Statements of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution at the Fourth Strategic Thought Meeting on Freedom

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

First of all, I am very happy and truly grateful to each and every one of the attendees, especially the brothers and sisters who have worked hard, conducted research, prepared articles, and then made efforts to summarize those articles - it was evident that the articles were completely summarized - that God may grant us success to be able to access the original articles that have now been printed and made available, and God willing, we will have time to see them. Now, I find it unlikely that I will have the fortune to find this time, but it is good for friends to refer to the original articles and reflect on them; because we are dealing with this issue. I also thank our esteemed and dear moderator, Dr. Vaez-Zadeh, who, as usual, expresses many points with brief remarks and carries a vast background of work with him here and there. I truly know that he and his colleagues work very hard.

It is necessary to express special thanks to all those involved. Well, these days you observe that due to the conflicts that global arrogance and, in fact, the number one enemy of freedom, have with our country and the Islamic Republic - regarding these economic issues and their effects on the performance of the government and in the lives of the people - there is naturally a general concern in the political atmosphere of the country; that is, none of us are free from this thought; while this main, fundamental, and long-term work has not been interrupted or halted; that is, this meeting took place almost exactly according to the planning that had been made, at its scheduled time. This makes me both happy and grateful to all those involved.

The Islamic Republic has several main objectives for holding strategic thought meetings, which we do not want to forget and remove from our sight. One is that the country has a severe need for thought, ideas, and intellectual engagement in foundational issues. There are many fundamental topics, and this is the fourth one we are discussing, and we see that we need to engage in intellectual discourse and activate thoughts on them. I mentioned in a Ramadan meeting in this Hosseiniyeh with a group of university scholars - whether professors or students; I do not remember - that I referred to the words of one of the attendees and speakers from last year's session, who addressed me by saying that you have emphasized the issue of science and scientific progress and flourishing for so many years, also focus on thought. I thought about it and found it to be a very important point. Well, we said here that we should think about thinking, about intellectual engagement, activating ideas. Of course, this issue has its conditions, its grounds, and its possibilities; some of them we have, some we do not have, and we can acquire. This is part of the fundamental challenges of a nation; a nation like ours that has not remained stagnant like a swamp; it is flowing like a roaring river. This is how we are; we are in motion, we are progressing. There are clashes and encounters with obstacles, but progress does not stop. We are such a nation; therefore, we need to think about this issue. Thus, the country's severe need for thought and ideas, especially in foundational issues, is one of the objectives of these meetings.

Another objective is the importance of direct communication with elites. I may take your book and read it; however, this is different from hearing your words directly from you, even in a summarized form. All the attendees here are subject to this rule. They should communicate and listen to each other's words directly; this is also an important point.

The third point - which is also a very important point - is the scientific groundwork for obtaining answers to important questions in fundamental issues. As some friends have pointed out, we are faced with questions; these questions must be answered. These questions are not merely creating doubts; they are not just expressing doubts and mental knots; rather, they are fundamental issues of our social life. With the claim we make, that we say we are an Islamic Republic and an Islamic system, these are fundamental issues. It must be said, it must be answered. Has this issue been resolved? Is there a clear answer or not? In this regard, we need to work. These are the objectives of this meeting.

Of course, this meeting we have tonight and the previous three meetings were not for the final word to be spoken here. Neither you will say the final word, nor will I; this is just groundwork. We want this movement to start; this flow to open up like a gushing spring, so that the flow begins. The main work must start after this meeting; which will also be carried out by motivated and thoughtful researchers and professors, both in the seminary and in the university. Well, the works that were done after the first meeting - which was about the Iranian Islamic model of progress - were explained by Dr. Vaez-Zadeh; good works have been done, fundamental works have been done. The next meeting, which was about justice, was entrusted to the same center. The third meeting was about family. Important works have been done in that area; both in the center and in some research institutions and specialized centers. Work is progressing. The lack of a sign for this work was my request. From the beginning, we were not inclined to put up a sign for this work. We want work to be done; when it is realized, a sign will appear. Of course, recently I told friends that in order for this movement, especially in a challenging area like freedom, to be realized outside, we requested that they pursue a regular media policy, so that experts, interested individuals, and those who may have fallen into lethargy in these areas or are looking for an excuse for motivation can benefit from our meeting tonight and enter the flow; however, we do not intend to have advertisements - in the conventional sense.

But regarding the topic of tonight's meeting - that is, the issue of freedom - there are several points. The statements made by friends were very good. I mean, when one listens - and I am also a good listener and listen carefully to the words - one benefits. We truly benefited from all these statements made by friends - some more, some less; there were really noteworthy points. Of course, I must say this without beating around the bush; from the total remarks of the gentlemen, we understood how much we have a gap in this area. Your statements and research intensified the belief I had that we understood how much we lack in this issue; I will now refer to this lack of ours.

Well, the truth is that the discussion of freedom among the Westerners has gained an unprecedented flourishing over the past three or four centuries around the Renaissance and after the Renaissance. Whether in the field of philosophical sciences, social sciences, or in the field of art and literature, there is hardly a topic like the issue of freedom in the West that has been raised in these three or four centuries. This has a general cause, and it has surrounding causes as well. The general cause is that these fundamental discussions require a catalyst to get started; that is, usually a storm sets off these fundamental discussions. In normal circumstances, deep and challenging discussions about these fundamental topics do not occur; an incident must happen to create the ground for it. Of course, I mentioned; this refers to the main factor - which I will now mention - there are also side factors. That incident was primarily the Renaissance - the Renaissance in the European countries; starting from Italy, which was the origin, then England, France, and other places - after that, the Industrial Revolution, which occurred in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in England. The Industrial Revolution itself was an incident, like an explosion, that forces people to think, compels thinkers to think. Then, in the mid-eighteenth century, the groundwork for the Great French Revolution - which was the social groundwork for the realization of a great revolution - was prepared in a region that had no such revolutions. Of course, a similar situation had occurred a hundred or two hundred years before that briefly in England, but it could not be compared to what happened in the French Revolution.

The groundwork for the French Revolution was the readiness within the society; the very thing that existed beneath the surface of society and thinkers saw it. Let me tell you; the extent to which figures like Montesquieu or Rousseau utilized the realities of French society for their thoughts, the realities of French society did not utilize their thoughts to that extent. Anyone who looks will see this. You know that Montesquieu himself was actually outside France. There were realities. Before the great explosion of 1789 occurred - which was indeed a huge explosion; how many casualties, how much destruction it caused - so many events were happening beneath the surface of society and the city and country that indicated something was in motion. Now, regarding freedom, the discussion of reason was raised. No, let me tell you; in the Great French Revolution, perhaps four intellectuals spoke in a certain way, but in the field of action on the ground, what was not raised was the issue of reason and rationality and the inclination towards reason. No, the only issue was freedom; primarily freedom from the shackles of the monarchy and the oppressive government that had dominated for centuries; the Bourbon government that had control over all aspects of people's lives. It was not just the court; the nobility of France were each a king in their own right. What you heard about the Bastille and the Bastille prisons was not just from that brief period; it was perhaps centuries old, and the Bastille was the same Bastille. That is, the situation was chaotic. Well, thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau, seeing this situation, had the capacity to think and reach a point, they would say something; their words were not at all taken into account in reality and in the context of action in France. Now, look at the points made at that time by those great orators - Mirabeau and others - none of them referred to the words of Montesquieu and Voltaire and the like; all were focused on the corruption of the regime, the despotism of the regime, and so on. This is the reality of the French Revolution.

The Great French Revolution, in a sense, was a failed revolution. At most, eleven or twelve years after the revolution, a powerful empire of Napoleon emerged; that is, an absolute monarchy, which had not been ruled by the kings before Louis XVI who was killed in the revolution! Napoleon wanted to be crowned, and the Pope was brought to place the crown of kingship on Napoleon's head; but Napoleon did not allow the Pope to place it; he took it from the Pope and placed it on his own head! Now, these are in the margins and in parentheses. In comparison with our revolution, it is worth noting that what prevented such events and tragedies from occurring - at least in some form, even if somewhat milder - was the presence of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified). That leadership who was followed, influential, and obeyed by all, was the one who prevented it; otherwise, be assured that now, if not such events, similar events would have occurred. In the ten to twelve years between the revolution and the emergence of Napoleon and the rise of Napoleon, three groups came to power; each group killed and destroyed the previous one and took power; then the next group came and destroyed and killed this group. The people were ultimately living in chaos and misery. This was the Great French Revolution; the October Revolution in the Soviet Union is also similar in many ways - that is, it is similar to the Great French Revolution - but there was a specific situation there, and various other factors that somehow guided and controlled the people. It is worth noting that these points should be considered. In the circles that I now encounter - whether historical circles or such academic circles - unfortunately, I do not see attention being paid to the existing points in these revolutions.

Of course, you know that several revolutions occurred in France. The revolution that took place at the end of the eighteenth century is the Great French Revolution. About forty years later, another revolution occurred; about twenty years after that, another revolution occurred; a communist revolution. The first communist revolution in the world occurred in France, where they formed the communes.

Therefore, the factors that fostered this intellectual movement were: first and foremost, the Renaissance. Naturally, the Renaissance was not an instantaneous event, but many events occurred over the first two hundred years of the Renaissance, one of which was the Industrial Revolution, and another was the Great French Revolution. These raised the idea of freedom; hence, they worked. Many philosophers wrote thousands of research papers and books. In all Western countries, hundreds of documented books on freedom were written. Then, when this thought was transferred to America, they worked in the same way. Until the Constitutional Revolution, we did not have a situation that could create a wave of thought to lead us to think about an issue like freedom. The Constitutional Revolution was a very good opportunity. The Constitutional Revolution was a great event, directly related to the issue of freedom; hence, it was appropriate for this calm lake of our scientific thought - whether in religious or non-religious fields - to be stirred; to create a storm and do something; as it did. Thoughts related to freedom were raised, but there was a significant deficiency that prevented us from following the right path in this thought and progressing along that path; that deficiency was that for several years before the Constitutional Revolution - perhaps two or three decades before the Constitutional Revolution - Western thoughts gradually opened a way into the minds of a group of intellectuals through the aristocrats, princes, and royal agents. When we say intellectuals, in that early period, intellectuals were synonymous with aristocrats. That is, we did not have non-aristocratic intellectuals. Our first-rate intellectuals were the same court figures and their affiliates; they became acquainted with Western thought regarding freedom from the beginning. Therefore, when you enter the issue of freedom in the Constitutional Revolution - which is a very tumultuous and noisy issue - you see that the same anti-clerical inclination in the West, which was a significant feature of freedom, also manifests here as anti-mosque, anti-clergy, and anti-religion. Well, this was a false comparison. The direction of the Renaissance was anti-religious, anti-clerical; thus, it was founded on humanism, anthropocentrism, and was based on secularism. After that, all Western movements have been based on humanism, and it continues to be so today. With all the differences that have arisen, the foundation is humanistic; that is, it is based on disbelief, it is based on polytheism - which if there was an opportunity, I would refer to later - the same came here. You see that the intellectual writer, the intellectual politician, even that cleric who has leaned towards the intellectuals, when writing books and articles about the Constitutional Revolution, repeats the same Western ideas; nothing more than that. This was why no birth occurred. You see, the characteristic of imitative thought is this. When you receive a prescription from someone to read and act according to that prescription, then birth has no meaning. If you took knowledge, or motivation, and thought and idea from it, then yes, you will start working, and birth will occur. This did not happen; hence, no birth occurred; thus, in the work related to freedom, no new words, no new ideas, no new intellectual system - like the intellectual systems that the Westerners have - emerged. Many of these thinkers in the West have an intellectual system regarding freedom. The critiques that have been made against old liberalism and also the critiques that were later made against the new versions of liberalism and liberal democracy and those things that came after the liberalism of the seventeenth or sixteenth century, each has its own intellectual system; the first has it, the latter has it, and it answers many questions. We did not create a single one of them in our country; despite the fact that we have abundant resources, we do not have a lack of resources - just as friends pointed out - that is, we can truly provide a documented intellectual system, a complete intellectual system regarding freedom - that answers all the detailed and broad questions of freedom. Of course, this work requires effort; it is not easy. We have not done this work. While we have resources, we have brought in their intellectual systems; now, anyone who had access to anywhere; one had a connection with Austria, from what the Austrian scholar had said; one knew French, from what had been said in French; one was related to England or Germany, from what had been said in English or German, imitated; it became imitative. The opponents, who were considered opponents of freedom, were actually bitten by the same hole - that both groups were bitten by the same hole - they also, seeing that the words were anti-religious, anti-divine, confronted it.

Today we have shortages, we have many gaps, there are many rifts; and while we have resources, we do not have an intellectual system. Here in today's gathering, Dr. Barzegar - if I am not mistaken - seems to be the only friend who presented a system. You may consider that system incomplete, and it may be incomplete; that is fine. We must move towards system-building; that is, we need to place the various pieces of this puzzle in their places, to create a complete depiction; we need this. This is not the work of a little bit, two bits; it is not the work of one session, two sessions; it is collective work and requires mastery; both mastery of Islamic resources and mastery of Western resources; which I will mention.

Well, let me mention two or three points. One issue is the clarification of the topic. You see, friends here referred to spiritual freedom. Spiritual freedom, in the sense that is in some of our narrations and some of our thinkers like the late martyr Motahhari referred to, is the highest type of human virtues - there is no doubt about it - but this is not the subject of our discussion. Our discussion is not about spiritual freedom in the sense of the journey towards God and closeness to God and progressing in the realm of monotheism - that people like Mullah Hossein-Qoli Hamadani or the late Mr. Ghazi or the late Mr. Tabatabai are products of this - our discussion is about social and political freedoms, individual and social freedoms; this is the issue of today's world. Very well, we may have a hundred other issues that the West is not aware of at all - these spiritual journeys and the like are among them - well, let us discuss those in their place. What we are looking for is freedom in the sense that is common and prevalent among today's academic, political, and intellectual circles, which discuss freedom. We want to discuss this. Spiritual freedom in the sense of the journey towards God and closeness to God and love of God and these things, that is a different subject. In a sense, there is another type of freedom that can be called spiritual freedom, and that is freedom from the grip of internal factors that prevent our free action in society, or prevent our free thinking in society; like fear of death, fear of hunger, fear of poverty. The Quran refers to these fears: "So do not fear the people, but fear Me," (1) "So do not fear them, but fear Me if you are believers," (2) addressing the Prophet: "And you fear the people, while Allah has more right that you should fear Him." (3) Or fear of losing privileges. Suppose we have a privilege in a certain organization; if we say this word, if we exercise this freedom, if we do this good deed, we will be dismissed. Or greed. Greed causes me not to speak of your faults, not to treat you freely - you who are in power - because I have greed for you. Or jealousy, or misplaced and wrong prejudices, or rigidity; these are also a type of internal obstacles, from which freedom can also be named spiritual freedom. Therefore, we have two terms in spiritual freedom: one term is the first term, which is the ascent towards God and closeness to God and love of God and these things. That is not at all part of our discussion; that is another topic. The other is spiritual freedom in the sense of being freed from internal constraints and bindings that prevent me from going to jihad, prevent me from fighting, prevent me from speaking frankly, prevent me from openly stating my positions, cause me to fall into hypocrisy, cause me to be two-faced. In the struggle against the obstacles to freedom, this discussion is worth raising.

The next point is that we want to find Islam's view. We have no qualms with anyone. If we want to pursue opinions other than Islam - whatever our minds concoct and cultivate - we will fall into the same confusions that Western thinkers are afflicted with in various fields; both in philosophy, in literature and art, and in social issues, they are afflicted; conflicting opinions against each other, which often do not lead to practical extensions. No, we are looking to see what Islam's view is.

So you see, in the discussion of freedom, we create the first limitation for ourselves. What is that limitation? It is that we want the view of Islam; we limit ourselves to the view of Islam and the Islamic framework. This is the first limitation. In the discussion of freedom, let us not be afraid of limitation. Because when it is said freedom, freedom in its primary meaning - which is defined by the primary essence - means liberation. Someone who wants to discuss freedom, it seems that anything that slightly contradicts this liberation weighs heavily on them; that is, they look for exceptions. The rule is absolute liberation. They look for what "except what is excluded by evidence" is, to say that well, in these areas there is no freedom, in those areas there is freedom; beyond these few areas, freedom is yes. This mistake can be made when confronting the discussion of freedom. I say it is not like that. From the beginning, there is no presumption that would grant us absolute freedom - that now we will discuss what the sources of freedom in Islam are - there is no such presumption from the beginning that absolute freedom is a right of man, belongs to man, is valuable for man, now let us look for what the exceptions are, what the "except what is excluded by evidence" is; no, it is not like that. Let us not be afraid of limitation. As I mentioned, our first limitation when we talk about freedom in Islam is that we say "in Islam"; that is, from the beginning, we create a framework; we create a boundary for it. What does freedom in Islam mean? This itself became a boundary. No, our discussion is not like this.

In the famous verse of Surah Al-A'raf, it says: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel, he commands them to do good and forbids them from evil, and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil things, and removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them." (4) This is the clearest verse in the Quran regarding freedom, which removes the "burden." "Burden" is that rope that is tied to the base of the tent so that the wind does not blow it away; that is, it connects it to the ground. "But he clung to the earth"; (5) this is clinging to the earth. "Bonds" are bonds, chains; the Prophet has come to remove the bonds and chains. In this same verse, before saying "He removes their burdens and the shackles that were upon them," it says: "And makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil things." Well, what does lawful and unlawful mean? Lawful and unlawful mean setting limits, prohibiting; prohibition is associated with it. Let us not be hesitant about the existence of limitations and prohibitions in our minds when discussing freedom.

Some gentlemen said there are essential differences between the view of freedom and the theory of freedom in Islam and in the West; now especially in the West, they mentioned liberalism; of course, there are other schools as well, but they all share that direction. Yes, it is true; the differences that the gentlemen mentioned exist; but the most important difference is this: in liberalism, the source of freedom, as a right or as a value, is humanistic thought - humanism - because the axis of existence and the axis of choice in this universe is man; and that too without choice has no meaning; thus, he must have choice and freedom. Of course, this choice is different from the choice of "compulsion and choice." The compulsion and choice that some gentlemen mentioned, the discussion of choice we are making is that man has the "ability to choose" - he has an inherent and natural ability - but here when we talk about choice, we say he has the "right to choose." There is no necessary connection between the ability to choose and the right to choose. Of course, some connections can be assumed for it, but it is not necessarily convincing. So what they say is this; they say man is the axis; that is, in fact, the God of existence, is man and cannot exist without the power of choice and without will; that is, without exercising will - which is the other meaning of freedom - it is impossible to assume that man is the master of existence. This is the foundation of the discussion of freedom. This is the basis of the humanistic thought about freedom.

In Islam, the issue is completely different. In Islam, the main basis of human freedom is monotheism. Of course, friends mentioned some other cases as well - those are correct - but the central point is monotheism. Monotheism is not just belief in God; monotheism is belief in God, and disbelief in tyranny; servitude to God, and not servitude to anything other than God; "Come to a word that is equitable between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and do not associate anything with Him." (6) It does not say "do not associate anything with anyone" - of course, there is a place where it has "anyone," but here it is more general - it says: "and do not associate anything with Him"; that is, if you follow baseless customs, this is contrary to monotheism; if you follow humans, it is the same; if you follow social systems, it is the same - where it does not lead to divine will - all of these are polytheism against God, and monotheism is to turn away from this polytheism. "So whoever disbelieves in tyranny and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest handhold." (7) Disbelief in tyranny exists, and then there is belief in God. Well, this means the same freedom. That is, you are free from all constraints, except servitude to God.

Years ago, in Tehran's Friday prayers, I spoke for ten to fifteen sessions about this very discussion of freedom; there I referred to a point and said that we in Islam consider ourselves servants of God; but some religions consider people and themselves to be children of God. I said this is a formality; they are children of God and slaves of thousands of humans, slaves of thousands of things and persons! Islam does not say this; it says be the child of whoever you want; you just must be a servant of God, you must not be a servant of anything other than God. The main Islamic teachings regarding freedom are focused on this point.

This famous hadith, which has been narrated from Amir al-Mu'minin, and apparently also from Imam Sajjad, I have in mind that it has also been narrated from Imam Hadi (peace be upon him), says: "Is there not a free man who would throw this lowly thing - the lowly thing, the mucus of a lowly animal - in front of its people?" - this is freedom - is there not a free man who would throw this lowly thing in front of its people, and not pursue it himself? Then it says: "So your souls have no price except paradise, so do not sell them for anything else." (8) This means that they wanted to pay a price for that lowly thing; that is, they would give that lowly thing to take this soul, to take this existence, to take this identity and personality; the discussion of transaction was involved, and it forbids that transaction. If you are going to make a transaction, why do you give your soul in exchange for this lowly thing? Only give it in exchange for paradise and servitude to God. Therefore, the central point is this. Of course, there is another central point which is the same human dignity, which is shown by the same "So your souls have no price except paradise"; let us not delve into this issue now.

Another point is that in referring to Islamic resources - as some of the gentlemen pointed out, there are abundant Quranic and non-Quranic and hadith resources; which I had the opportunity and time to find some of them, which I read in Friday prayers - we should not only seek to prove that the discussion of freedom is not a gift from the West and Europe to us. Because sometimes we use this to say that why some of the Westernized individuals say that these concepts were taught to us by Europeans; no, long before these discussions arose in Europe, the great figures of Islam had said these things. Very well, this is one benefit; but it is not only this. We must refer to the resources in order to be able to derive the intellectual system related to freedom from all these resources.

Another point is that we can discuss freedom from four perspectives: one is from the perspective of rights, in the Quranic sense, not in the sense of jurisprudence and law; which I will briefly explain. One is from the perspective of rights, in the sense of jurisprudence and law; rights, property, rights in relation to property. One is from the perspective of duty. One is also from the perspective of value assessment, the value system. In my opinion, the most important is the first discussion, which we should act on freedom from the perspective of rights, in the Quranic sense. Rights in the sense of the Quran - which perhaps the term "right" has been repeated more than two hundred times in the Quran; it is a very strange thing - has a deep and broad meaning; which now what can be briefly and superficially summarized in two words, means a systematic and purposeful system. The Almighty God says in several verses of the Quran: the entire universe is created based on rights; "We did not create them except with truth," (9) "God created the heavens and the earth with truth"; (10) that is, this system of existence and the system of creation - including the natural existence of man, excluding the issue of choice and will in man - is a constructed, interconnected, and purposefully linked system. Then, the same issue is stated regarding legislation. In terms of creation, I referred to some verses. Regarding legislation, it says: "He sent down the Book with truth," (11) "We sent you with truth as a bearer of good news and a warner," (12) "Indeed, our Lord's messengers came with the truth." (13) This right is the same right; that in the realm of creation, this is in the realm of legislation. This means that the realm of legislation, by divine wisdom, is fully aligned with the realm of creation. The will of man can disrupt some aspects of it. Of course, since it is aligned with the realm of creation and the direction is the direction of truth - that is, what should be, divine wisdom has necessitated it - ultimately, that general and overall movement prevails over all these minor actions that deviate and deviate from this path; therefore, deviations may occur. This is the universe, this is legislation. Well, one of the materials of this universe is the will of man; one of the materials of this legislation is the freedom of man; thus, this is a right. Let us look at the issue of freedom from this perspective, that freedom is a right against falsehood.

One perspective is also from the legal perspective, which I mentioned gives him the ability to demand - that is, it has a characteristic that allows him to demand something - which differs from the discussion of choice in the right of choice in compulsion and choice.

One is the issue of duty, which we must look at freedom from the perspective of duty. It is not that we say very well, freedom is a good thing, but I do not want this good thing. No, it cannot be; a person must pursue freedom; both his own freedom and the freedom of others; he must not allow anyone to remain in oppression, humiliation, and condemnation. Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) said: "Do not be a servant to others when God has made you free." (14) The Quran has also stated: "What is wrong with you that you do not fight in the way of Allah and the oppressed?" (15) That is, you are obliged to secure the freedom of others, even if through fighting; these are various discussions.

The fourth point is value; which is one of the first elements in the Islamic value system; of course, the freedom that exists.

Well, let me conclude my last point that now that we want to discuss the issue of freedom and research and advance, what should our relationship be with Western opinions? This is a fundamental point. Well, the discussions that you gentlemen and ladies had all indicated that there is a deep gap between the Islamic view and the Western view; and it is indeed so, it is like that. The main source is - as we mentioned - that the criterion and standard of freedom there is humanism, while here it is divine sovereignty, servitude to God, divine monotheism; this is preserved. At one point, we look at Western opinions, we see that these opinions have not produced good outcomes; the reality is this. Now, all these prominent and great thinkers - Kant and others - have spoken about freedom and made statements; where is it now? Where in the Western world, in terms of action, do their behaviors align with what they have said and what they wanted? The limitations they have observed and considered do not exist. If we assume that what we see today in the reality of the West is exactly the operational translation of their thoughts, then they have also had a very bad situation; because today the situation of the West regarding freedom is very regrettable and bad; that is, it is in no way defensible.

In the West today, economic freedom is in the same way that you gentlemen pointed out. In the economic sphere: the appropriation of economic positions by a few individuals. If someone can, through cleverness or deception or any other means, reach the club of economic elites, everything belongs to him. Of course, in America, they do not look at the history of aristocracy; unlike Europe and European traditions, where they used to pay some attention to these issues; more in the past, less now. In America, there are no such aristocratic and familial backgrounds. There, anyone - even a porter, a laborer - can take advantage of an opportunity and elevate himself to that high point of capitalism, and he is among those capitalists and enjoys privileges, and the privileges belong to them. In the charter that the Americans created, one of the great and pioneering founders of today's America - which is from about two hundred years ago, and I do not remember which one it is; almost a little before the Great French Revolution, when events occurred in America and the American government was formed - says that the administration of the country of America should be in the hands of those who hold the wealth of the country. This is a general principle, and they have no qualms about it. The wealth of the country is in the hands of this group, and they must govern the country; this is exactly the opposite of what our dear brother wants to create with cooperatives, where everyone has the right to manage, even if they have one share. Well, this is their economic freedom.

In the political sphere, you also see this game of dual-party conflicts that monopolize the political scene, and certainly those who are affiliated with these parties have ranks and measures that are very, very less than one percent and so on. These parties do not have a true and real extension in the heart of society; in fact, they are clubs for gathering a group. Those who come to vote are either deceived by slogans or are influenced by the media dominance that is extremely rich and advanced in the West; especially in America, where the distance between them and us is from the distance of the earth to the sky in terms of their ability to advertise and transform realities - showing black as white, showing white as black - they are extremely advanced and efficient in these areas. Through these means, they pull people in.

In the field of moral issues, there is also this homosexuality that our dear sister mentioned; the same corruptions that exist. Of course, some restrictions still remain. One can guess that these restrictions will soon be removed; that is, marriage with relatives, incest; logically, there should be no prohibition for these; that is, there is no logical basis for these. If we assume that the criterion for homosexuality and cohabitation without marriage is human desire, well, one person also desires to commit such abominations with his own relatives; why should there be any prohibition? That is, logically, there is no basis. Generally, these restrictions will be removed, and these restrictions will also be taken away from them.

Therefore, the realities of Western society are very bad, bitter, ugly, and sometimes repulsive; there is neither justice nor anything; there is discrimination, there is oppression; in terms of global issues, there is warmongering. In order for arms manufacturing factories to make money, they instigate wars between two nations, so that the factory does not go bankrupt! They scare the Persian Gulf countries from Iran, from the Islamic Republic, so that they can sell them Phantoms, sell them Mirages! These actions are constantly being carried out.

With noble concepts - concepts like human rights, concepts like democracy - selective approaches are taken; very bad and unethical approaches are taken towards these concepts. Therefore, the current realities of life in the West, the same West whose philosophers have spoken so much about freedom, is truly a bad situation.

When one looks at these theories, then reject those theories; this is one way of looking at it. I believe that this view should not be absolute. Yes, these realities to a large extent indicate that those thinkers who distanced themselves from God and found themselves independent of divine guidance and relied solely on themselves, have gone astray; they have misled themselves, and their people as well; they have made themselves hellish, and their people hellish too; there is no doubt about this. However, I think that our reference to the opinions of Western thinkers, with the clash of opinions they have, with the precedence in this field of thought and systematization and arranging topics together, will be beneficial for our thinkers, with one condition; and that condition is the avoidance of imitation; because imitation is against freedom; imitation should not take place; but the way they work can help you.

We had other points written here, but the hour has become very late; especially for myself, who usually at this hour we do not intend to be awake, and I am not awake at this hour. The presence of esteemed gentlemen and dear sisters and friends gives such vitality to a person that sleep is driven away from a person. It was said: "You reach your friend when you become sleepless and hungry." "Sleep" has currently become such that it has been delayed, but "food" is in the service of the gentlemen, God willing!

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.