A response to Mohammad Mostafaei’s remarks
ارسال به بالاترین
Abbas Goya
September 6, 2010
Fact Sheet:
- Mohammad Mostafaei is NOT Sakineh’s lawyer. Sakineh’s children have dismissed Mostafaei officially.
- As per Sajjad’s open letter Mostafaei has never directly taken the status of Sakineh’s lawyer but via a female lawyer, and even that lasted for a short time and cost Sakineh’s family a considerable amount of lawyer fee.
- Since the official dissmissal of Mostafaei, his statements re juridcal procedure of Sakineh’s case has no credibility. Mostafaei’s statements are however way beyond a general statement. Mostafaei could potentially be sued the last time he spoke about Sakineh’s case with prejudicial, unverified, unproven claims
Mostafaei’s “close friend” vs Sakineh’s son and her lawyer, Mr. Hootan
Yesterday, shortly after the release of ICAS Press Release 61, Mohammad Mostafaei, once again unwelcomingly intervenes on Sakineh’s case [Farsi - Mostafaei's blog] despite Sajjad’s (Sakineh’s son) repeated requests not to - See PR 61 for the latest request.
From the very first sentence Mostafaei starts a vicious attack claiming
“a plagiarized letter published by a person named Mina Ahadi”
We don’t know what this “plagiarized letter” is up until a few paragraphs into the posting. In between Mostafaei is too busy with personal attacks on Mina Ahadi.
Finally we are told that
“if Sajjad has not met his mother, then how does he know that she has been sentenced to 99 lashes?”
Okay! A lawyer which supposedly basis his reasoning on facts tries to convince us why “logically” Sajjad could not have claimed that his mother is sentenced to 99 lashes!!! Well, here is the news and the unfortunate fact Mr Mostafaei. Sajjad and his actual, real, physical lawyer, Mr. Hootan confirmed that the whipping sentence is true. Now we’re done with Mostafaei’s 3/4 of posting. But wait, Mostafaei has more “important” and reliable figures than Sakineh’s own son and her lawyer
“I immediately contacted Tabriz judiciary and talked to a close friend who works at the judiciary and he vehemently denied this news. I knew that this news was not true.”
This sentence contains a number of contradictions I don’t bother to dig into. For instance, how could a lawyer who is supposedly on the run, so freely receive confidential information directly from within the juridical apparatus of a monster regime like Islamic Republic on the phone and at the office immediately? Let’s believe in magic. Let’s believe it in full. Now we have a “close friend” vs Sakineh’s son and her lawyer. Who should we really believe?
Let’s dig into a couple of more “logics/facts”
There is one piece of interesting information here. Mostafaei indicates that he was the one who passed the wrong picture of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to the London Times which later on resulted in recent whipping sentence. Interestingly enough he makes a point to tell us
“Third, Sajjad sent me this picture along with another picture through an internet cafe and I chose to publish the picture with veil. The second picture that was published in Times publication resembles Mrs. Ashtiani and her picture with veil.”!!“[Underlined by AG]
Furthermore, there has been tons of communications with Sajjad. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever mentioned how Sajjad was accessing the Internet. The mention of “an internet café” is a safeguard. Mostafaei is well aweare that “internet cafe is public and therefore untraceable”. So, what he claims about receiving the picture form Sajjad is just that, a claim that he knows can never be verified.
Let me entertain you with another “fact”. Mostafaei claims:
“First, Mrs. Ashtiani’s children do not even read inside papers let along Spiegel or Times. They do not even speak English.”
How can Mostafaei be so sure about that? We live in 21 century. They might read the articles by various means such as the lousy google translate via that lousy “internet café”, can’t they?
He concludes that
“At the end I need to point out that those who embark on such immoral actions must realize that lies and deception and intimidations can never win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people”.
I can’t agree no more. It is just that who we are referring to. I believe I have mentioned enough evidence to prove that Mostafai’s very conclusion might fit him best. But the question is why he says what he says?
Why does Mostafaei make these statements?
A) The truth about Mostafaei’s involvement in Sakineh’s case ever is already spelled out in the finest details by Sajjad in his open letter- i.e. next to none- See PR 61! B) Mostafaei’s reaction to Sajjad’s exposure of the truth appears to be the reason for a series of viciously aggressive accusations – rather an attempt of intimidation. Mostafai attacks the distributor of Sajjad’s open letter (Mina Ahadi) and while he is at it he even denies the whipping sentence in order to discredit the source of the news implying that Mostafaei and his “close friends” are the “real source”. In between he cares nothing about the consequences of his statements on Sakineh. Mostafaei’s personal attack on Mina Ahadi is the peak of his absurd-ism, rather the political trend he belongs to. This will finally lead us to the actual reason for Mostafaei reaction. A politically motivated reason.
My message to Mostafaei
Mostafaei belongs to a political trend known as “Pro-Regime Opposition”, e.g. he is a defender of the Islamic Republic of Iran yet he seeks some so called “reforms” from within. Therefore, there is no political common ground between him and us, Sakineh’s defenders. Mostafaei has every right to speak out his political mind unlike the denial of that right by the very regime he defends. However, once the “words” are about private matter of a sensitive juridical case, this is no longer an expression of an opinion. It is an act. It has, as we have seen, some real consequences for a person residing on brutal circumstances, in a prison cell in Iran. I can only advise Mostafaei that he could try to be mature, perhaps less opportunist, and distinguishes his political agenda from the juridical details of a case he has no part in it.
Mostafaei is practically endangering Sakineh’s life and he appears to be aware of that [considering the repeated requests by Sakineh's children to avoid making any judicial statement on Sakineh's case].
