Statements of the Supreme Leader in the Presence of Students at Tehran University

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

In selecting the topic that I will present to you dear students today, I did not hesitate much. Of course, there are many speeches that can be mentioned and are very appropriate to share with you dear youth, especially students. The well-known saying goes: "A heart full of words surges forth from our mouths." However, the topic that I thought to present today is one that has often crossed my mind, and I have thought and studied it, and I consider it important. This discussion is likely a topic that can be expanded. Today, I am raising this issue for the first time, and if I have the opportunity in future sessions or visits to this university or other universities, I will continue it. Students, especially those studying history and social sciences, can think and study on this matter that I am raising. This discussion is about the concept of intellectualism and intellectuals in our country, which I believe is an important topic.

I want to briefly mention a point regarding my visit here today. I decided about a week ago to come here; however, I did not inform anyone. Even in my office, only one or two people knew, and no one else was aware. Last night, I learned that several student groups planned to hold gatherings and speeches today. I asked them to postpone their gatherings so that we could carry out this program. They sent a message, and they canceled their plans.

On this occasion, I want to make a point. Dear students! There is nothing wrong with speeches and gatherings; however, two groups should never hold gatherings simultaneously at a university. This is my paternal advice to you. You are a group that wants to hold gatherings and give speeches. For example, you have things to say that you believe are necessary, but they may not be necessary from another perspective. That's fine; gather together; however, that other group, upon seeing that you have a meeting or gathering, should postpone their gathering to another time; this is correct. My dear ones! What I am saying is not a guess; it is information. They want to pit students against each other; they want to distract them and prevent them from studying. They want to occupy students with trivial matters. Do not yield and do not let them play with the student element.

I have always advised students for years that a student is an element that belongs to this space. Once you go outside, you are no longer a student; someone else will come in your place, and they will acquire these characteristics. The student element belongs to this space. The student period is a good time, a sacred time, a sweet time; especially for us who have spent a lifetime, it is a very beautiful thing. Do not let your conflicts with each other ruin this student identity and student community; be mindful. This was my advice regarding the topic that occurred today; I thought I should tell you.

Now, regarding the issue I want to discuss about intellectualism. If I were to name this issue, I would say: the retrogression of intellectuals, or the retrogression of intellectualism. You know that the concept of intellectualism is fundamentally against retrogression. Intellectualism is a concept that looks forward and gazes into the future; that is the same concept that has been translated from the French "intellectuel" into Persian. Of course, those who are experts in this field and in the language say that this translation is not accurate and precise. However, whatever it is, it is clear what is meant. I will elaborate on this later. This forward-looking and future-oriented identity cannot reconcile with regression and backwardness; however, I have observed a phenomenon, and I continue to observe it, for which I cannot find any title other than the mentioned name: the retrogression of intellectualism, the regression of intellectualism.

I have often said that intellectualism in Iran was born sick. The concept of intellectualism, with the characteristics it has in the realm of realization and reality - which includes scientific thought, a look to the future, wisdom, intelligence, a sense of pain regarding social issues, and especially those related to culture - was born sick and unhealthy and defective in our country. Why? Because those who are the first intellectuals in our history are unhealthy individuals. Now I will mention three of these personalities and pioneers of intellectualism in Iran: Mirza Malek Khan Armenian, Mirza Fath Ali Akhoundzadeh, and Hajj Sayyah Mohalati. These individuals, who brought the first signs and messages of nineteenth-century European intellectualism to Iran, were extremely unreliable. For example, Mirza Malek Khan, who claimed to be an intellectual and wanted to enlighten against the tyranny of Naser al-Din Shah, was himself a broker for the very colonial and harmful "Reuter" deal!

You know that in the last twenty years of Naser al-Din Shah's life, foreign monopolies stripped this country bare. The English would come and take monopolies - customs monopolies, tobacco monopolies, railway monopolies, and so on - while the Russians would come from the other side and say, you gave this monopoly deal to our rival, you must give us one too; they would give them something as well! Later, this was called "positive balance"; a balance between Russia and England in foreign policy and economic relations; however, based on competition! They would give something to one power, and the next day the other would say, why didn't you give me anything; they would say, take this too! Then he would say, my share has decreased, and they would say, this is yours too! They were plundering Iran for the benefit of the royal family - that is, Naser al-Din Shah and the courtiers and anyone who could take a bite from this plundered feast.

This gentleman, who was presented as the most famous herald of intellectualism and enlightenment in Iran - namely Mirza Malek Khan - was himself a broker for the "Reuter" affair! In the same famous tobacco monopoly - which Mirza Shirazi, the religious authority of the time, prohibited and prevented this harmful deal - Mirza Malek Khan was himself a broker for it! Truly, one of the major brokerage activities of Mirza Malek Armenian was this "Regie" affair, which the court also accepted. This man wants to be a herald of intellectualism in Iran; that is, to invite people to the future, to modernity and renewal; see what people come out of it!

I do not know how much you are aware of contemporary history and how much you have read it. It would be very good for you to plan during the summer when you have some free time to study a bit of contemporary history, including this tobacco affair. There are books written on this subject that are appropriate to read. Of course, I am referring to the books of Amin. Some people, because of the involvement of the clergy and religion, due to their animosity towards religion, are unwilling to acknowledge and present this great honor.

From another perspective, Mirza Fath Ali Akhoundzadeh is similar to Mirza Malek Khan. This Akhoundzadeh is from Khameneh. I have heard a lot about him from the old Khamenehs and some of our relatives, and I know. He went to the Caucasus before the October Revolution and sat at the table of the Tsars in Russia, and with the help of the Tsars and under their shadow, he thought he would fight against the tyranny of Iran! This struggle was an unreliable struggle; it was unacceptable. The first thing they targeted was, instead of focusing more on tyranny and political aspects, they focused on the religion and beliefs of the people and the authentic local traditions, which I will discuss later.

Hajj Sayyah is also the third example. He wrote his autobiography and life story during his European travels. Anyone who reads this book will not doubt that in this book, there has been an effort to systematically confront every instance where a great free-spirited cleric is involved; his name is practically concealed, and his story is not presented. Intellectualism in Iran was born this way.

The subsequent classes of intellectualism in Iran were also not reliable; they were mostly princes, aristocrats, and the offspring of the elite. You can look at the three-volume memoirs of Abdollah Mostofi, which he wrote himself. He himself is one of those intellectuals; moreover, he is from the offspring of the aristocracy and the Khan family of the Qajar dynasty. Of course, he is a balanced character; he does not seem negative. If you look at that book, you will see who were the first banners and messengers of intellectualism that were seen, heard, and recognized. The Qajar period passed in this way; that is, a patriotic, disinterested, caring intellectual was rarely seen among the intellectuals of Iran.

Then came the era of Reza Khan. During this period, the first-rate intellectuals of the country, from professors, writers, and thinkers who were among the elite of intellectualism, served Reza Khan; a Reza Khan who had not caught a whiff of culture and knowledge. Their defense of Reza Khan had no justification; he was neither educated, nor cultured, nor national; everyone knew that the policies of the English were being implemented. The intellectuals themselves saw that the English brought Reza Khan, elevated him, brought him to power, strengthened his monarchy, prepared the grounds for him, destroyed the obstacles, and cleared the way for him. At that time, the intellectuals became the ideologues of Reza Khan's coup government! Whatever he wanted to do, they provided the ideology and intellectual foundation for him and legitimized it!

I would like to present this discussion not as a responsible person, but as a cleric and a seminary student and as someone who has spent almost all my youth in the intellectual atmosphere of my time and has been either closely acquainted with many of these famous intellectual figures in Iran or familiar with their works and truly knows them - from their poets, writers, artists - and talk to you. I want you young people of this era to recognize a bit of the cultural space of your country; because you are among the intellectual class. See where you stand, what has been, what has happened, and what they want to happen. I wish for you to pay attention to this point.

In the period after Reza Khan's departure and after the 20th of Shahrivar - when a strange and bizarre government was formed at that time - some intellectuals joined the Tudeh Party, which incidentally included some of the most sincere intellectuals who joined the Tudeh Party; although they were dependent on the Soviet Union. At that time, they themselves admitted; they all accepted that they were dependent on the Soviet Union. The Soviets played a role in creating and supporting them, and they acted as the fifth column of the Soviets in Iran.

Look at the memoirs of Kianouri and other Tudeh leaders who got caught in the Islamic Republic! Their memoirs have been published; they talk about fifty years ago, sixty years ago. Although they may not have wanted to reveal all the truths, it is clear from the corners of their words what the reality of the Tudeh Party was at that time. Meanwhile, the most sincere and devoted intellectuals were gathered in this group. One of them was Jalal Al Ahmad, from whom I will quote in this discussion. The late Jalal Al Ahmad was part of the Tudeh Party. Khalil Maleki and others were initially in the Tudeh Party.

I do not remember whether I heard this from him or if a friend conveyed it to me. In 1947, he came to Mashhad. In a session we had with that late man, many discussions passed. I suspect I may have heard it myself, or I suspect someone heard it from him and conveyed it to me. He said: We regularly moved from one room of the Tudeh Party to another room - meaning we went through the party stages and reached a point where we heard a voice from behind the wall! We asked, where is that place? They said, this is Moscow! We said, we are not there; we returned. That is, as soon as they felt in the party hierarchy that this was dependent on the outside, they said we are no longer there. They left and, along with Khalil Maleki and a group of others, formed the Third Force; the sincere ones were there. This period continued until the time of Dr. Mossadegh and after the 28th of Mordad 1332.

After the 28th of Mordad, there was an astonishing silence in the intellectual atmosphere regarding the motivations of an intellectual against a corrupt regime. Many of those who had been the targets of the regime in the 20s became obedient collaborators of the regime in the 30s! Al Ahmad speaks of this intellectualism of the 30s in his book "The Service and Betrayal of Intellectuals." Al Ahmad started this book in 1943, which continued until 1947. In 1947, when Al Ahmad came to Mashhad, we saw him. On one occasion, the discussion of this book came up; he said, I have been busy with a work for a while; then we realized that he had been working on this book since 1943. He wanted specific information from us, thinking that we were aware of them. It was there that we understood he was writing this book. This book was published after his death. It was not a book that would have been allowed to be published during the previous regime; it was considered a completely forbidden book and could not be published.

Of course, in this regard, Al Ahmad takes very good positions; however, you see that this Al Ahmad, who is committed to religion and to the traditions of Iran and is strongly attached to these traditions and committed to the Persian language and literature and is alien to the West and an enemy of Westernization, still thought, reflected, spoke, and judged about intellectual issues in the same Western intellectual atmosphere! This is what I mean when I say that intellectualism in Iran was born sick. As far as it has continued, the illness has persisted.

And what was this illness; that is, where did it manifest? I will mention this from the words of Al Ahmad. Al Ahmad states in the characteristics of an intellectual: one of the characteristics is the popular misunderstanding of an intellectual. He says that the meaning of "popular" is not that the public perceives the intellectual this way; rather, the intellectual himself sometimes thinks this way. There are three characteristics: first, opposition to religion and faith - that is, an intellectual must necessarily oppose religion! - second, an interest in Western traditions and Europeanization and such things; and the third is being educated. This is the popular understanding of intellectualism; these are the distinguishing features of an intellectual. That is, if someone is religious, even if he is the greatest philosopher, he is not an intellectual! Then he says that these three characteristics, which are the popular understanding and characteristics of intellectualism, are actually simplified versions of two other characteristics that can be expressed in scholarly or intellectual language. One of these two characteristics is indifference to indigenous traditions and one's own culture - which is no longer a popular discussion; this is certain - the other is belief in scientific worldview, scientific relationships, and the absence of fate and destiny; he gives examples as well.

This is while in the meaning of intellectualism, which was created and shaped in the West - which they brought from the West - this concept and this direction and this meaning do not exist at all! That is, why should an intellectual necessarily be indifferent to the traditions of his homeland and country and history; what is the reason? Intellectualism is that movement, job, work, and situation that deals with the activity of thought. An intellectual is someone who works more with his mind than with his hands; he works with his nerves rather than with his muscles; this is an intellectual. Therefore, in the classes of intellectualism that he later mentions in the chapters of his book, he starts from poets and writers and thinkers and such, to university professors, students, teachers, and journalists - the last being journalists and reporters.

Why should someone who works with his own thought necessarily be indifferent to the traditions of his birthplace and country and history, or even be an enemy of them, or must oppose religion? The answer to this question is found in the words of this late man himself or in some other words that have been said in these areas. The reason is that the day the concept of intellectualism - the concept of "intellectuel" - first emerged in France was a time when the French and European nations had emerged from the Middle Ages; they had cast aside and rejected the harsh, superstitious, and dark ecclesiastical Christianity. The scholar is killed, the discoverer and inventor are tried, exiled, destroyed, and scientific books are obliterated. It is obvious that a number of wise individuals would emerge and cast aside that religion which had these characteristics and was full of superstitions and things that no reasonable person would accept, and turn to new works and write the new encyclopedia of France and start great scientific works. It is obvious that their nature of work was to turn their backs on that religion. At that time, the Iranian intellectual imitator, who first brought the concept of "intellectuel" to the country and called it "monavvar al-fikr" and later turned it into "roshanfekr" - with the same anti-religious characteristics - brought it in opposition to Islam; Islam which had the most logical thoughts, the clearest teachings, the strongest arguments, and the most transparent ethics; Islam which at that time in Iran was doing the same thing that Western intellectuals wanted to do in the West! That is, at a time during colonialism, Western intellectuals resonated with the people of colonized regions. For example, if Spain had colonized Cuba and taken its wealth - the sugar of Cuba - Jean-Paul Sartre, the Frenchman, defended the people of Cuba and Fidel Castro and Che Guevara against the colonial government of France and wrote a book: "The Sugar War in Cuba."

In other words, the Western intellectual, at a certain point in time, fought against the government and the ruling system in favor of weak nations. This was done in Iran by Mirza Shirazi; by Mirza Ashtiani in Tehran; by Seyyed Abdol Hossein Lari in Fars. These individuals fought against colonial influence; but who helped in the conclusion of colonial contracts and the intervention of colonialism? Mirza Malek Khan and his ilk and many of the Qajar statesmen who were among the intellectuals. That is, the positions were completely reversed; however, in the same way, the fight against the superstitious religion of Christianity in Iranian intellectualism gave way to a fight against Islam! Therefore, one of the characteristics of an intellectual became that he should be an enemy and opponent of Islam.

Of course, even now, the remnants of that group of intellectuals from the Pahlavi era, from their writers, poets, researchers, editors, and biographers, sometimes explicitly follow the same line and praise someone like Mirza Fath Ali Akhoundzadeh as if they are praising a prophet! Because Mirza Fath Ali, due to his opposition to religion and his struggle against Islam, both sat at the table of the Tsars and ate their bread and accepted their help, and later, when the Bolsheviks and communists came to Khameneh, they held a concert in the name of Mirza Fath Ali Akhoundzadeh!

I myself, since I did not spend my childhood in that era, those who had spent their childhood there and remembered it told me this story years ago. They said that when during the time of Pishavari - in the years 1324 and 1325 - Tabriz and part of Azerbaijan were under the control of the advanced Soviet forces and occupied, and a so-called local government was formed and then was destroyed, at that time the Bolsheviks came to Tabriz and went to Khameneh and held a concert in the name of Mirza Fath Ali Akhoundzadeh! That is, one person has supporters in both the Tsarist government and in the Bolshevik government that overthrew the Tsarist government! You see a troubled personality! What is the common point between the Tsarist government and the communist government? Opposition to religion, opposition to Islam; and he was a herald of opposition to Islam.

Of course, in our view, in true intellectualism, there is neither opposition to religion nor opposition to devotion. A person can be both an intellectual, in the sense that everyone has defined an intellectual - someone who looks to the future, does intellectual work, and is progressive - and can also be religious, can be devoted, can be the late Dr. Beheshti, can be Martyr Motahhari, can be many of our completely faithful religious intellectual figures that we have seen. There is no necessity for them to be opposed to religion.

Interestingly, when they mention the condition of non-devotion as one of the essential and main conditions of intellectualism, the result is that Allameh Tabatabai, the greatest philosopher of our time, who has prominent philosophers and figures like Henri Corbin coming from France to stay here for several years to benefit from him, is not an intellectual; but for example, some chick poet who has no belief in the foundations of religion and the foundations of tradition and Iranian identity and has spent some time in Europe or America is an intellectual; and the longer he stays in Europe, the more intellectual he is! See what a wrong definition and what a vile and inappropriate current has been created in the name of intellectualism in Iran!

In the course of the great issues of the country, intellectuals were present with these characteristics; however, on the sidelines. In the case of the 28th of Mordad, no real struggle took place on the part of intellectuals. Of course, the 28th of Mordad is very old and far from our time; however, the severity of the Pahlavi regime's actions in the case of the 28th of Mordad caused intellectuals who may have had some interest in Dr. Mossadegh or the national movement to be completely sidelined, and no real struggle was carried out by the intellectual community; while the duty of intellectualism required them to enter the field in favor of the people and for their future, to write poetry, to write, to speak, and to enlighten the people; however, these actions did not take place.

Then we come to the 15th of Khordad, which was the greatest incident that occurred in our country in the present century between the people and the ruling regime. On the 15th of Khordad, Imam's speech (may his soul be sanctified) in Qom on the day of Ashura created such a stir that a massive popular uprising, without any specific leadership in Tehran, broke out the next day and the day after. Documents have also been published that show the government's discussions to counter this incident in those days. You see, that speech and that presence of the people created what kind of earthquake. The Imam's movement took place in the strongest form possible and mobilized the people. Then the regime's soldiers came to the streets and shot the people. Several thousand people - of course, we could never understand the exact number - were killed in this incident, and blood was shed.

Al Ahmad in his book "The Service and Betrayal of Intellectuals" says: Our Iranian intellectuals - I think he has such an expression - washed their hands with the blood of the 15th of Khordad! That is, they did not utter a word! These famous intellectuals; those who wrote poetry, wrote stories, wrote articles, and did political analysis; those who claimed to lead the people; those who believed that in any social issue, when they express an opinion in a newspaper or an article, everyone should accept it, they remained silent! These intellectuals were so far from the people that this distance continued.

Sometimes very small signs of them appeared; however, when the regime gave a hint, they would retreat! One of the interesting examples is a famous person who passed away a few years ago - now I do not want to mention his name; I will mention his book; whoever understands, understands - this person had written a play called: "With Hat, Without Hat" before the revolution. At that time, we read this play. He had defined the role of the intellectual in this play. In that symbolic expression, the "Without Hat" referred to the English, and the "With Hat" referred to the Americans! In the first act, the play depicted the period of English influence, and in the second act, it depicted the period of American influence, and in both periods, the classes of people, according to their positions, have movements and efforts; however, the intellectual - who is named "the gentleman above the balcony" in that play - remains completely aloof! He sees, perhaps says a word, but does not take any risks and does not enter. This play was written by that gentleman. At that time in Mashhad, after prayers, I was speaking to students and youth; this book came into our hands, and I said that this author of the book is also the "gentleman above the balcony"! In reality, he has portrayed and described himself; he is completely aloof!

Therefore, the worst thing that an intellectual community in Iran could do was what our intellectuals did during the fifteen years of the Islamic movement; they completely withdrew! The result was clear: the people completely cut off from them. Of course, to some extent, a very small number were in the field. Among them was the late Al Ahmad. Even his students, friends, and admirers did not enter this field; they acted very distantly.

The prisons were filled with people, with clerics, with students, with the masses, with workers, and with merchants; throughout these long years, the largest number of prisoners were those related to the Imam's movement; because their efforts were efforts that exhausted the regime. These famous figures that you all know went to prison and screamed for hours under torture; however, those gentlemen did not!

Of course, some of them who would fall into prison for some minor issue would almost immediately reach a confession letter! Now among the same famous figures who want to become the agents of the retrogression of intellectualism in our time - which I will mention later - there were those who wrote letters in prison and begged and cried! We know them very well; they themselves know that we know them; however, the youth do not know them. That group at that time showed that they were an unreliable class for the intellectual leadership of the people.

Of course, a year or two before the revolution, a movement arose. This movement was such that the wave of the movement, with its epistemological and ideological weight, entered various circles. Many were there who did not believe in Islam; however, due to the blessing of the movement, they came to believe in Islam. Many girls who had no belief in hijab became hijab-wearing without anyone even saying a word to them; that is, the Imam's movement, the Islamic movement, with its expansion, with its peak, with its martyrdom, with its increasing sacrifices, gained more supporters and a broader message. As the message of the revolution progressed, the message of the movement, which was the same message of religion and adherence to Islamic principles and teachings, also expanded and, of course, included a group. These individuals - specific persons that I do not want to name - entered the field until the revolution occurred.

After the victory of the revolution, intellectualism in Iran did not fall - intellectualism existed - but in reality, a new intellectualism emerged. During the revolution, poets, writers, critics, researchers, directors, filmmakers, playwrights, and painters emerged from two classes: one from the elements that the revolution had created, and the other from elements that were from the previous era and the revolution had completely transformed their essence. For the first time, after almost a hundred years of the beginning of intellectual movements in Iran, intellectualism became indigenous. Those who are more active in the fields of intellectualism and are at the center of the circle of intellectualism - that is, writers and poets - down to various classes, such as artists and painters, for the first time in this country thought like an Iranian, spoke like a Muslim, and produced intellectual, artistic, and literary products; this became a new era.

Of course, there were resistances, but the great revolutionary movement, which everything is a precursor to such a movement - you should know that every thought, every stroke of the pen, every action is a precursor to such a movement; like the movement that arose for the country during the revolution - had the greatest blessings for the country; thus, the wave of indigenous, Islamic, and native intellectualism, with its various branches in the country, overshadowed everything. From composers to musicians, to artists, to literati, to poets, they thought Islamic, they worked Islamic; at least they tried to be so. This was a very new and blessed phenomenon and continued.

The war became a field for the emergence of talents in this area. You know that one of the factors that brings art and literature to fruition in any country is hard events, including war. The most beautiful novels, the best films, and perhaps the longest poems have been written, depicted, and created in wars and on the occasion of wars. In our war, it was the same.

We were oppressed in the war. We were a nation that was collectively oppressed and wronged in the war. We had not attacked anyone; we had given no excuse to anyone; we had not even fired a single bullet into the borders of Iraq; however, the nature of the revolution was that we would be subjected to military attack.

One of the national leaders of Africa, Ahmed Sekou Touré, the President of Guinea, visited Iran several times during my presidency. One of the times he came was during the war. He said, do not be surprised by this war that has been imposed on you. Whenever a revolution arises against colonial and imperial powers and global dominant powers, one of the first things that is done against it is to set one of its neighbors against it! You too have fallen under this general law; do not be surprised. He told me: they have attacked you from one border; however, they have attacked me from five places, five countries! Because it is a small country and there are multiple countries around it. He, too, as a revolutionary who had come to power through a revolution, was attacked.

All the people participated in the war. In the incident of the war, the role of leadership was of utmost importance. The leadership brought with it the unified presence of the people. This mobilization, the formation of the IRGC, the tremendous movement of the army, the many works that were done, the help of the people, the companionship of the people, and so on, all intensified the atmosphere that intellectualism needed for its growth and flourishing in the right direction.

Of course, what I am saying is mostly a general issue - not universal - it has exceptions. During the same war, a writer and novelist wrote a story about the war; however, a story that condemns Iran in this war! See; when someone is unwilling to change their wrong positions at any cost, this is how it turns out. An Iranian whose Ahvaz, Abadan, and Khorramshahr have been subjected to military aggression by the enemy without his will and without his choice, and the Islamic Republic - from the leadership, from the government, from the armed forces, and from the people - has entered the field with all its being, what fault should be found with this? This novel, from beginning to end, criticizes the people and the officials of that region and mocks and insults them. Such things were issued from some of those old ones; however, the general trend was not like that. Until after the war and later, the general trend was correct.

In the realm of the movement of intellectualism, this was a progress and a development and a work consistent with the nature of intellectualism; because the nature of intellectualism is advancement, and it was correct that it should escape from that mistake and that illness; however, before the revolution, it was impossible; the conditions of the revolution made this transformation possible and practical.

One word from my discussion remains, and that one word encompasses all the matter that the name of this discussion is based on. That one word is this: since the end of the war, serious efforts have begun to return Iranian intellectualism to the same state of illness it had before the revolution - a return to the past, retrogression - that is, once again being at odds with religion, being at odds with indigenous foundations, turning towards the West, unconditional attachment and dependence on the West, accepting everything that comes from the West - from Europe and America - and magnifying everything that belongs to the foreign and belittling everything that pertains to the indigenous; which in its essence carries the humiliation of the Iranian nation and its foundations. I observe this.

Who are these people? Of course, one can guess. Here I cannot provide certain news. There are a number of people who "did not believe in God for the blink of an eye." These individuals have never brought faith to Islam or to Iran. The few years that these divine, Islamic, religious, and true intellectual currents existed in Iran, they did not even dare to raise their heads! They went to a corner, or traveled abroad and found their idol, their qibla, their beloved there. This nation, these traditions, this history, and this culture meant nothing to them; naturally, the future of this nation means nothing to them. They may speak, they may claim; however, the past does not show that they are sincere. They do not care about the people; they care about themselves.

Some are also those who may be influenced by these individuals; grandiose titles may affect their minds. Some may also - I cannot say for certain - be those who are hired. After all, one of the things that easily serves money is literature, pen, art, and poetry; it is not surprising! We had great poets who praised certain kings and lauded them; while they were deserving of curse and damnation. We had many individuals who, for the sake of money, for the sake of the world and for the sake of desires, supported vile and ugly foundations; while they should have distanced themselves from them. There is no dimension to it. Of course, I mentioned that this is not information; this is a guess. They want to turn the trend back. Our Muslim intellectuals should not allow this.

When I say they should not allow this, I do not mean that they should now rise up and fight; no, the field of intellectualism is not a field of fistfights and such. The field of culture and intellectualism is the same culture; its tools are cultural tools. Young people who are engaged in intellectual discussions should become active in the field. Young people! Build yourselves. If a nation wants to traverse the path of growth, perfection, and progress, it must be firmly based on a solid intellectual faith. That nation, that generation, that youth who wishes to entrust themselves to a hodgepodge of religion, faithless, without belief in moral, religious, and spiritual foundations, and to proceed with their words will be weak underfoot. The young generation will become what it was during the Pahlavi regime; despairing, useless, inclined to corruption, ready for deviation. At that time, to redirect them from that path to the right path, a great effort will be needed; a movement like the Islamic revolution is required, which does not easily occur in this century - or rather in centuries.

With all their might, they must preserve the current existence. They must not allow a group of individuals who for many years in this country, with the tools of intellectualism and cultural tools, could not serve these people - at least this is the minimum - in no important problem or issue could they accompany these people and keep pace with them; they could not even keep pace with the people, let alone be the leaders and pioneers of the people - they always lagged behind, always remained in isolation - to come back to this country and impose their shadow of thought and culture. What we see in some newspapers and cultural publications, things are being shown, they are seeking a return to the past; they are seeking a return to the state of intellectual illness. This issue is current. This is a very fundamental and important issue.

Of course, when the intellectual crowd wants to speak in these areas, they can sit and weave words, saying that it cannot be, intellectualism does not reconcile with religion; when religion comes to a country, it overshadows everything; as unfortunately, in a footnote, the late Al Ahmad has a sentence like this, which is a historical error. In my opinion, he has made a historical error here.

He says that during the Safavid era, because religion, secretarial, literary, and clerical positions were placed alongside governmental institutions - that is, for example, Mir Damad sat next to Shah Abbas - therefore, during that time, culture, literature, philosophy, and art declined! This is a mistake. There has not been a period in the entire history of literature like the Safavid era. The late Al Ahmad was not a poet; in my opinion, he made this statement out of ignorance. Poets opposing the Indian style spread a famous falsehood. The Indian style became prevalent during the Safavid era and continued until the Zand period and the early Qajar period; then another group emerged, which was called the modernists and the literary society of Isfahan. They opposed the Indian style very much. Of course, their poetry never reaches the level of the poets of the Indian style - the distance is very great - but they were opposed. From that time, it was propagated that the Safavid era was a period of decline in poetry! No; actually, the Safavid era was a period of glory and peak of literature and art. Of course, literature in the sense of poetry, not prose. Prose is good, but it does not have such a peak. The best tile work and the best architecture belong to the Safavid era. You cannot find anything like Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque - in one category - like Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan - in another category - like those buildings - in other categories; unless very rarely. These belong to the Safavid era.

Of course, the Safavids did not take poets to the court to pay them; but I really do not want to defend the Safavids either. We have had bad kings. A king is bad. A monarchy cannot be good. Monarchy, in the sense of ownership. The one who calls himself a king - that is, a monarch - claims ownership over the people and, so to speak, his subjects. In Islam, monarchy is rejected. That day in the Friday prayer, I also said that creation and guardianship are the opposite of monarchy. The Safavid kings were kings, and we cannot defend them at all; however, historically, it is a wrong statement to say that during the Safavid era, poetry and literature declined and deteriorated. I see that even now, following that era, on television and radio and here and there, sometimes the same statements are made. No; the Safavid era is not a period of decline. After Hafez, no ghazal poet of the greatness of Saeb has come. After Rudaki, no poet has written as many poems as Saeb; he has two hundred thousand couplets of poetry. Of course, the poet who is substantial enough to stand by his poetry and defend it is what is meant; otherwise, poets of nonsense can say whatever they want. No city has had as many poets, artists, scholars, philosophers, and jurists as Isfahan has had. What is this statement?!

In any case, the retrogression of intellectualism is this; that is, returning to the era of the illness of intellectualism; returning to the era of the indifference of intellectuals; returning to the era of the indifference of the intellectual apparatus and the intellectual current to all authentic and indigenous traditions and the history and culture of this nation. Today, anyone who raises this flag is retrogressive; even if they are called an intellectual, poet, writer, researcher, or critic. If they raise this flag - the flag of returning to the intellectualism of the pre-revolution era, with the same characteristics and with an anti-religious and anti-traditional orientation - this is retrogressive; this is called the retrogression of intellectualism.

You students, you are part of the intellectual class. You must think and work on this topic. Of course, if I want to speak in this area, with this one hour of discussion, the matter will not be finished; because there are many examples and cases; there are many words in this regard; there are various criticisms of the words of those who have spoken in these areas, which if I want to mention, it will take a long time. God willing, the continuation of the matter will remain for another opportunity and occasion.

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