Speech in Meeting with the Assembly of Representatives of Clergy and Scholars of the Qom Seminary

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

First, I would like to express my gratitude to you, dear brothers and respected gentlemen, for the effort you made to come from Qom to discuss a matter that is considered one of the most important issues in the Islamic world today and a beloved subject for us—the issue of the seminary. I hope this meeting will be a source of good and will be counted as a good deed before Almighty God for both you and me.

The very title of 'Assembly of Representatives of the Clergy of Qom' is a sweet, hopeful, and awakening title for long-standing aspirations regarding the seminary. The fact that the clergy of Qom have reached this firm determination that there must be organization, presence, and effort for the improvement of the seminary, and that this determination has reached the point of holding elections and selecting representatives, is a very great announcement.

The issue of reforming the seminary is not something that has just been raised at this time; it has been a topic of discussion in Qom for many years. In the early years when I entered Qom (in 1958), I found young scholars who would gather and express these aspirations and repeat them, striving for their realization. Later, it became clear to us that even before our time—before the arrival of the late Ayatollah Boroujerdi (may God be pleased with him) in Qom—these ideas were also present, and prominent, thoughtful, and reputable scholars were pursuing them. As we became more familiar with the issues related to the seminaries, we understood that the roots of these matters go even further back, and in Najaf during the time of the late Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan Isfahani (may God be pleased with him), these discussions were also present among the young and enlightened students of that time.

Two individuals have detailed and extensively narrated to me the events where ten or twelve scholars of that time in Najaf—such as the late Mr. Milani, the late Agha Seyyed Ali Madad Qayeni, and others—went to the late Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan and shared their requests with him: one was the late Allameh Amini, the author of 'Al-Ghadir,' and the other was the late Agha Seyyed Hassan Tehami (may God be pleased with him), who was considered one of the prominent scholars and jurists of our country and had been isolated in Birjand for many years, remaining unrecognized until his death. He, too, before the late Amini, in 1962 or 1963, when I went to Birjand for a sermon, narrated the same conversation of the late Mr. Amini to me and explained the details of the matter, which I do not wish to elaborate on now.

The question that arises is why a thought and idea that has been present in the seminaries for over half a century has not been realized. The late Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan passed away in 1946. These ideas might have been raised five or ten years before his death. From 1941 to the years we went to Qom—until 1957 or 1958—and after that until the present time, why have those aspirations and things that the elites, intellectuals, scholars, and concerned individuals of the seminaries have always pursued not been realized?

I ask that one of the tasks you gentlemen of the Assembly of Representatives of the Clergy undertake is to investigate this very issue. Were we too lazy? Were the motivations insufficient? Were the tools not available? Was there a known obstacle, or were there vague and mysterious hindrances? All of these are worth examining, and whatever the reason, today the proof is upon us to accomplish what has not been done over many years.

Today, the victorious Islamic Revolution has triumphed around the axis of the seminary, and a system has been established. The seminary, in this system, is not foreign; rather, in terms of respect, real influence, and foresight, it is the central core—there is no debate about that. Today, excuses are cut off, and everyone must strive to build and reform the seminary—and if this expression does not sound heavy to the ears, let us say to modernize the seminary—in accordance with the needs. Everyone is responsible, and all those who can do something—from the students to the young scholars to the teachers and the great authorities (may God elevate their words) to the country's officials and believers and devout university scholars across the country—each can have a share in this work.

Of course, in this regard, I feel responsible for myself, and in a specific domain, whatever I feel is my duty, God willing, I will do it and will not wait for special conditions to arise. If I truly feel a current religious obligation in this area, I will not delay, by the grace of God, in what concerns me; however, the major responsibilities lie on the shoulders of you gentlemen, the scholars of the seminary, the teachers, and the general students and the great authorities.

But I want to raise a few points, one of which I will bring forward, and that is regarding your very organization. This organization is a very good thing. What has happened—the elections that have taken place and the statute that is on your agenda—is a blessed work that you must firmly preserve and not let any doubts hinder the work. A significant task has been accomplished.

May God shower His light, mercy, and grace upon the pure soul of our great Imam—an exceptional human being of the contemporary era—who, in the last steps of his blessed life, brought about such a blessing. 'Whoever establishes a good tradition will have its reward and the reward of those who act upon it.' Whatever you do is a continuation of that good tradition that he established with his resonant, meaningful, and spirit-filled message. Follow this and strive to give content to the work within the framework that the Imam brought in that message and move it forward; that is, do not let there be any delay in the work.

If an organization is established but lacks a clear goal, or has a goal but no planning is done to move towards that goal and the organization remains idle, the organization will naturally fall apart, and if it remains, it will be a lifeless form. This is the nature of human organization. Define the goal and specify what you want to do. Take the goal from the Imam's message (may his soul be sanctified). The Imam did not propose a specific plan in this message; however, from the beginning to the end of the message, it is full of directions and necessary announcements and signposts that guide a person. The goal of this blessed message—which I saw you gentlemen worked well on and extracted the points of the message and reflected and considered them—must be clarified and delineated. It must be specified what we want to do in the seminary. Then, based on that goal, plan and, based on that planning, each department should engage in its own work.

If you can do something so that every responsible student in Qom, when he wakes up in the morning, just as he thinks about his daily study and discussion program, knows what he must do for that goal. This is the ideal form of work and the highest level. However, if this is not done, it should at least be clear that you want a certain event to happen in Qom ten years from now and what difference and change the seminary will have compared to today. This is pursuing the same goal. Specify this and plan based on that goal.

A question arises, and that is what is the relationship between this assembly and the general goals of the seminary? Should the seminary be transformed and changed by the hands of the students and with their will and thought, or is there another form? Naturally, in the seminary, there are great authorities present who were once students and scholars and are now authorities. That is, the path you are taking today, they took, for example, forty or fifty years ago, with health, and today they have become authorities of emulation. Therefore, their role in the future of the seminary is very prominent; as the Imam (may his soul be sanctified) also explicitly mentions the role of the authorities in the future in this message.

We should not develop the thought that students should act like the revolutionary forces that, in some places, started the revolution from below and placed the upper echelons in front of a fait accompli. Students should not think that they can start a revolution from below and shape the seminary as they wish and then tell the authorities and elders: In the Name of God, manage this seminary! This is neither feasible nor permissible; because here, the issue is not the confrontation of the lower and upper classes—like the worker and the capitalist, the farmer and the landlord—but rather, they are all part of one whole. The supreme example and archetype exist, and the rest are potentialities that will lead to that place. Therefore, the direction of movement is the same direction; of course, not everyone strives to become an authority, and it is neither correct nor permissible nor beneficial; but the direction is the direction of jurisprudence and religious understanding, and the same thing that our authorities are at the highest level of today. Therefore, the authorities, whose account is clear, have a significant role in the future of the seminary, and without their opinion, agreement, assistance, will, and action, it is neither permissible nor possible for any work to be done.

Fortunately, our authorities agree. Today, our authorities are not like the authorities of the time of the late Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan Isfahani, who were only satisfied with teaching jurisprudence and principles. The late Mr. Tehami (may God be pleased with him) used to say a memory that proves this very point. He said that we held a meeting with the late Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan Isfahani, and in that meeting, it was proposed that the students should have a program and system and study some modern sciences and learn foreign languages. He generally agreed, and it was decided to prepare a plan. In the second meeting we went to him, we sat waiting in the outer room. He came from his personal room and appeared in the doorway. We stood up and showed respect. He, while wearing an unbuttoned robe, said that I do not want to come and sit; I just wanted to tell you gentlemen a point, and that is that this money and stipend that I give to the students is my personal property. In such a way that I borrow it, and when the religious dues come, I repay my debt. Therefore, the stipend I give is my property, and I am not satisfied that anyone uses this share of the Imam and stipend while studying anything other than jurisprudence and principles in the seminary. He said this and closed the door and left. Mr. Tehami said: We were left wondering what to do. We had come to arrange for auxiliary courses and theology and interpretation and ethics and English language and the like, and he answered us standing like that and left!

Of course, Agha Seyyed Abul Hasan Isfahani is a revered authority of the Shia world and has a great right over Islam and Shiism and the clergy and jurisprudence. We have no objection to him. This was his judgment; however, today the authorities are not like that. Today, the authorities are familiar with the necessities that the seminary faces and are ready to organize the seminary as the needs of the time require. I say this point based on almost scientific evidence and past experiences. We, who were in Qom at that time and knew the thoughts of the gentlemen closely, know that fortunately, the past situation does not exist now, and our authorities now agree with this planning and foresight and will have cooperation, management, initiative, support, determination, approval, and endorsement in these areas.

Then we come to the teachers—and specifically the Society of Teachers. The Imam (may his soul be sanctified) in his message referred to the Society of Teachers and addressed the students, saying that you should be attracted to the Society of Teachers. The issue is about being attracted. What does being attracted mean? Everyone can understand this point. The Imam specified the direction in his message. At that time, there was a prevalent thought and idea in the seminary that was being promoted to completely strip the Society of Teachers of all authority and credibility in the seminary and the revolution. The Imam, with his message, wanted to oppose this thought and explicitly fought against it. The Imam's recommendation to the scholars and teachers was to pay attention to the opinion of the young revolutionary faithful students and to warm up to them, and he also told those revolutionary students to be attracted to the Society of Teachers. Therefore, we cannot have a general seminary and student movement while this side is separate from that side. These two sides are one stream that must be together, and as stated in your statute, the assembly of students should observe the assembly of teachers in a rank and level higher than themselves.

The Management Council is the same way. Of course, the Management Council and the Society of Teachers are both titles. Although there are many respected and honorable individuals in these assemblies that we should be proud of having such elements in our seminary assembly; however, what our great and dear Imam had in mind was the title of the Management Council and the Society of Teachers. Ultimately, individuals come and go in this council and that society; just as individuals come and go in your assembly of representatives. Therefore, the essence of the title is not dependent on individuals. The title is a title and is the place of entry for praise and blame and having credibility and the like. Of course, individuals fall under this title and become its manifestation; but some individuals give more credibility to the titles than they have.

Therefore, you see that what must be done in the seminary is a constructive movement and a multifaceted work; that is, the thought and will and determination of the students—especially their strength—play a role in it. Also, the teachers and the Society of Teachers and the scholars and the Management Council and the respected and great authorities play a role in it. A multi-dimensional work must be done. In this assembly and on this common page, what is the share of the students? Seek and pursue that. This is something that should be considered and reflected upon in your discussions, and then, with planning and without any delay, move forward. Therefore, it is a blessed movement that must be pursued. The characteristics I mentioned are present in this movement.

What do we really want to build the seminary into? When the discussion of construction and organization and renovation of the seminary arises, minds should not immediately go to the idea that now we want to overthrow all the foundations of the seminary. No, there is no such thing at all. The valuable existing seminary of Qom should be utilized and organized and directed, and redundant work should be avoided. What is this work for, and what do we want to achieve in the seminary? This is the main issue. I will raise two or three points in this regard to clarify what our expectations from the seminary are.

The first point is that a system based on Islam has been realized, and its success or failure in the world and history will be attributed to Islam, whether we want it or not. This system is built around Islamic thoughts and must be managed around Islamic regulations and insights. Where should these thoughts and insights and regulations be researched and refined? Where should these questions be answered? If the seminary of Qom, which today is the mother and axis of seminaries in our country and even in the Shia world, and subsequently other seminaries, do not take on the task of refining and explaining the regulations and Islamic teachings that the system will move with, who should take it on? The seminaries must feel this responsibility.

The seminary has not yet directly taken on this responsibility. I state this point explicitly. It has taken it on indirectly, but not directly. In the seminaries, there are those who work and strive and, intellectually, solve the problems and knots of the system with their discussions. Some have graduated from the seminaries and have gone across the country or into various system organizations and are working; but the seminary—as a seminary—has not yet undertaken the task of organizing and compiling Islamic regulations and the Islamic value system and the public ethics that we want the nation to have, based on definitive religious documents, without any room for debate and doubt, and has not presented the Islamic lifestyle model. They keep telling us: give us the Islamic lifestyle model. Who should do this work? Naturally, the seminary must take steps in this direction.

The seminary must have multiple research centers to work like a modern and organized production unit in all these areas and produce results. If a department encounters a question on an issue—such as land and music, and in a broader framework, the economic system and foreign relations and relations with nations and monetary issues and the values of government officials and hundreds of such issues that every department always faces with these foundational questions of what basis we should legislate on and what basis we should set administrative regulations and on what basis we should act—know that there is a center that answers such questions.

The seminaries—especially the seminary of Qom—in an ideal and desired image, are an ideological workshop and a center of ideologues. Of course—as I mentioned—it has not yet directly taken on this role. Although the blessings that have descended upon this country have originated from our great Imam's unique person—who was the root of everything and the main source of all these blessings—and others are all graduates of the seminary; but this is indirect. The seminary must directly intervene in these issues.

The second point is about the main tasks we should expect from the seminary. When we look at the image of the Islamic world of our country, we see five main tasks that we should expect the seminary to perform. Of those five tasks, three are tasks that the seminary needs for its own survival, and two other tasks are needed outside the seminary. Of course, this definition and division we make are neither comprehensive nor exclusive.

The first task is the issue of authority and issuing religious edicts. People always need an authority and a mufti, and the seminary is responsible for training and producing authorities and muftis. The second task is training teachers. Naturally, the seminary needs teachers who must be trained within the seminary. The third task is research and writing on scientific issues; whether the works presented to the seminary from outside or works related to the seminary itself, requiring researchers and authors to write books, and whether books needed outside the seminary or books containing new research on jurisprudential issues and explaining the new method of deduction—which the Imam mentioned in this message and one of his previous messages—and whether textbooks. These three tasks are more focused on the seminary itself; but the other two tasks look outside the seminary.

The fourth task is the issue of the judiciary. The Islamic judicial system requires a jurist and a just mujtahid. Islamic judiciary is this. When we do not have a mujtahid and a mufti and an expert, we suffice with a judge authorized by a mujtahid. This is out of necessity, as 'necessities permit prohibitions.' When we do not have a definitive just judge, we suffice with one who is trustworthy; otherwise, a just jurist and mujtahid must take on the position of judge. Therefore, this is another task of the seminaries that must always have one of its five branches working for this important task.

The fifth task is propagation on a wide scale and in a desirable and modern manner, which I will explain in the third point, the status of propagation and the various dimensions of propagation expected from us today.

These five responsibilities must be fulfilled by the seminary. Can we expect these five duties from the seminary and have the seminary fulfill them without organization and division of labor and shortening paths and eliminating redundancies and addressing some necessary tasks that are not being addressed today? We must calculate, for example, how many just mujtahid judges this Islamic country will need in thirty years. The seminary must take such a leap that it can train this number by thirty years from now. Just as for training doctors, we tell universities, for example, that we need this number of doctors for the next twenty years. Medical universities also plan in such a way that this need is met. Now, if we do not have doctors, we bring them from other countries; but if we do not have scholars, where do we bring them from? This expectation cannot be fulfilled without proper organization.

The third point is about the seminary and the expectations from it. Gentlemen, we, the Iranian nation, have made a very great revolution. The greatness of this revolution is immense, and I firmly tell you that most of us know many things, but we still do not know what a great work has been done. This revolution is an extraordinary and strange event. The entire world of global arrogance and rebellion and ignorance is on one side, and this revolution is on the other. A very important event has occurred, and it sees itself capable of confronting all global rebellion and disbelief. We are in this revolution and do not understand how great and important it is.

This revolution, with its greatness and practical dimensions, in terms of presenting its intellectual foundations, is one of the weakest and least productive revolutions and even transformations in the world. For example, when the Common Market is established, dozens of books and brochures and research and films are published about the intellectual foundations of this work at various levels and sent to economists and politicians and the general public and the consumer and producer world. What is the Common Market? Is it not just that a few countries sit together and trade like a few merchants and have commercial exchanges? The Common Market is a small example in the world; but if you consider the great revolutions of the world, it still becomes clear that we have done little work.

When the October Revolution is realized, in the course of ten to fifteen years, so many books and films and stories and brochures are written at various levels about the intellectual foundations of this revolution that in countries where the wind of that revolution has reached, people no longer need to use their books! The intellectual space is so filled that the intellectuals of those countries sit and write books about their value and intellectual foundations! In the past three or four decades, how many Iranians have written books in Persian about the intellectual foundations of the Soviet Revolution; because they were saturated. That is, they wrote so much that all the intellectuals who somehow intellectually connected with them were intellectually saturated, and then a person, for example, with a pen and thought and intellectualism, would boil over and write things—besides the many translations of their works.

What have we done? The work we have done in this area is really very little. Sometimes one hesitates to say it is at the level of zero; because really some people have worked with sincerity. But if we do not want to consider these emotional aspects, we must say it is a little more than zero and very, very little work has been done. Of course, this lack of work has reasons: some of the main intellectuals and thinkers were taken from us at the beginning of the work, and some of them were engaged in various executive tasks; but the essence of the matter is that we did not produce. Eleven years have passed since the revolution; it would have been good if hundreds of Islamic writers had written and published the foundations of Islam—because our revolution is Islamic. We should have trained, but we did not. This is one of the tasks of the seminary. I do not want to say that those sitting outside the seminaries have no responsibility; but the greatest responsibility lies with the seminary—and more than all, Qom. Qom should have produced abundantly in this area.

If we tell the radio officials: why are you so weak in the Islamic issues broadcast on the radio? They will say: write so we can read. The seminary is obligated in these areas. For example, you see that on the radio, regarding the lives of the Imams and these religious pieces they read and talk about and the religious discussions that take place in that medium, and in terms of volume, it is a lot—but it is ineffective. It can really be said that these materials do not make a person Muslim and intelligent and insightful about Islamic issues. The material presented is either very weak or its presentation is very weak; because it is expressed without art and good language and the power of persuasion. That is, either ordinary average people express those materials, or people with poor taste come and present a series of strange and bizarre materials—apparently mystical and essentially empty.

In the early days when modern poetry became popular, a group of these young people would come and say something like that. At that time, it was rumored that they would erase the middle of a poem and thought they were composing modern poetry! Of course, this rumor was also true and in some cases happened in a partial affirmative manner. Some of the mystical materials presented on the radio evoke this state, and some think that mysticism is just that a person weaves something! They have seen that if someone says mystical things, a person does not understand. Therefore, they thought that anything a person does not understand is mysticism! They create something and with an irrelevant and nonsensical language, broadcast it on our media, and whatever a person thinks, they find nothing in it and it has no meaning. I objected to the radio officials: why is it like this? In my heart, I answered myself: what should they do and to whom should they refer and from whom should they ask? Until I say: why is it like this? They say: write so I can read. What answer should I give them? This is the state of our propagation, and the seminary is obligated in these areas.

In the seminaries, there are extraordinary talents. Really understanding some of the fundamental and philosophical issues and some of the subtleties of jurisprudence is more difficult than understanding many of the scientific formulas of the world, and the students, with their intellectual precision, understand these issues. Can a mind like the mind of the author of 'Qawanin' be easily found? In the seminaries, there are many such thinkers who constantly think and scrutinize and are meticulous. If these talents and creativity and sometimes observed tastes are correctly directed towards proper propagation, we will no longer need anything.

Foreigners write books, and we must respond to them. One of the Egyptian court preachers—who it is really a pity to call court preachers; rather, they should be called court servants because court preachers sometimes preached to the sultan—wrote a book called 'The Shia, the Mahdi, and the Druze' and supposedly conducted research on the Shia and the Mahdi and the Druze. Now, what connection exists between the Shia and the Druze is itself a discussion! These court servants have consumed so much of Fahd and Saddam and Shah Hassan's wealth and riches that they have become accustomed to it, and taking away all this sweetness and pleasure from them is difficult. They have really been wasted, and if they had knowledge and religion, it would no longer be useful to them. They write many such books. We must have a hundred rebuttals ready in our hands in the seminary of Qom and in our scientific centers to respond to them.

Even now, in the Islamic world, they say to us: you believe in the distortion of the Quran! Because one day 'Fasl al-Khitab' was written, and we have not yet been able to saturate the cultural space of the Islamic world with our rightful words and that we do not believe in the distortion of the Quran, so that if an irreligious person wants to write that the Shia believe in the distortion of the Quran, he knows that tomorrow a student in his class at Al-Azhar will grab his collar and say: this Shia book has answered you.

Whatever the late 'Seyyed Sharaf al-Din' and the late 'Amini' wrote, that is it. Of course, each of those books is useful for certain places; but the point is that we have not defended our right and Shiism and belief and revolution and Islam and even our Imam in a modern way and according to today's needs. They accused the Imam of saying: the prophets were unsuccessful(!) How many volumes of books have we written in response to this accusation and presented and distributed to the world? So, see these are the tasks of the seminary. We must believe in these.

Gentlemen, how long will we pressure the Organization of Islamic Propaganda and the Ministry of Culture to write and provide? They say: we cannot. They are right, it is not their job; it is the job of the seminary and the student. Such tasks must be done there. I ask you gentlemen: do you know today, in the first degree, how many book titles are needed for the Islamic world? I do not think anyone of you knows. I might know a little more than some of you; but I do not know precisely. The seminary does not know either. If I do not know, it is not a fault; but if the seminary does not know, it is a fault. The seminary must know that, for example, today there are fifty book titles. In the first degree, we must have written or write books on fifty topics, and in the second degree, on one hundred and twenty topics.

We must know the needs according to the accusations they make against us and the insults they give us and the books they write against us. Where is the center and information bank of the seminary that looks at these and researches and writes about those topics? One of the tasks the seminary must do is this. That is, it must have a center and collect the books written about the revolution in the world; whether those directly about the revolution or those that, because of the revolution, have insulted the Shia or Islam, and the books that have praised us and reminded us of our strengths—some of which we ourselves have been unaware of.

In this center, the seminary researchers must also collect similar books within the country and examine them. When we say researchers, the mind should not immediately go to retired old men. Young researchers—like yourselves—should sit and categorize these and compile the thought and mindset of the revolution, and in European terms, the ideology of the revolution—which unfortunately we have not yet found a Persian equivalent for—and present it—not in one volume of a book and not with one expression; so that if they ask us: what is your revolution? We can say: this is it. If you do not do such work, others who often do not have the competence will do it.

The fourth point is that today there is a massive cultural invasion against Islam that does not have a direct connection with the revolution. This invasion is broader than the revolution and against Islam. It is a strange and extraordinary thing that has entered the battlefield against Islam with all its cultural, social, and political dimensions—even the Islam that has influence among the masses in Algeria. Only one exception exists, and that is the Islam dependent on colonial apparatuses and Fahd-like Islam; otherwise, even the Islams in the sense of the common people's belief are under attack; let alone pure and revolutionary Islam—and in their terms, Iranian Islam—which is clear.

There is a strange invasion. The things you hear—like the hijab in France and the fight against veiled girls in this country—these are sparks that indicate the fires beneath the ashes and inform of a great work behind the scenes. The issue is not just that a government, for example, says that we do not want veiled women; no, they have felt a severe threat from Islam. Of course, this is not a new topic; it has been like this before.

I have mentioned in the book 'Muslims in the Indian Freedom Movement' that one of the viceroys of India before the independence of this country in 1947 said that in the early days when the British entered India—after the era of the East India Company—and wanted to take over the government of India, they said that our issue in India is the Muslims, and our greatest goal must be to eliminate and suppress them! You have surely heard the famous statement of 'Gladstone' who said: this Quran must be removed. The colonialists have always felt this way about Islam, which was due to the things they had seen from Islam.

A period had passed since the tobacco incident and various events that had occurred in India and Afghanistan and Iran and Egypt and other countries, and global arrogance and colonialism had become oblivious to the power of Islam and no longer showed much sensitivity to Islam. The reason was that from this side, Islam had not shown anything of itself, and they had become somewhat negligent. A few decades passed, our revolution triumphed, and all their colonial knowledge and understanding—accumulated over many years—was overturned, and they suddenly felt that the same old Islam they feared had entered the field with great power.

They have experts and thinkers on Islam who sit and study and create files on nations and thoughts and spirits and various religions and bring all those archived files back into their research and cultural and espionage and political centers and conduct new research work. When we hear that in Israel, a seminar is held under the title 'Understanding Islam and Shiism in Iran,' it is in this sense and in this direction. In many places around the world, seminars and research sessions are held by the Western world and capitalism and arrogance, and various theses are proposed for re-examining Islam.

Arrogance uses all its existence thoughtfully to manage itself desirably and moves completely with thought and guides global currents to remain preserved; because it knows that if it does not think and predict and foresee and if it does not have statistics, it will be struck. The highest and most distinguished intellectual apparatuses are at the disposal of arrogance. They think and design for the long-term issues of capitalism fifteen or twenty years in advance to get answers from it in the future.

I make a comparison between the Iranian revolution and the Iraqi coup so you can see what a blow the Islamic Revolution of Iran dealt to colonialism. When the coup occurred in Iraq in 1958 and 'Faisal' was overthrown and 'Nuri Said' was placed in his place, 'Eden'—the British Prime Minister—wrote in his memoirs: I was on an island enjoying a weekend vacation when the news of the Iraqi coup reached me, and the greatest blow was dealt to my mind, and I suddenly felt that the world had shaken. (I do not remember his exact expressions now.) For Britain and the colonial apparatus, the Iraqi coup was so important that it was beyond measure. This concern was reflected in all the writings and memoirs published after the coup, and the magnitude of the blow showed itself. This coup took place in a country where it later became clear that some colonial apparatuses had a role in it, and some later used it and took it in their hands. Now you see the remnants of that coup, which after about thirty years, today's gifts of Iraq are the continuation of that coup—and in their words, the revolution(!).

Consider, an ordinary coup occurred in a country, and just because Iraq was a British colony and Britain used to benefit from ruling over Iraq, it was so heavy for them. Now compare that coup with the Islamic Revolution; it is not comparable at all. The Islamic Revolution suddenly questioned the entire existence and value system of the Western colonial apparatus and the capitalist world. That is, it completely threatened their future and gave ambiguity to their future; because this revolution was based on Islam, and consequently, wherever there is a Muslim, this revolution can potentially be realized there. Then, they continuously saw its examples from Afghanistan to Indonesia and Malaysia and Egypt and Tunisia and even in countries with so-called revolutionary systems—like Algeria or Libya—and observed that the same Islam has risen there and is challenging and shaping the future.

They felt fear, and the entire capitalist and arrogant world joined hands to stand against Islam. Of course, the socialist world opposed it in a different way; but they did not have the necessary intellectual tools and foresight and attention like the Westerners. This is a branch of industrial civilization and the issue of statistics and archives and futures and conjectures that the Easterners are as backward in this matter as they are in industrial work, and in this matter, they are also behind the Westerners. Besides, they also felt a shared interest with this revolution; because they saw the West being harmed. They thought it was good for them; but now everything has become unified, and the Western and Eastern blocs no longer have meaning, and the Marxist and socialist ideals are over, and a few isolated unfortunate countries—like Albania and Romania and ...—remain, which are also not worth anything. We have seen Romania up close and know what is going on there. They are nothing, and it cannot really be said that they exist, so the socialist world exists! Countries like Cuba and weak backward countries are not even worth mentioning. Their breathing was also with the permission of the Russians and their Eastern masters.

Today, the same anti-pure Islam thought, or if we want to be more precise, anti-pure religion—which is broader than the revolution—is directed at the entirety of Islam and, in a sense, at any religion they feel has authenticity. Today, the Christian cardinals of Latin America are as disliked as the revolutionary scholars of Egypt or Tunisia are disliked. Now the whole world is focused on this; but everyone knows and is aware that Iran is the main center.

Currently, a massive cultural front that is accompanied by politics and industry and money and various types of support is like a flood that has started to fight us. The war is not a military war. General mobilization has no effect there. Its effects are such that by the time we realize it, we are caught. It acts like a silent and noiseless chemical bomb. Suppose a chemical bomb falls in an area that no one realizes has fallen there; but after seven or eight hours, they see that everyone's faces and hands have blistered.

Now, in schools and on the streets and in the fronts and seminaries and universities, you will suddenly see the signs of this propaganda and cultural invasion. Now you see some of it, and later it will be more. A book is published, a film is produced and comes into the country as a video and provides the groundwork for such an invasion. Last night, one of the gentlemen said: small devices have been invented in which twenty video films are recorded as microfilm, and anyone can hide it in their button and bring it into the country and distribute it among the youth!

The target of this invasion with such dimensions is Islam and the revolution and us. Of course, there is no doubt that countering this invasion requires money and budget and facilities and political support from the government; but the government gives money and support for what to happen? Naturally, a thought must be disseminated. Where will that thought be produced? Is it also in the government or in the seminary? These are the expectations from the seminary.

I have raised four expectations that the seminary should respond to. Now you tell me, can the seminary, with its current form and organization, respond? My answer is negative. You will give the same answer. I am a student myself and am not detached from the seminary and know the seminary well and have been in it and lived and studied in it and was not disconnected from the seminary afterward. Our seminaries, with their current state, cannot meet those expectations unless they are planned and a new plan is cast and pursued.

You, as representatives of the students, have a share in this assembly; find that share, see where it is, and carry it out with utmost seriousness. As I mentioned, alongside the authorities and the Society of Teachers and anyone who has a share in this matter, your share is a significant share. This is the main point I wanted to raise.

Of course, there is another thing here, and that is the role of the seminary—besides the cultural aspects—in managing society. We should not be oblivious to the political role of the seminary and seminary personalities in managing society. This is an important thing. You must build and nurture and prepare the future leaders of the revolution and the country in the seminary; personalities who can be presidents and ministers and representatives and political theorists. As you observe, after the victory of the revolution, excluding the unique person of our great Imam—who is unparalleled—the share and role of the clergy and seminary graduates in managing the revolution and taking responsibility for its issues—whether in its legislation, its judiciary, its executive branch, and its political fields—if not more, at least have an equal role with non-seminary individuals. These are the graduates before the revolution. As that old gardener said: they planted and we ate, we plant and they will eat. What has the seminary done in this regard and what will it do? Of course, the seminary has made good efforts in this area, and it cannot be denied; but it is certainly less than what is necessary.

I recommend to you respected gentlemen, who are, thanks be to God, among the scholars and distinguished, to pay attention to these young students. These young students are very important. Students are not the axis of managing the seminary; but in truth, they are the axis of hopes and actual and potential energies of the seminary. If the student becomes hopeless, you will have nothing in hand; the authorities will have nothing either. This is an important point. Efforts should be made so that students do not become despondent and problematic. Of course, I also request and ask that you do not let your assembly turn from a working and student assembly into a political and factional assembly. Be extremely careful that this does not happen; because it is really a bad thing. The seminary needs unity. You should even resolve internal seminary differences and factional and current differences within yourselves.

As I mentioned in the message a few days ago and recommended to the general public, I especially recommend to you gentlemen to strive to have good faith. The content of the narration is also this: when good prevails and dominates the time, a person should have good faith, and when evil prevails, a person should have bad faith. Today, Islam and good prevail and dominate, and the government and leadership and state are Islamic. Although there is evil in society, the dominance and authority are with good. Today is the day of good faith.

I ask you not to nurture tendencies of bad faith. For example, I mention a case that may not be entirely unrelated to me: I am not satisfied that in support and expression of kindness and affection towards me, some brothers object to this assembly. No one should take any stance against anyone in support and advocacy of me. If someone has affection and kindness towards me and truly wants to support me, the way is not to stand and say, for example, why did the authorities do this or why did the Society of Teachers do that or why did the Assembly of Students do this. Thanks be to God, our relationship with the authorities is very good. We have always had devotion to the authorities; it is the same now, and our connections are very good. Our connections with the Society of Teachers and various student groups and different political orientations and factions are very strong and good; that is, I have no issue with anyone. Therefore, it should not be imagined that if, for example, a certain statement was made somewhere or a certain expression—verbally or in writing—was issued by someone, it is a criticism of me, and someone, out of affection for me, objects and protests and accuses someone. Absolutely do not let these discussions and words become common in your assembly and even within the seminary.

Of course—as I mentioned at the beginning—I do not consider myself irresponsible regarding the issues related to the seminary. That is, my student conscience and my current responsibility conscience do not allow at all that the most important Islamic issue of our society and country be a secondary issue. No, this is an important and primary issue. I consider myself responsible for these matters and for Qom and its future and arrangements and any work that is religiously incumbent upon me, and if I determine, God willing, I will do it. In any case, the purpose is that absolutely do not let these disputes and words find their way into the seminary and within your assembly under various pretexts.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings