PMOI as Marxist was not based on a diligent and fair assessment, but was disinformation distributed at the behest of the mullahs.

The damage, however, had been done.  The State Department is viewed as a reliable source of information.  After Murphy’s testimony, the media regularly repeated the Department’s mischaracterization when discussing the PMOI.

The U.S. government’s collusion with Iran was compounded by the Clinton Administration.  In 1997, President Clinton sought a rapprochement with Iran’s mullahs.  To curry their favor and demonstrate America’s willingness to improve relations, the U.S. designated the PMOI as a Foreign Terrorism Organization – another “goodwill” gesture.5  In its literature, the State Department reiterated the false claim that the Mojahedin followed a “philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam.”6

Information to dispel the mislabeling of the PMOI as Marxist was repeatedly brought to the attention of the State Department, but to no avail.  Had the government accurately described the Mojahedin as a pro-democratic organization, offering a modern view of Islam that discredits the mullahs’ violent ideology, discussions with the regime would have been derailed and with it the possibility of a rapprochement.  So the charade continued.

In the years that followed, the U.S. repeatedly reached out to the mullahs for help.  And each time the response to gain their assistance was the same – attack the PMOI as a “goodwill” gesture, which the U.S. readily agreed to do.  And year after year, the State Department repeated the false description of the resistance organization as Marxist.  (Click here for more details.)

A former U.S. ambassador said people working at the State Department were aware of the inaccurate description but feared for their jobs if they challenged the falsehood.