Statements in Meeting with Professors and Students of Kurdistan

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

This session, which is held in the presence of you young people, students, and intellectuals in this academic environment, is a very fruitful and hopeful session. The gathering of youth—especially when it is in the university environment, composed of students and professors—brings good tidings for the speaker, the audience, and the general atmosphere of the country. Although I am familiar with student groups and have maintained a connection with them over the years, and God willing, this connection will continue, I am well acquainted with the progressive, innovative, lively, and vibrant spirit of the students. However, witnessing this dense gathering and especially the remarks made by our dear students, youth, and professors here gives even more hope. With this spirit and enthusiasm, we are confident, and everyone should be assured that the future of the Islamic Republic system—when the country will be in the hands of you young people—will be far more advanced and better than today. Just as we have not stopped for a moment since the first day of the revolution and have progressed, I predict that in the coming years—thanks to your youthful awakening and attention to science and the ideals and sense of responsibility observed in the younger generation—this acceleration will be multiplied. I have never believed and will never believe the negative words that some, out of prejudice or negligence, utter here and there, trying to portray the younger generation as disillusioned with ideals. Our youth are moving forward, they have goals, they are hopeful, they are principled, and God willing, with their youthful energy, they will carry these heavy burdens forward.

Before I address the topic I have prepared in my mind, let us take a look at what friends have said here. Generally, pleasant remarks were made, and the solutions proposed were correct and useful, mostly concerning issues of knowledge, technology, the university environment, laboratories, improving quality, and various suggestions emphasizing and supporting knowledge-based industries, all of which we endorse. There were also new points in these statements that I hope the esteemed individuals present here—the honorable Minister of Science, the honorable Minister of Health and Medical Education, and the esteemed Scientific Vice President of the President—will pay attention to: both in terms of attracting elites and in terms of the necessary communications and other suggestions that were made. In my opinion, these were very good suggestions and all should be taken into consideration. God willing, after returning from my trip, I will ask the responsible brothers to provide me with a report on the implementation of these suggestions—as far as is reasonable and possible.

Our dear girl suggested the establishment of a "Student Parliament." It is a beautiful name; however, performative actions neither solve students' problems nor the country's issues. We must reduce superficial, surface-level, performative, and slogan-driven actions as much as we can and focus more on fundamental, essential, real, and progressive work. Now, suppose a Student Parliament is formed; consider how much time this parliament's elections will take from the students of the country! From which university, from which city, with which inclination, with which political or ideological orientation, and oppositions, etc.! Our current focus is to ignite the flame of knowledge and research in the student environment as much as possible. Furthermore, our dear girl mentioned that this Student Parliament should also have executive power. Well, if it is a parliament, why should it have executive power? It should both decide and execute! By bringing this matter into the universities, see what will happen to the universities! I am fully in favor of paying attention to students, listening to their words, nurturing them, and assisting them; however, this is not the way.

Our dear girl spoke very beautifully, passionately; even we, as older individuals, feel a sense of youth when a young person speaks with enthusiasm. Alongside this, she also said: this parliament should convey the voice to the authorities. In my opinion, better than a Student Parliament is the very assembly you have now; increase such assemblies. One of the reasons I visit universities is that in every trip, I am committed to having a student program, and I occasionally visit various universities in Tehran. This is because I want the authorities to enter the universities and speak face-to-face with students and listen. Today, the remarks you made here will be broadcasted on radio and television and reflected throughout the country; they have reached me as a responsible person, they have reached university authorities, and they will reach other officials as well; what better means is there than this? As much as you can, hold student sessions in this friendly, open manner, without any pretenses! And of course, by reducing formalities! I am not very in favor of friends coming and using exaggerated expressions about this humble person. Let us keep our communications a bit purer, more sincere, and more natural. Students should express their views, and officials should listen; sometimes officials also have something to say to students. In any case, this was a very good session. I thank each and every one who spoke.

The topic I want to discuss is one that aligns perfectly with the nature of youth and students and looks to the future. Because the future belongs to you. Whatever we say today about the future is, in fact, looking at and referring to a period of time that belongs to you; your real existence in that period is decisive and problem-solving. This topic, which looks to the future, is the slogan of the fourth decade—which has begun—namely, progress and justice. We have declared that this decade should be the decade of progress and justice. Of course, merely stating and announcing does not bring about progress or justice; however, by elucidating, reiterating, and solidifying efforts and determination, both progress and justice can be achieved. We want the issue of progress and justice to become a national discourse in the fourth decade. Everyone must want it; until we want it, planning, designing, and operations will not materialize, and we will not reach our goal; it must be elucidated. I want to speak a little about this issue of progress. The issue of justice is also a broad and lengthy topic.

First, I will outline the general shape of the discussion and will try, God willing, to be as concise and brief as possible. The general shape of today’s discussion is: we will present some characteristics of progress so that the overall framework and general view we have for progress becomes clear—this is the main part of the discussion—then we will enumerate some prerequisites or needs for progress; and if there is time, we will also refer to some obstacles that exist on this path and the harms that may affect us along the way.

In the first issue—namely, elucidating the overall view of progress—I will mention several points that together will show us this overall view.

The first point is that when we say progress, it should not evoke the concept of development in the Western sense. Today, development is a prevalent term in political, global, and international discourse. The progress we speak of may have commonalities with what is understood today as development in the world—certainly it does—but in our vocabulary, the term progress has its own specific meaning that should not be confused with development in the contemporary Western vocabulary. What we seek is not necessarily Western development—with its characteristics and indicators. The Westerners have executed a cunning propaganda tactic over many years, dividing the countries of the world into developed, developing, and underdeveloped. At first glance, one might think that developed means a country that possesses advanced technology and knowledge, while developing and underdeveloped correspondingly; whereas this is not the case. The term developed—along with the other two terms that follow it, namely developing and underdeveloped—carries a value-laden connotation. In reality, when they say developed country, they mean a Western country! With all its characteristics: its culture, its customs, its behavior, and its political orientation; this is developed. Developing means a country that is in the process of becoming Western; underdeveloped means a country that has not become Western and is not in the process of becoming Western. This is how they want to interpret it. In fact, in today’s Western culture, encouraging countries to develop means encouraging them to become Western! This must be taken into account. Yes, within the behaviors and actions and the shape and form of developed Western countries, there are positive points—which I may also point out—that if we are to learn from them, we will learn; if we are to be students, we will be students; but from our perspective, there are also many anti-values present. Therefore, we absolutely do not accept the notion of Westernization or Western development.

The second point is that progress does not have a single model for all countries and all societies of the world. Progress does not have an absolute meaning; various conditions—historical conditions, geographical conditions, geopolitical conditions, natural conditions, human conditions, and temporal and spatial conditions—affect the creation of models of progress. A model of progress may be desirable for one country; the same model may be undesirable for another country. Therefore, there is no single model for progress that we can find, pursue, and create all its components within ourselves and implement it in our country; such a thing does not exist. Progress in our country—with our historical conditions, our geographical conditions, the situation of our land, the status of our nation, our customs, our culture, and our heritage—has its own unique model; we must search for and find that model. That model will lead us to progress; other models will not serve us—neither the American model of progress, nor the European model of progress of the Western type, nor the European model of progress of the Northern type—Scandinavian countries, which are a different type—none of these can be a desirable model for the progress of our country. We must seek our own indigenous model. Our art will be to find the indigenous model of progress suitable for our conditions. I am discussing this in the university environment; this means that this research, pursuit, and inquiry must be diligently carried out by you students, you professors, and you academic individuals; and God willing, you will be able to do so.

The next point is also an important one: epistemological foundations influence the type of desirable or undesirable progress. Every society and every nation has epistemological, philosophical, and ethical foundations that determine for us what type of progress is desirable and what type is undesirable. The one who naively and foolishly shouted one day that we must become completely Westernized and Europeanized did not realize that Europe has a historical background and culture and epistemological foundations upon which its progress is based; some of those foundations may not be acceptable to us, and we may reject and deem them incorrect. We have our own epistemological and ethical foundations. Europe has a historical background of the struggles of the church against knowledge during the Middle Ages; the reactive motivations of the European scientific renaissance against that past should not be overlooked. The influence of epistemological, philosophical, and ethical foundations on the type of progress one wants to choose is extraordinarily significant. Our epistemological foundations tell us whether this progress is legitimate or illegitimate; whether it is desirable or undesirable; whether it is just or unjust.

Suppose in a society, profit-oriented thinking is prevalent; that is, all phenomena in the world are measured and evaluated by money: how much is the monetary price and material profit of everything. Today, this is the case in a large part of the world: everything is measured by money! In this society, some actions may be valued—because they lead to monetary gain—but in a society where money and profit are not the basis for judgment, the same actions may be considered anti-values. Or in a society where the principle of pleasure prevails. Why do you consider this action permissible? Why do you consider homosexuality and same-sex relations permissible? They say: it is pleasurable; a person enjoys it! This is the principle of pleasure; when the principle of pleasure dominates a society and a public mindset, certain things become permissible. However, when you are breathing in a philosophy, an ideology, and an ethical system that does not have the principle of pleasure, certain actions may also bring pleasure, but they are illegitimate, they are prohibited. Pleasure is not a justification for action; it is not a justification for decision-making; it is not a justification for legitimacy. Here, you cannot make decisions like in the society where the principle of pleasure prevails; the epistemological foundations differ.

Or in a society and in a certain ethical system, money has absolute respect; where it comes from does not matter. It may have been obtained through exploitation, it may have been obtained through colonization, it may have been obtained through plunder; it does not matter, it is money. Of course, today, if these things are stated explicitly—in those societies where they are afflicted—they may be denied; however, when you look at their history, the issue becomes clear. In America, the root of this issue of individual freedom and this liberalism that they have and continue to boast about and consider one of the American values is the preservation of personal wealth. That is, the environment in which America was created and the people who gathered there at that time needed to give absolute value to personal wealth. Of course, this has a very detailed story from a sociological perspective and with a realistic view of the American context. The day when the region of America—not the political system of America—became a place for profit-making with that highly profitable natural background, those who gathered in America were mostly adventurers who had set out from Europe, managed to cross the tumultuous Atlantic Ocean, and reached the land of America; not everyone came. The one who had a life in Europe, had work, had a family, had roots, would not come; those who came were either financially desperate, or under criminal prosecution, or adventurers. You know, the Atlantic Ocean is one of the most tumultuous seas in the world; crossing this ocean and reaching from Europe to the land of America required a certain level of adventure. A collection of these adventurers mainly—though not universally—formed the early population of America. If these people were to live together and produce wealth, personal wealth had to be given an absolute value. And it was given. In those cowboy films—though these may not be 100% reality, after all, they are films, stories; however, the signs of reality are clearly present in them—you see that for the sake of a cow stolen from a herd, a judge sits in judgment, gives a death sentence, and then hangs him! This is because personal wealth and private ownership acquire absolute value. Well, in such a society, it does not matter where this money came from.

In Western societies—almost generally—this wealth has come from colonization. The wealth that England acquired in the 18th and 19th centuries and was able to impose its politics on all of Europe and other regions through that wealth, was due to the money that the English obtained from the colonization of Eastern countries, mainly the Indian subcontinent; they plundered the Indian subcontinent and the former country of Siam and the rest of the countries in that region! Refer to history, study it; it cannot be summarized in one or two sentences what they did to India; the English squeezed the wealth of India and that region— which was a very wealthy region—like a pomegranate and all went into the treasury of the English government, and England became wealthy! It is no longer questioned where this wealth came from. This wealth is respected! Well, progress in this country takes on a certain meaning; however, in a country that considers colonization forbidden, views exploitation as a sin, prohibits plunder, and forbids encroachment on the rights of others and taking others' property, progress will have a different meaning. Therefore, epistemological foundations, ethical foundations, and principled philosophical thoughts are decisive in defining progress in a country. This is another point.

The next point is that if we enumerate the points of divergence between progress with an Islamic logic and Western development, we should not overlook the points of convergence; there are also points of convergence that exist in the development of developed Western countries. The spirit of risk-taking—which is genuinely one of the good traits of Europeans—the spirit of innovation, initiative, and discipline are very necessary things; in any society where these do not exist, progress will not be achieved. These are also necessary. If we need to learn these, we will learn them; if they exist in our own resources, we must learn and act upon them.

The next point is the issue of the suffix justice. We said progress and justice; this is very meaningful. Suppose one of the important indicators is the increase in gross national income in countries. One country has a gross national income of several trillion, while another country has one-tenth of that; thus, the first country is advanced! This logic is not correct. The increase in gross national income—meaning the overall income of a country—cannot alone be a sign of progress; we must see how this income is distributed. If the national income is very high, but in the same country, there are people who sleep on the streets at night and many of them die from the heat of forty-two degrees Celsius, this is not progress. You see in the news: in a certain well-known large Western city—say in America or elsewhere—the temperature reached forty-two degrees, and a certain number of people died! Why should they die from forty-two degrees heat? This means they have no shelter. If in a society, there are people who live without shelter or must work fourteen hours a day just to make ends meet, even if the gross national income is ten times what it is today, this is not progress. In Islamic logic, this is not progress. Therefore, the suffix justice is of utmost importance.

Of course, there are more discussions about the suffix justice. The fundamental Islamic perspective on progress is based on this view of humanity: Islam considers humans as dual-natured beings; possessing both this world and the hereafter; this is the foundation of all the discussions that must be considered regarding progress; this is the main indicator; this is the major distinction. If a civilization, a culture, and a creed consider humans as one-dimensional and account for human happiness only in worldly material life, then progress in their logic will be entirely different from progress in the logic of Islam—which considers humans as dual-natured. Our country and Islamic society will be advanced when it not only develops the worldly lives of people but also develops their hereafter. This is what the prophets seek: both this world and the hereafter. Neither should the worldly life of humans be neglected under the pretext of pursuing the hereafter, nor should the hereafter be neglected for the sake of pursuing this world. This is a very important point. The foundation is this. The progress that is envisioned in Islamic society is such progress.

Several types of deviation may occur here:

One is that some consider the world as the essence and forget the hereafter; that is, all the efforts of society, planners, policymakers, and the government are aimed at improving the worldly lives of people: people should have money, wealth, comfort, not have housing problems, not have marriage problems, not have unemployment problems; just this! But what about their spiritual condition? This is completely ignored. This is one deviation.

Another deviation is to neglect the world; neglecting the world means ignoring the blessings of life and the gifts of existence and being indifferent to them; this is another deviation. Like many of the troubles that have occurred in the community of believers in the past: a focus on the hereafter and religious matters, and neglecting the blessings of worldly life and the talents that God has placed in this world; this is also one of the deviations. "He is the one who created you from the earth and settled you in it"; God has commanded you to cultivate the earth. What does cultivation mean? It means discovering the endless potentials that exist in the material world, putting them at the disposal of humanity, and advancing humanity through this means. This issue of knowledge and the production of knowledge and the matters we discuss are related to this.

Another deviation is that a person undervalues the blessings of life and material needs in their personal life and disregards them; this is not what Islam has stated or desired; rather, the opposite has been desired: "He is not one of us who abandons his hereafter for his world, nor is he one of us who abandons his world for his hereafter." If you abandon the hereafter for the sake of the world, you are disqualified in this test; if you also abandon the world for the sake of the hereafter, you are disqualified in this test. This is very important. Amir al-Mu'minin encountered someone who had set aside wife, life, and everything for worship; he said: "O enemy of yourself! You are waging war against yourself; God has not asked this of you." "Say, who has forbidden the adornment of God which He has brought forth for His servants and the good things of sustenance?" (7:32) This is also this matter. Therefore, the balance between this world and the hereafter and the view of both the world and the hereafter—in planning, in personal action, and in governing the country—is necessary. This is also a major indicator of progress.

These are some characteristics of the progress we envision that I have presented. As I said, this does not end with these words: we must pay attention, we must pursue, we must investigate. Thinkers in universities should sit down and study these issues; scientific elucidation should occur; scientific modeling should take place so that we can convert this into a program and put it into the field of execution so that in ten years, the nation feels that it has achieved real progress.

One of our requirements is this: every model of progress must guarantee the independence of the country; this must be considered as a criterion. Any model of the designed models for progress that subjugates the country, humiliates it, and makes it a follower of powerful countries with political, military, and economic power is rejected. That is, independence is one of the essential requirements of the model of progress in the decade of progress and development. Apparent progress—while being dependent in politics, economics, etc.—is not considered progress. Today, there are countries—especially in Asia—that have apparent advancements in technology, knowledge, and products; they have taken over many parts of the world; however, they are dependent, they are dependent. The nation and consequently the government have no role of their own: neither in global policies, nor in the economic policies of the world, nor in the important designs that are of international concern. They are followers; often they are followers of America. This is not progress and has no value.

I want to mention one point here, and that is the issue of globalization. Globalization is a very beautiful term, and every country thinks that global markets will open to it. However, globalization, meaning becoming a cog in the machinery of Western capitalism, should not be accepted by any independent nation. If globalization is to be realized in the true sense of the word, countries must preserve their independence—both economic independence and political independence—and their decision-making power; otherwise, globalization that was created decades ago through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and similar entities—which are all American and arrogant tools—has no value. Therefore, an important principle is the issue of independence; if this is not present, there is no progress, it is an illusion of progress.

Another issue that is closely related to you is the issue of the production of knowledge. Fortunately, I see that in universities, the production of knowledge and the necessity of transcending the boundaries of knowledge has become a public discourse. This is very encouraging and promising for me. You must implement it. The suggestions that my dear ones made regarding knowledge, research, and the establishment of centers and nurturing elites and communications, etc., are all in line with this issue of the production of knowledge. This is very valuable. This path must be followed. We are behind. Today, our speed of progress is good; however, considering the past backwardness of our country, no matter how fast we go, it is still not enough. We must advance significantly; we must use shortcuts; we must take advantage of rapid acceleration; we must produce in all sciences.

The relationship between countries in the field of science should be one of exports and imports; that is, there should be balance and equilibrium. Just as in economic and commercial matters, if a country's imports exceed its exports, its balance becomes negative, and it feels cheated, in the field of science, it should be the same. Importing knowledge is not a problem; however, at least to the same extent that you import—if not more—you should export. There must be a two-way flow. Otherwise, if you are constantly dependent on the knowledge of others, this is not progress. You should acquire knowledge, seek it, learn from others; however, you must also produce and give to others. Be careful that your trade balance here is not negative either. Unfortunately, in the last one or two centuries of scientific flourishing in the world, our balance has been negative. Since the revolution, good work has been done; however, this work must continue with greater speed and intensity.

Of course, I do not only mean natural sciences; the importance of human sciences is no less: sociology, psychology, philosophy. The sociological theories of the West are considered by some to be as authoritative as the Quran; even more authoritative than the Quran! A certain sociologist said this way; this has no room for debate! Why?! Sit down and think; theorize; use the existing knowledge in the world; add something to it and expose its flaws. This is one of the essential requirements of progress.

I want to conclude my discussion. One of the other requirements is the issue of struggle; struggle. If you want to progress, you must struggle. Seeking comfort, sitting in a corner, rubbing your hands together, and watching the events of the world without entering the great arenas of the world will not bring progress to any country or nation. You must enter the arena. This arena is not necessarily a military battlefield. Today, more important than military warfare are political and moral battles. Today, many of the countries, governments, and societies that are considered advanced in the world, if a moral and political accounting is done, they will be humbled and downcast.

Look today; suppose in Gaza; a population surrounded in a limited area—where no means of life are allowed to enter or exit—are bombed by airplanes, bombed by missiles, bombed by artillery, their armored forces are brought in, and within twenty-two days, more than five thousand people are killed, while the world sits and watches; midway through, a weak and ineffective protest arises from this corner and that corner of the world; in the end, the United Nations announces—that the Secretary-General just announced a few days ago—that the case of Gaza is closed! Amazing!

Today, there is oppression in the world, there is discrimination, there is double standards. One of the manifestations of this is the issue of our nuclear program. One of the manifestations of this is the military aggressions against our neighboring Muslim countries. Killing civilians and bombing civilians has become a normal occurrence. Just last week, it was announced that one hundred and fifty people were killed in Afghanistan by American airstrikes; not a ripple of water is disturbed! Then they say: yes, we are sorry, it was a mistake! This is the statement!

If at the time when Saddam Hussein bombed Halabja with chemical weapons, he had been held accountable and brought to trial; if at the time when an Iranian passenger plane was shot down by an American general in the Persian Gulf, killing several hundred Iranians and non-Iranians, this criminal military officer had been brought to trial—while at that time, the President of America awarded him a medal; see the degradation—if at the time when a wedding caravan in Afghanistan was bombed by American soldiers, that criminal officer had been captured and brought to trial; then these events would not have occurred in the world or would have decreased. This is a disgraceful, abnormal, and anti-human situation; a living nation must struggle against it.

We are proud that our nation, our government, our officials, our youth, and our intellectuals have not been indifferent to these issues over all these years; they have taken a stand, expressed hatred. This spirit should not be lost by the Iranian nation. Do not lose this spirit; especially you young people. Some want to distort the matter; they protest, saying: how much do you say death to this, death to that. They protest why you publicly mention the crimes of America or the Zionists or their allies in global forums. It must be stated, it must be said. Nations learn lessons. Let me tell you this—though we cannot prove it, but I know, I have observed it clearly—some of the liberated and independent countries—one of the well-known countries in Africa—have taken inspiration from Iran; they applied the same method that was used during the revolution in Iran. They were told here. The leaders of their revolutionaries came here; they were told that Imam used this method; they went and applied the same method and were able to gain independence and destroy apartheid in their country.

Nations take inspiration, governments learn, and national leaders are encouraged when they see a nation standing like this. Why should we be ashamed? Before the victory of the revolution during the Shah's regime, if in a gathering—say they were walking together in the street, or waiting for a flight at the airport, or were stuck in a corner of the university—if one of them wanted to pray, it was so unfamiliar that those accompanying him would say: are you going to pray?! You are ruining our reputation! This was the case; you young people have not seen those days; we have seen them. If a young person prayed in a public place, his friends would be embarrassed and say: you have embarrassed us. If in a public gathering—where a few speakers were supposed to speak—the speaker began his speech with "In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful," his companions would lower their heads in embarrassment!

Today, in the era of the greatness of Islam, the dignity of the Islamic system and the dignity of the Iranian nation is due to its anti-arrogance positions; one sees that if someone stands in global forums against America and Israel and Zionism and their allies and speaks clearly, some here feel ashamed! They rub their hands together and say: oh! Our reputation is ruined! Just like the embarrassment that was felt in the past under the Shah's regime for someone praying. Why should we be ashamed?! The clear positions of the Iranian nation—and especially the youth—against international injustices and oppressions must never cease.

My dear ones! In these fields of progress, everyone must strive. This is the University of Kurdistan. The majority of you students are Kurds. I am proud that in the environment of Kurdistan and among Kurdish students, such Islamic slogans are alive and such a sense of attachment to national ideals is alive that our enemies become enraged. This is a source of national pride for us. They have worked so hard on all this; they have propagated separation among Iranian ethnicities through loudspeakers, pamphlets, newspapers, and in secret and openly; you see the result today in this gathering, you saw it in the free gathering of Sanandaj, you saw it in Marivan. The nation is united; the nation has ideals. Ethnicities are one. The matters that our dear Kurds mentioned today regarding attachments and solidarity are things that are, for me, as clear as day. Some may not understand correctly; they must correct themselves.

I want to say this: Iranian ethnicities are an opportunity. If we throw Iranian ethnicities into a competitive race towards goodness, it will be a very good and correct action. Each ethnicity—whether Kurdish, Persian, Turkish, Baluch, Arab, Turkmen, or Lor—should strive with that ethnic spirit towards national progress—not merely ethnic progress—taking greater strides. This is a very excellent thing. The other day, in the gathering of elites in Sanandaj and Kurdistan—held in one of the halls here—one of our Kurdish friends made a good point; he said just as Martyr Motahari wrote the book "Mutual Services of Iran and Islam," how good would it be for someone to come and write about the mutual services of Kurds and Iran; the services of Kurds to Iran, the services of Iran to Kurds. This is very good. Specify what this ethnicity can do for national ideals and Islamic ideals. Then set up a competition: a competition among Persians, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Lors, Turkmen, Baluchs; this is the best national competition. Then it will become clear how much talent is bubbling and surging. This will become an opportunity. Of course, the enemy can also turn this into a threat, but fortunately, you are all vigilant. Narrow-minded disputes and limited ethnic nationalism completely contradict the Islamic perspective and the broad and elevated view that we all need.

I hope that God Almighty will bestow His mercy, blessing, grace, and favor upon all of you dear ones.

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