Statements of His Excellency at the Graduation Ceremony of a Group of Students from Tarbiat Modares University

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

For me, today is a very sweet day. Of course, I have come to this university many times during my presidency; however, this session has a particular significance for me that makes it very memorable and sweet in my mind and taste. About two or three months ago, when I was informed that you would have such a session, I believe the esteemed president of the university expected me to send a message, or for friends to come and meet with me. From that time, I decided to attend this session and witness the product of several years of this university.

This university was founded with many hopes. Of course, all universities in the country have a great right over the revolution, the system, and the advancement of science and culture in the country; but this university was established by the revolution, with the aim of being able to provide scientific forces and professors for universities across the country, nurtured by the revolution. Perhaps today, when, thanks be to God, there are many faithful and revolutionary graduates in the universities of the country, this statement may not hold much meaning for some; but in the early years of the 1980s, this statement had great significance. At that time, when some professors preferred not to come to universities and not to cooperate with the revolution, some went abroad, and some were complained about by students who repeatedly came to us and said that they did not see any compassion from them - of course, some were sincerely and devotedly serving the universities - the development of the universities in the country needed a fundamental thought. That fundamental thought was the establishment of this university. Today, I look and see that several thousand graduates of this university - both women and men - are present, thanks be to God. This is very sweet for us and a memorable and lasting experience.

Dear brothers and sisters! I would like to convey just one sentence in this regard, and that is that today, the enlightened university generation has a special responsibility. Today, your country, your revolution, and your proud Islamic system are going through a period where all those who have thoughts and ideas must strive and cooperate to enrich this system and the thoughts and hands that run it. We have gone through difficult periods; the war period, the period after the war, which also had many problems and difficulties.

Today is the time when we must use the tools of knowledge and understanding and scientific effort to compensate for the imposed backwardness of the long period of tyranny in this country, a period that did not allow talents to flourish; it did not allow the true and original identity of this nation to show itself; as a result of the entry of industrial goods - which was the result of the advancement of Western science and industry - they made everything dependent on the West; they imported intellectual and cultural goods into this country and the first thing they did was to make the educated class of this country lose faith in its own existence; in its own culture, in its own customs and traditions, in its own knowledge, in the brilliant and flourishing talents that existed in the Iranian generation. This disbelief, over many years, had its effect. From the day this thought - the thought of humiliating Iranians - entered this country and caused this feeling of inferiority to penetrate deeply into the souls of the chosen classes of this country, until the West reaped the fruits of this state, of course, it took years; but eventually, they succeeded, and the result is the very backwardness that you observe in our country. With all these human resources, with all these material resources, with this outstanding geographical position that we have, with that brilliant scientific and cultural history and the immense treasure of scientific heritage that we possess, our situation today is far behind what it should be in the field of science, industry, and various scientific advancements.

Regarding our historical, geographical, and literary issues, others have researched and worked more than our own forces, and the brilliant talent that exists in Iranians has not yet been able to compensate for these backwardnesses. Of course, since the time of the revolution, a miracle has occurred, and that is "self-belief." That feeling of inferiority is no longer present today; however, we must work.

In the early years of the revolution, especially during the eight years of imposed war, there were many hardships. Today, it is your duty to strive, and the goal of this effort is to bring dignity to Islam and independence to Islamic Iran. Make your country independent in every way. Of course, being independent does not mean closing the door to using resources from outside the borders. That is not reasonable; no one invites to do this. Throughout history, human beings have utilized everything; however, there is a difference between the exchange of thoughts and ideas and assets among two equal and equivalent beings, and the begging of one being from another through pleading and giving along with humiliation. This is what has been somewhat the case until before the revolution.

You must bring the country to the level it needs to be. This is the great responsibility of the young, enlightened, educated generation of this country, and you brothers and sisters who have studied at this university, my impression is that you bear a heavier burden in this regard, and God willing, you will also have greater successes.

Of course, my goal today was more to be among you; I did not intend to necessarily present a topic here and discuss it. I thought it would be possible to spend an hour among you by listening to your questions and responding to them. For me, this is very sweet and enjoyable; however, it seemed to me that discussing a topic that is beneficial in the current situation of the country should be raised here. I have made some notes that I will briefly present to you.

Two points regarding the issue of "freedom" are raised. Today, the discussion of "freedom" in the country's press and among intellectuals is a common discussion. This is a blessed phenomenon. The fact that fundamental and essential issues of the revolution are exchanged and that people are compelled to think and speak about them is something we have always awaited, and it has been somewhat the case regarding various topics. Today, this issue is also raised; I also look at and study what is written and said, and sometimes I benefit from what they write and say. The opinions are also conflicting; that is, not everyone writes in one direction. There are opposing views; in both sides of the opposition, correct and rightful statements can be observed. Continuing these discussions is also good. I wish our intellectuals would be motivated to raise fundamental discussions in the press; to take the press out of a state of being low-content and bring it to discussions that provoke thought and guide the people. We always recommend deepening the culture of the revolution. Deepening requires these discussions.

One of the two points I want to mention is that regarding the concept of freedom, we must apply independence - which is another of our slogans - meaning we must think independently; we should not think imitatingly and dependently. If in this matter, which is the foundation of many of our issues and advancements, we decide to imitate others and only open our eyes to the window that gives us Western thoughts, we will have committed a great error and will have a bitter result.

Let me initially state that the issue of "freedom" is one of the topics that has been emphatically and repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Quran and in the words of the Imams (peace be upon them). Of course, the expression we use here regarding freedom does not mean absolute freedom, which has no supporters in the world. I do not think there is anyone in the world who calls for absolute freedom. Our intention is not even the spiritual freedom that exists in Islam and especially in the higher levels of Islamic knowledge; that is not our discussion. The freedom we are discussing here is "social freedom"; freedom as a human right for thinking, speaking, choosing, and similar matters. This concept has been praised in the book and tradition. The noble verse 157 of Surah Al-A'raf states: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find written in their scriptures, 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 bad things, and relieves them of their burdens and the shackles that were upon them." God describes one of the characteristics of the Prophet as removing the chains and shackles from the necks of people and "removing the burdens" - that is, the imposed commitments on people. This is a very strange and vast concept. If you consider the state of religious and non-religious societies at that time, you know that this "burden" - these imposed commitments and covenants on people - included many false beliefs and superstitions and many wrong social constraints that the hands of tyranny or distortion or ignorance had imposed on the people. "Shackles" are, of course, chains and shackles.

Mr. "George Jerdak," the author of the famous book "The Voice of Justice" - which is about Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) - makes a comparison between two sentences, one issued by Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) and one by Omar - the second caliph. Once, several of the governors or officials of Omar's time came to him, and since a report against them had come, it had angered the caliph. The caliph said a memorable sentence to them: "Have you enslaved the people while God has created them free?"; you have taken people into slavery while God has created people free? Another sentence that Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) said, which is found in Nahj al-Balagha, is: "Do not be a servant to others while God has created you free"; do not be a servant to others; God has created you free. "George Jerdak" compares these two sentences and says that Amir al-Mu'minin's sentence is far superior to Omar's sentence; because Omar addressed those who had no guarantee of freedom and liberty; because they themselves were the ones whom Omar said: "Have you enslaved the people?"; you have taken people into slavery; now give them freedom. This is one way of speaking; another way is that Amir al-Mu'minin addresses those very people and, in fact, brings the guarantee of execution into the very speech: "Do not be a servant to others while God has created you free"; do not be a servant to others; God has created you free.

In both of these statements, there are two characteristics for "freedom"; of course, Amir al-Mu'minin's statement has this prominence and distinction that it also has an executive guarantee. One of those two characteristics is that liberty is part of human nature - "And God has created you free" - which I will now refer to in comparing Islamic thought and Western thought.

Of course, I do not want to elaborate on this discussion today. If God grants success, I will have much to say about the discussion of freedom and the concept of freedom. Today, I want to mention just these two points, one of which is this independent thinking about freedom.

So see; "social freedom" in the sense that is translated today in the political culture of the world has such a Quranic root. There is no need for us to refer to the liberalism of 18th century Europe and seek what Kant and John Stuart Mill and others have said! We have our own words and logic. I will say that those words cannot be a guide for us for various reasons. Consider the concept of "freedom" as Islamic. Of course, in my opinion, there are two groups that collaborate against the Islamic, indigenous, and self-oriented understanding of the concept of "freedom":

One group consists of those who repeatedly cite the words of philosophers from the last two or three centuries of the West for the issue of "freedom": so-and-so has said this, so-and-so has said that. Of course, these are the noble ones who mention the names of these philosophers; but there are also some pseudo-philosophers in the press who bring up the words of "John Stuart Mill" and the words of some French, German, or American philosopher, but do not mention their names; they say it in their own name! These also deceive, but they still help create the idea that the thought of freedom and the concept of social freedom is a Western thought and a gift from the West to us!

Another group that unknowingly helps them are those who, as soon as the concept of freedom is raised, immediately become intimidated, feel fear, and shout that religion is lost! No; religion is the greatest messenger of freedom. Why should religion be lost?! True freedom and reasonable freedom are the most important gifts of religion to a nation and to a society. It is thanks to freedom that thoughts grow and talents flourish. Tyranny is against talent. Wherever there is tyranny, there is no flourishing of talent. Islam wants the flourishing of human beings. Great human resources must be extracted like natural resources so that they can build the world. Is it possible without freedom? Is it possible with orders and prohibitions? Therefore, it is also wrong to think that those who think this way. These two groups of Westernizers and the cautious - let us name them this way - actually collaborate without realizing it to completely remove the concept of "freedom" from the Islamic domain; while this is not the case, and the concept of "freedom" is an Islamic concept.

Let me mention a point here: in Islam, for the very freedom that has been mentioned - social freedom - more privilege has been given than in Western schools. Of course, the interpretations of liberalism are very numerous. That is, since after the Renaissance, the thought of liberalism grew in France and Europe and then culminated in the French Revolution and then was used in a distorted form in the American independence wars and the American charter was created - all these discussions require more opportunities to be discussed - dozens of interpretations of liberalism have been presented; especially in recent times. Recently, theorists and so-called ideologues of America or American progressives regularly write in this area.

Let me also tell you that many of these thinkers who are not even American write at the behest of American institutions, especially in this area of "liberalism"! Their books may have been written in Austria or Germany or France; but they are published in New York! The order is American; the origin is American goals, which is a long story. However, overall, despite all these various interpretations, the Islamic viewpoint is a lofty viewpoint.

In order to provide a philosophy for "freedom," they face problems. What is the philosophy of freedom? Why should humanity be free? It needs to have reasoning and philosophical roots. Various statements have been made: utility, collective good, individual pleasure, and maximum rights of civil rights. All of these are subject to challenge; they themselves have challenged them.

If you look at the writings that have been published in recent years regarding the concept of liberalism, you will see how many time-consuming, fruitless, and useless discussions similar to the debates of the Middle Ages have been made regarding freedom. One has made a statement, another has responded; again, one has responded to the response! It is really not a bad entertainment for the intellectuals of the third world! One becomes a supporter of this theory, another becomes a supporter of that theory; one accepts this argument, another adds a footnote to that argument; one gives the theory in his name to another.

At most, the origin and philosophy of freedom is a human right. Islam has said something higher than this. Islam - as you observed in that hadith - considers freedom to be an innate matter of humanity. Yes; it is a right, but a right superior to other rights; like the right to life, the right to live. Just as the right to live cannot be placed alongside the right to housing and the right to choose, etc. - it is superior to these matters - freedom is the same. This is the view of Islam.

Of course, there are exceptions. This right can be revoked in certain cases; like the right to life. If someone kills someone, they are punished. If someone commits corruption, they are punished. In the matter of the right to freedom, it is the same; however, these are exceptions. This is the view of Islam. Therefore, it is a wrong idea to think that the thought of social freedom is a thought that the West has gifted to us; whenever we want to say something sweet and interesting in this area, we must certainly reference the book of so-and-so; mention the name of so-and-so who is sitting in the West and has thought and written, no. We must think independently; we must refer to our own resources and Islamic resources. A person uses the thoughts of others to clarify their mind and find bright points; not for imitation. If imitation comes into play, it will be a great loss.

What I observe today in this intellectual and press struggle - which I mentioned is a blessed phenomenon - is that many do not pay attention to this principle. Here, I will mention two or three major differences between "freedom" in the logic of Islam and freedom in the logic of the West. Of course, I mentioned that liberalism encompasses all theories and various tendencies that exist in this school, and some of these theories and tendencies may have some differences in some areas; however, the sum of them is these.

In the Western liberal school, human freedom is minus a reality called religion and God. Therefore, they never consider the root of freedom to be God-given. None of them say that God has given freedom to humanity; they seek a philosophical origin and root for it, which I mentioned. They have also mentioned roots and have various interpretations in this area. In Islam, "freedom" has a divine root. This alone is a fundamental difference and leads to many other differences. According to the logic of Islam, movement against freedom is a movement against a divine phenomenon; that is, it creates a religious obligation on the opposite side. But in the West, there is nothing like this; that is, the social struggles that take place in the world for freedom, according to Western liberal thought, have no logic. For example, one of the statements made is "the common good" or "the good of the majority." This is the root of "social freedom." Why should I go and be killed for the good of the majority and perish? This is illogical. Of course, seasonal and momentary excitements lead many to the battlefields; but whenever any of those fighters who have fought under the banner of such thoughts - if a struggle has indeed taken place under the banner of such thoughts - come out of the excitement of the battlefield, they will doubt: why should I go and be killed?

In Islamic thought, it is not like this. The struggle for freedom is an obligation; because the struggle is for a divine matter. Just as if you see that someone wants to take a life, you are obliged to help them. It is a religious duty that if you do not do it, you have sinned. The same applies to freedom; you must go; it is an obligation.

In addition to this fundamental difference, other differences arise. One is that in Western liberalism, since truth and moral values are relative, therefore, "freedom" is unlimited. Why? Because you, who believe in a series of moral values, have no right to blame someone who violates these values; because they may not believe in these values. Therefore, there is no limit to freedom; that is, from a spiritual and moral perspective, there is no limit. Logically, "freedom" is unlimited. Why? Because there is no stable truth; because, according to them, truth and moral values are relative.

"Freedom" in Islam is not like this. In Islam, there are certain and stable values; there is a truth. Movement towards that truth is what is valuable and value-creating and perfect. Therefore, "freedom" is limited by these values. How these values should be understood and obtained is another matter. Some may go down wrong paths in understanding these values; some may go down correct paths. That is outside this discussion. In any case, "freedom" is limited by truth and limited by values.

This very "social freedom" that has so much value in Islam, if it is used to undermine the valuable spiritual or material products of a nation, it is harmful; just like the life of a human being. "Whoever kills a soul without (it being) for a soul or corruption in the earth, it is as if he has killed all of humanity." In the logic of the Quran, killing one person is like killing all of humanity. This is a very strange concept. Whoever extends their hand to kill one person is like they have killed all of humanity; because it is an assault on the sanctity of humanity. However, the exception to this is: "without (it being) for a soul or corruption in the earth"; unless the one who is subjected to this assault has themselves assaulted someone or created corruption. See; values and established truths limit this freedom; just as the right to life limits it.

Another difference is that in the West, the limit of freedom is formed by material interests. Initially, they set limitations for social and individual freedoms; this is one of them. When material interests are at stake, they limit freedom. Material interests, like the greatness of these countries and the scientific dominance of these countries. Education and training is one of the issues where freedom is among the most established rights of human beings. Humans have the right to learn; however, this "freedom" is limited in the great universities of the Western world! High technology - as they call it - cannot be transferred! The transfer of technology to certain countries is prohibited! Why? Because if this knowledge and this science were transferred, it would be out of the monopoly of this power, and this material power and this dominance would not remain as it is. Freedom is limited; that is, a professor does not have the right to teach a student from a third-world country - an Iranian student or a Chinese researcher - a certain scientific secret!

The freedom of information and news transfer is also like this. Today, all the uproar in the world is for the freedom of information and news; let people be informed; let people know. Promoting freedom in the West is one of its prominent examples; however, during the American attack on Iraq - during President Bush's presidency - for a week or more, all information was officially censored. They even boasted and said that no journalist had the right to transfer and publish a photo or news of the American attack on Iraq! Everyone knew that an attack had taken place; even the Americans reported it; but no one was aware of the details; because they claimed that this would endanger military security! Thus, military security limited the right to freedom; that is, a material boundary and a material wall.

The stability of the foundations of this government is also another boundary. A few years ago - about four or five years ago - in America, a group emerged, and all those who are in the know have read about it. Of course, I found out more details at that time; however, it was all written in our newspapers as well. A group emerged that, with a specific religious inclination, acted against the current government of America - during the time of Mr. Clinton. Some security and police actions were taken against them, but they were of no use. They surrounded the house where they had gathered and set it on fire, resulting in about eighty people burning to death! They also published the photos, and the whole world saw it. Among these eighty people, there were women, children, and perhaps one of them was not a military person. See; the freedom to live, the freedom of belief, the freedom of political struggle is limited to this extent. Therefore, the freedom in the materialistic Western world also has limits and boundaries; however, these boundaries are material boundaries.

Moral values there do not impose any barriers to freedom. For example, the homosexual movement in America is one of the prevalent movements! They take pride in it; they hold demonstrations in the streets; they print their photos in magazines; they proudly mention that a certain businessman and a certain political figure are part of this group; no one feels ashamed and denies it! Furthermore, some individuals who oppose this movement are severely attacked by some of the press and newspapers for opposing the homosexual movement! This means that moral values do not set any limits for freedom.

Another example is in European countries. For instance, freedom of expression is limited by propaganda in favor of fascism, which is a material and governmental matter; however, naked propaganda - which is also a movement - is not limited! This means that the boundaries of freedom in Western liberalism, with that philosophy and with that philosophical root and with that perspective, are material boundaries; there are no moral boundaries. But in Islam, there are moral boundaries. In Islam, freedom, in addition to those material limits, also has spiritual boundaries. Of course, when someone acts against the interests of the country and against the benefit of the country, their freedom is limited - this is logical - but there are also moral boundaries. If someone has a misguided belief, it does not matter. When we say it does not matter, it means it is a fault before God and before believing humans; however, the government has no duty towards them. In a Muslim society, there are Jews and Christians and various other religions; they exist in our country now; they existed during the early days of Islam; and there is no barrier. However, if it is to be the case that the one who has a corrupt belief attacks the minds and hearts of individuals who have no power to defend themselves and wants to mislead them as well, this is a boundary for a person. Here, freedom is limited. From the perspective of Islam, it is like this. Or, for example, if they want to promote corruption, whether political, sexual, or intellectual corruption; or these pseudo-philosophers who are scattered here and there want to write articles about how higher education is not good for the youth; they begin to mention its flaws; of course, most likely, ninety percent will have no effect; but it may affect ten percent of lazy youth. It cannot be allowed for people to sit and, with temptation and lies, prevent people from acquiring knowledge.

Freedom is not lying. Freedom is not spreading rumors. Freedom is not nonsense. My complaint is that why, regarding the issues of freedom, there is no reference to Islamic discussions and Islamic foundations? In the Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab, verse 60 states: "If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and the rumor-mongers in the city do not cease, we will surely incite you against them." The rumor-mongers are placed alongside the hypocrites and the sick-hearted - who are two groups - the hypocrites are one group, the sick-hearted - those in whose hearts is disease - are another group; these "rumor-mongers" are placed alongside them. Rumor-mongers are those who constantly scare people. A newly established Islamic society, with all its enemies, all its Quranic mobilization, all its prophetic mobilization, must be spiritually prepared to defend the country and this great human and popular system; but a group like a worm attacks the people and weakens their spirits; these are the rumor-mongers. The Quran says: if the "rumor-mongers" - that is, those who constantly scare people, make them hopeless, and prevent them from acting - do not cease, "we will incite you against them"; we will set you upon them. This is the boundary of freedom. Thus, freedom in Islamic logic has another difference in that it has a boundary of moral values.

Another difference is that freedom in Western liberal thought is at odds with "duty." Freedom means freedom from duty as well. In Islam, freedom is the other side of the coin of "duty." In fact, humans are free because they are obligated. If they were not obligated, there would be no need for freedom; they would be like angels. As the poet Molavi says: In the narration, it has come that the Glorious Creator created the world in three kinds One group is all intellect, knowledge, and generosity; that is the angel who knows nothing but prostration

The characteristic of humans is that they have a collection of conflicting motivations and instincts, and they are obligated to traverse the path of perfection among these various motivations. They have been given freedom to traverse the path of perfection. This freedom, with this value, is for development; just as human life itself is for development: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me." God created the jinn and mankind to reach the level of servitude to Him, which is a very high level. Freedom is like the right to life; it is a prerequisite for servitude.

In the West, they have gone so far in denying "duty" that not only do they deny religious thoughts, but even non-religious thoughts and all ideologies that have duties, obligations, and musts and must-nots! Now, in the recent works of these liberal writers, American and pseudo-American, and those who are their prophets - their nations in other countries, including unfortunately some in our own country are following this - it is seen that they say that Western free thought is opposed to the principle of "must and must not" and with the principle of ideology! Islam is completely the opposite. Islam considers "freedom" to be accompanied by "duty" for humanity so that humanity can correctly fulfill its duties, accomplish great tasks, make great choices, and be able to reach perfection.

Therefore, my first recommendation to those who write and discuss is to be independent in understanding the concept of freedom, to think independently, and not to be dependent. My second recommendation is that freedom should not be misused. Some repeatedly emphasize: "the newly acquired press freedoms!" In my opinion, this is an unrealistic statement; it is a statement whose origin is also foreign radios. Of course, now in newspapers and magazines, they write articles and make attacks. Some of these individuals did not do these things in the past; others did. In the past years, we have frequently witnessed that in the press, statements were made against the then President, against various officials, and even against some of the original discussions of the revolution; no one would confront them. I have examples in my mind that if the session had not been prolonged, I would have mentioned.

Once, six or seven years ago, I raised the discussion of "cultural invasion" which became controversial, and some spoke about it; perhaps some of you remember. At that time, the Islamic Republic held a roundtable discussion on this topic where three or four people were present. One person agreed with the view I had expressed and supported it; several others completely rejected it, saying, "No, sir! These are fantasies; these are false!" Therefore, you see that no one confronts anyone.

Yes; there were some who had tainted records, their hands were dirty, and they were afraid to enter the field and say anything. If they said anything, no one would care about them. The same statements they make today, if they had said them back then, no one would have cared; but they themselves were afraid because their records were bad. Their animosity towards the revolution, towards Imam, and towards the Islamic thought of Imam has been known for a long time. They themselves did not dare to enter the field. After the recent presidential election, based on a wrong analysis they made of the election, they gained courage! Their wrong analysis was that they thought the people cast thirty million votes against the system! They were happy; while the people cast thirty million votes to stabilize the system. One of the honors of the Islamic system is that after eighteen years of the revolution, in one election, thirty million of the thirty-two million eligible voters - about ninety percent - entered the election arena. They considered the strength of the system to be a weakness! Of course, initially, foreign radios were shouting on the first days of the election, constantly giving lines and directions to those who were ready and susceptible to this deviation and mistake, saying that yes; thirty million people expressed dissatisfaction with the system! They wanted to portray and depict the strength of the system as a weakness. These poor people either believed it or deceived themselves; they thought that now in a country where the system has thirty million opponents, we should also come and speak! Now they have gained courage; they speak; while nothing has changed; even then, if they committed an offense, they would have crossed logical boundaries and would have been prosecuted legally; today, it is the same; there is no difference. Today, if anyone misleads, corrupts, or spreads rumors, it is still the same; there is no difference. Therefore, this statement should not be repeatedly made that "newly acquired freedom!" I see that some officials repeatedly tell the press not to use freedoms too much, lest the essence of freedom be endangered! What kind of statement is this?! The more they use the right given by God, the better; but it should not be outside the boundaries. The more individuals use their God-given rights, the more the Islamic system achieves its goals. We have always complained to writers about why they do not write, why they do not research, why they do not analyze.

The correct boundaries must be observed. Of course, these boundaries are not boundaries that a government or a system wants to set for its own interests. Now, even if there are governments in the world - which there must be - that set boundaries, the Islamic Republic is not like that; the Islamic Republic is based on justice. That is, if the leadership falls from justice, automatically and without any other factor being necessary, they fall from leadership. In such a system, it does not make sense to want to set boundaries for the sake of specific group or factional interests or specific governmental viewpoints; no. The boundary is the same Islamic boundaries; the same things that are recognized in the Quran and in hadith and in the correct understanding of religion; these are valid and must be observed. If they are not observed, the officials are obliged; judicial officials, government officials, the Ministry of Culture, and others are all obliged. If they do not fulfill their duties, they have sinned and committed an offense. They are obliged to observe these boundaries. Within those boundaries - which, of course, those boundaries are exceptions - is the beautiful, shining principle of freedom that must be utilized. I do not like these irresponsible statements to be repeated and said.

What I present today as a summary is that the concept of "freedom" is an Islamic concept. Let us think about it Islamically and all believe in its results as an Islamic movement and a religious duty. Let us appreciate what exists in the social scene, thanks be to God, and make maximum use of this opportunity. Thinkers and intellectuals must strive. Of course, some discussions are raised within specialized frameworks and must be discussed in schools and universities and specific press outlets and in specific collections; some others are not, they are for everyone's use; they must be raised so that everyone can use and benefit from them.

I hope that God Almighty grants us success so that we can witness what leads to the flourishing of this system and, God willing, the greater successes of this great, good, and dear nation in our country. You dear university students, especially your youth - who the future and hopes belong to you - will have a significant role in this flourishing and success.

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