The Incitement
The 45 year-old event which lead to the death of Mahsa Amini by the Islamic Republic of Iran...
When I was a teenager, my parents and I viewed a theatrical play at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles entitled The Trial of Cinema Rex. It was written and directed by Dr. Parviz Sayyad, an Iranian-born American lauded as one of the most appealing actors, writers, and filmmakers of his generation. Our families happen to know one another, so his work was quite influential on me as a young, budding writer/director. Sayyad greatly shaped my understanding of what the role of an artist could be. He is a substantial intellectual, guised as an artist who makes people laugh and think through his movies and plays. The most enduring character he created is Samad, a bumbling, street-smart, uneducated country boy that I recall watching on our little TV set back in Iran when I was all of six years old or thereabouts.
The Trial of Cinema Rex was written while I was in junior high school (the mid-80s) here in Cali-for-ni-a. It was written primarily for an audience of the Iranian diaspora. Its plot centers on the production of a show trial intended to be televised across Iran for all to see. It's a dramatization of an actual, historical trial—one convened by the Islamic Revolutionary Government of Iran to cover up a false-flag operation wherein hundreds of Iranians were burned alive. Why? Because the Mullahs1 of the time needed an inciting event to legitimize the overthrow of the monarch, Shah (king) Muhammad Reza Pahlavi.
The play was videotaped while it was on its tour across America. Sayyad makes it available on his YouTube page if you’re interested in viewing it. It premiered in Seattle, Washington, sometime in ‘84 (I think).
The Trial of Cinema Rex is, in many regards, the Iranian diaspora’s equivalent of the movie JFK. It explores the illegitimacy of the trial that arguably forever changed the course of Iran’s history. To many, the trial itself set off the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979. In JFK, Oliver Stone posits that the Warren Commission Report was a joke. The trial in THAT story suggests a cover-up of Kennedy’s assassination by the conservative (i.e., Christian Supremacist) establishment of Americans. This impulse was funneled and brought to life via the CIA, Texan politics, Cuban-American politics, etc.. to rid the egalitarian, secularity that Kennedy was bringing to the country and replace it with religious, suppressive, and shameful Christianity led by the famously devout, conservative democrat (known by his closest friends as the “Disciple of Christ”), Lyndon Baines Johnson. The events portrayed in JFK rhyme well with what happened in 1978 Iran.
In both cases, the religious/conservative blocs of the respective nations weren’t having the secularity (in Iran) or equality (in the US) that these two leaders, Kennedy and Pahlavi, both born of the same generation, were popularizing. The religious/conservatives of the respective nations didn’t want the changes being brought because their baseless and repressive power structures were threatened with annihilation, potentially making Iran’s priestly class feckless and destroying America’s western European-race-based stranglehold on every institution in society, including commerce, education, real estate, etc.
Arson
It was during the summer of 1978 that the Rex Cinema was set ablaze, killing hundreds of people trapped inside. The cinema was located in Abadan, a city in the southwest of Iran, some 30 miles from the Persian Gulf. This mass murder arguably coalesced the sentiment of most Iranians toward a theocratic revolution in Iran—a revolution that has devastated the nation for the past 40+ years and instituted the Guidance Patrol (morality police) that is so prevalent in American and European news of late.
It was a 1974 dramatic movie that was playing at Cinema Rex during the evening of the arson. گوزنها (Gavaznhā), meaning “the deers”, was an acclaimed movie starring one of the most famous Iranian actors of the time—Behrouz Vossoughi. You can read the movie's plot. It’s about two old friends reuniting. It’s an intellectual exchange concerning crime, poverty, parenting, drug addiction, lack of education in Iran, and friendship.
Now, you might be saying, “Who cares what was playing? Why was the cinema set on fire?” Well, Gavaznhā was regarded by the Iranian intelligentsia as a commentary on the White Revolution—a far-reaching series of reforms mandated by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi beginning in the early 1960s. That revolution resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth FROM the countryside villages and towns run by Islamic Mullahs TO the working class of the modernized cities (Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc.).
As such, uneducated, religiously devout, and unskilled farmers of the countryside were driven into the major industrialized cities to find work—to no avail. Most migrants to the cities were jobless and became drug addicts that lived in mass hostels.
By the mid-1970s, Iran’s society had become unbalanced. There was a small middle class that made up about 10% of the nation while the other 90% was languishing.
At around 8:21 p.m. on an August evening, four men barred the doors of the Cinema Rex and doused it with gasoline. Then, they dropped a match.
About 100 people got out of the cinema via the rooftop, and about 230 people survived the fire itself.
But between 377-470 people perished.
Why? Who would do such a thing?
The Shah’s government took the position that the fire was started by Islamic Marxist militants who were opposed to the innovative, more European/American styles of life and economy that the White Revolution was bringing to the people. The revolution had brought about a secularism that was antithetical to the Muslims’ belief in their Quran and their Muhammad.
Those that opposed the Shah’s revolution, the Mullahs, blamed the Shah himself. They claimed that through the SAVAK (the domestic intelligence and security police of the monarchy), the Shah conducted a false flag operation. SAVAK set the theater on fire and blamed Islamists for the mass murder to accelerate the Shah’s move toward a more egalitarian, secular nation.
Who Was ACTUALLY Behind the Murders?
In Sayyad’s play, it’s strongly suggested that the Mullahs who opposed the Shah’s redistribution of wealth recruited downtrodden, uneducated, local, and Allah-fearing men to pull off the job. Then, the Mullahs leading the revolutionaries introduced the idea that SAVAK was behind the fire, that the Shah was so out of touch with the Iranian people and with Islam that he would murder them to get his way in the social economy of the state. That’s how The Trial of Cinema Rex begins. The director of the show trial to be televised is scoping out the theater to determine how he will technically produce the trial when one of the arsonists walks into the theater and confesses that the Mullahs recruited him.
In my view, that is more than likely what happened. I concur with the premise that it was the Mullahs and the religious right of Iran’s countryside communities that made the move. Why you may ask? Statistics.
Arson was consistent with Islamic activists' setting ablaze cinemas and other venues of supposed Western decadence for more than a decade. There had been many instances of arson that destroyed cinemas, first in Qom and later in other cities. Plus, the Islamists were against the art of cinema in general, largely thanks to the sexuality that was increasingly being displayed in the movies. The Fadā'iyān-e Islam (فدائیان اسلام) was a Shia fundamentalist terrorist group that was founded in the mid-40s by a theology student named Sayyid Mojtaba Mir-Lohi, better known as Navvab Safavi. The group sought to purify Islam in Iran by ridding it of the growing secular mobilization and foreign domination after World War II through all forms of assassinations, including the burning of homes and cinemas.
Moreover, the arson occurred on August 19—the anniversary of the 1953 coup d'état in Iran that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Now either this was an amazing historical coincidence, or (what is MUCH more likely) it was a date the Mullahs chose to revive a memory of revolution and an atmosphere for deposing the Head of State.
The Investigation
The Islamists reaped major propaganda advantages from the tragedy in the prevailing environment of suspicion and anger. As the arson occurred during the revolutionary period, it was quite difficult to identify the perpetrators, making ill-conceived accusations rather prevalent.
The revolutionary bloc blamed the Shah, the then-deposed monarch of Iran, and his SAVAK. Although sufficient evidence was never brought forth to facilitate such claims, the labeling had far-reaching implications for the subsequent direction of the revolutionary movement. The Islamist revolutionaries amplified the narrative that the Shah targeted Cinema Rex to kill political dissidents who had gathered to watch the anti-government film playing there.
I suggest you read Sayyad’s play or check out the play on YouTube to get a sense of how the trial went. Once Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran and the Mullahs gained their authority and wealth back, they worked to suppress the event and the trial, lest someone dug too deep and figured out that it was the religious right of the nation that killed those innocent people. But the families of the deceased insisted, and, in 1980, about a year after my family immigrated to the USA, a televised trial was announced in Iran.
The first question: who would be the judge?
Mousavi Tabrizi was the man selected to serve in that capacity. Why Tabrizi? Because his father-in-law, Nouri Hamedani, was one of the Mullahs that did the recruiting of the local arsonists.
Who is Tabrizi, and why him?
After the Islamic Revolution, he was commissioned by Ayatollah Montazeris and Ayatolla Meshkini to administer Sharia law in Dezful (a city of about a quarter million Iranians). There, he engaged in what he is most known for—signing the death sentences of members of the Local Spiritual Assembly of The Bahaiś of Tehran. The Bahaiś were kidnapped and subsequently tortured. Finally, they were executed purely on religious grounds.
After observing the young Mousavi Tabrizi’s ability to suppress and kill, Supreme Leader Khomeini appointed him as the head of the Islamic Revolution Courts of East and West Azerbaijan Provinces. He rose to Islamic stardom by murdering hundreds of Bahaiś. So the newly established revolutionary government figured no one would be better to make sure the trial goes the way Khomeini’s clerics wanted it to go than this slovenly, cow-flop of a man.
Oh, and since there were many resignations from district attorneys and officials over this sham trial, Mousavi Tabrizi played BOTH THE ROLE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE JUDGE.
Lasting a few weeks, the tribunal oversaw 17 court sessions that involved the trial of 26 individuals, including the only survivor of the four-man arson team, Hossein Takbalizadeh. Takbalizadeh stated in his defense that he was an unemployed drug addict2. Soon after the trial, he and five others were put to death in public.
Though the White Revolution contributed towards the economic and technological advancement of Iran throughout the 60s and much of the 70s, the failures of some of the land reform programs, the partial lack of democratic reforms as well as severe antagonism towards the White Revolution from the clergy and landed elites, ultimately brought about the Shah's downfall and the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
The Suppression of the Sacred Feminine in Iran
With this Islamic Revolution came a return to the shameful suppression of women and sexuality. In fact, in an unfortunate twist of fate, some Iranian women who had gained confidence and higher education under the Pahlavi era participated in the very demonstrations the Islamists were hoisting against the Shah. The culture of empowerment and education for women was established by the time of the revolution. But these now educated and empowered women of Iran, namely those of Persian ethnicity, overestimated the honor of the uneducated country Muslim men.
During the revolution, many of these women wore veils as a symbol of protest against the secularism the Shah had introduced. But they became quite alarmed when talk of the hijab being compulsory was discussed. This led to the International Women’s Day protests in Tehran against compulsory hijab.
But…
…because Khomeini was quoted to say that he preferred to see women in modest Islamic clothing, in 1981, veiling was made compulsory, and cosmetics were banned; harsh punishments were also introduced by the morality police, such as the removal of lipstick by a razor blade.
Then came the more draconian anti-woman measures. In the early 1980s, women were banned from acting as judges and were discouraged from becoming lawyers. The Islamic government repealed the Family Protection Laws of 1967 and 1973, which restricted polygamy, allowed women the right to divorce, and raised the minimum age for marriage. The regime banned contraception and lowered the marriage age of girls from 15 to 9. They also banned women from various fields of study and professions.
The Guidance Patrol (گشت ارشاد)
As a result of the Islamic Revolution, the gašt-e eršād, or morality police (technically, Guidance Patrol), was instituted. The way the patrol works is this: a gaggle of chador-clad females stands at busy public places looking for women not wearing hijabs or not wearing them in accordance with government standards3. If they can correct the violation at the moment, they sometimes do so, and the woman goes on her way. But usually, they call in a van of men who come and arrest the woman (or women), put them in the van, and take them to the local precinct station. Girls as young as seven years old are forced to wear the hijab.
Reports of rape and brutality during these trips are countless, according to Amnesty International. The United Nations Human Rights Office said young Iranian women were violently slapped in the face, beaten with batons, and pushed into the police vans. The women are driven to a correctional facility or police station, lectured on how to dress, have their photos taken by the police, and have their personal information recorded. Finally, they are required to destroy any "bad" clothing with scissors.
The penalty for a woman not wearing the hijab consists of imprisonment from 10 days to two months and a fine of 50,000 to 500,000 Iranian rials. Violators may also be lashed up to 74 times.
On September 16, 2022, the Guidance Patrol arrested Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman, for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly in a manner that allowed some of her hair to be visible under it. She died in their custody. They claimed she suffered heart failure and consequently died while comatose two days later.
Bruises on her legs and face suggested to some that she was beaten, despite police denials. Multiple medical officials and detainees that witnessed her arrest claim that Guidance Patrol officials tortured her in the back of the van before arriving at the station. Her abduction and subsequent murder inspired a wave of protests in Iran, including at Tehran University and at Kasra Hospital, where she died.
Standing at the Precipice
I’m heartened by the reports coming through the alternative media in the Iranian diaspora regarding the efforts of the Iranian people, especially their women, in moving the needle back toward a sane and more secular society. The reign of terror ANY theocracy imposes on its nation’s psyche is paralyzing and pitiful. What is happening in Iran today marks the most significant uprising against the theocracy instated during the ‘79 revolution. With the aid of those of us outside of Iran pressuring the world’s media to stay on the stories, it’s possible that some progress for the girls and women of Iran may take place. However…
As long as the specter of Islam governs the nation, in my opinion, no amount of protests, international pressure, or even a well-organized counter-revolution will pull the nation out of its self-imposed dark age. The outraged outcries by my dear countrymen in the diaspora, as well as the men and women of Iran, will not be sufficient. Iran doesn’t need a revolution. Iran needs a renaissance.
The Europeans of the Medieval period came to their Renaissance thanks to the introduction of coffee from West Asia. That’s right. Chemistry was in massive play. Thanks to coffee, more Europeans engaged in conversation and artistic endeavors, which brought out the need for a new philosophical framework—one that wasn’t mired in the economic death spiral Europe had gotten itself into thanks to its child-like fear of Arabs and Moors, not to mention the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches.
So, caffeine and philosophy. That’s what kicked off the European Renaissance4. And even THAT wasn’t enough to eradicate the tentacles of the Abrahamic faith systems. But it sure shifted the mentality of the people—from slaves to an almighty god to freethinking demigods (albeit, very few of them understood this at the time) claiming such bold new positions like "I think. Therefore, I am". After all, to be one with god—is to be godlike. It’ll be through the arts--through creation (and, by its necessary opposite, destruction) as well as the Iranian people's lasting love affair with poetic philosophy that will lift the ancient peoples of Pars out of the quagmire that is the sycophantic devotion to the blood cult known as Islam5.
The Trial of Cinema Rex brought to light the hypocrisy of the Islamists and the contradictions of Iranian politics and society. What we need now is another trial—the trial of theism.
A Farsi honorific title for Shia and Sunni Muslim clergy or a Muslim mosque leader.
In Sayyad’s play, Takbalizadeh is played by an old friend of my family, Mr. Ali Pourtash. Tremendous performance. I always wondered if the actual Takbalizadeh had a stutter, though.
Less so, the Guidance Patrol would also look for men in shorts or slippers. Yes, men have restrictions in Iran too…
If interested in this topic, check out Steven Johnson’s book, “Where Good Ideas Come From”
To be clear, “blood cult” refers to a religion that basis its authority on genealogy of a family. So Jews, Christians, etc.—all blood cults.