Statements of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in the presence of students and professors of Amir Kabir Industrial University

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

Being present among you dear youth; youth who, without any exaggeration, I must say are shining stars that have illuminated the sky of this country's future, is very sweet and beautiful. I hope that each of you, throughout the decades that you will live in this world, in this country, and among your people, will be able to continue to shine brighter and bring assistance to the hearts and souls of the good people of this country. For a group of youth, one cannot imagine any combination more beautiful than the combination of knowledge, awareness, research, enlightenment, religion, spiritual feelings, and revolutionary fervor.

As for this university, I hold it in great respect. I have frequently visited this university in the past. This place is, in fact, the mother of the industrial universities of the country; the oldest and perhaps the most active industrial university throughout different periods. A little while ago, in a meeting with our dear professors, the esteemed president of the university reported on the quantitative and qualitative advancements of the university in the years following the revolution, which is truly a source of joy and satisfaction. However, I am not satisfied with this alone; I wish for this university and all universities in the country to enjoy even greater scientific, practical, and research development, and I hope we will achieve this wish as well.

To begin my remarks, it would not be inappropriate to share two memories from this university with you. My discussion today has two parts: one part will consist of my remarks; the other part will be dedicated to answering questions. In the first part, the topics I will discuss will primarily relate to the university and issues of interest to the university and students.

The two memories are related to the early years of the revolution. One memory pertains to the numerous meetings we held with a group of students at this university. Some of those students are still here today, and some of them are among the officials of the country and relatively well-known figures. They had organized meetings and invited me on one side, and invited Banisadr - who at that time was not yet president - on the other side, to discuss the nature of the Imam's line. Some of them denied from the very first day that there was anything called the Imam's line. They asked, what is the Imam's line!? To clarify the nature and limits of the Imam's line, numerous meetings were held here that are unforgettable for me.

Another memory is that statement of mine which has been repeatedly quoted. It was at this university that I made that statement. During my presidency, I gave a speech at this university and was answering questions. One of the students in his written question asked me what job I intended to choose after the presidency - as all kinds of guesses were being made. I said I had not considered any job for myself and did not know what would happen; but let me say this much: if the Imam were to assign me as the ideological and political officer of the Zabol military battalion and say go there, I would take my wife and children by the hand and go to Zabol and become the ideological and political officer of that battalion. In other words, I have no specific desire in this regard.

Fortunately, I have had a heartfelt inclination towards students and the academic environment of this university in the past and I still do today. This university is a very good and valuable university, and I hope, God willing, it finds the opportunity to always play its prominent role in the responsibilities it has.

Now, the matter I want to share with you: I wanted to say this to the dear brothers in the professors' meeting, but there was no opportunity. Therefore, I will present it first, and that is that one of the important duties of universities is scientific innovation. The issue of stagnation is not only a plague of religious environments and religious thoughts; in all environments, stagnation, rigidity, and adherence to dogmas imposed on humans - without any sound logic following them - is a calamity. What is considered an ideal duty for a scientific and academic environment is to be innovative in scientific matters. This is the true meaning of producing knowledge. Producing knowledge is not just the transfer of knowledge; scientific innovation is of utmost importance. I say this because it must become a culture. This innovation is not exclusive to professors; its audience includes students and the entire academic environment as well. Of course, for scientific innovation - which in the culture of Islamic teachings is referred to as ijtihad - two things are necessary: one is scientific capability and the other is scientific courage. Of course, scientific capability is an important matter. Great intelligence, necessary scientific knowledge, and extensive effort to learn are factors that are necessary to achieve scientific capability; however, this is not enough. There are many who possess scientific capability, but their accumulated scientific knowledge has no application anywhere; it does not advance the caravan of knowledge and does not elevate a nation scientifically. Therefore, scientific courage is necessary.

Of course, when we talk about science, it may first seem that it pertains to industrial and technical matters - which are more emphasized in this university - but I say this in a general and absolute sense. Humanities, social sciences, political sciences, economic sciences, and various issues necessary for the scientific management of a society and a country require innovation and scientific thinking - that is, ijtihad. What we observe in our scientific environment - which I consider one of the major flaws - is that for decades we have been repeating foreign and Western texts, reading them, memorizing them, and teaching and learning based on them; however, we do not have the courage to question or challenge them! Scientific texts must be read and knowledge must be acquired from anyone; however, knowledge must, in its process of elevation, be accompanied by strong, steadfast, and capable spirits that have the courage to advance knowledge so that it can progress. Scientific revolutions in the world have emerged in this way.

My dear ones! Today, we need scientific advancement in our country. If we do not invest in science and strive and work today, our tomorrow will be a dark one. There are those who strive to slow down or halt the scientific process or disregard it. This is not commendable. Today, one of the obligatory duties for this generation - which primarily falls on you university students - is to strengthen the scientific foundation of the country. If we do not have knowledge, our economy, our industry, even our management and social issues will lag behind. Today, those who dominate the world; those mysterious hands that have control over the vast human and material resources of the world and are watching all oceans and all sensitive maritime straits and intervene wherever they want, have been able to bring humanity to this state through the expression of knowledge! Therefore, to counter their actions, knowledge is necessary. If you want to advance scientifically, you must have the courage for innovation. Professors and students must free themselves from the shackles of dogmatic definitions of scientific concepts imposed on them.

Of course, let it not be misunderstood; I do not recommend anyone to anarchistic scientific behavior or nonsensical scientific discourse. In every field, those who lack knowledge, if they wish to innovate in their own imagination, fall into nonsensical discourse. We see this in some fields of humanities and religious teachings. Inexperienced individuals, without sufficient knowledge and education, enter the field and speak, thinking they are innovating; which in reality is not innovation, but nonsense. Therefore, in scientific matters, I do not recommend this. One must learn; however, one should not merely be a consumer of the scientific products of others. Knowledge must be produced in the true sense of the word. Of course, this requires methodology and regulation. The important thing is that the spirit of scientific innovation must be revived and sustained in the university environment. Fortunately, I have felt this enthusiasm and desire in students and I see it in professors as well. These must work hand in hand to elevate the scientific level of the country. When knowledge is accompanied by the guidance of faith, correct emotions, and clear and conscious understanding, it performs great miracles, and our country can await these miracles.

I mentioned the issue of scientific devotion and submission to dogmatism in various sciences. Scientifically, I believe that a collective self-awareness must emerge in all scientific environments regarding the imported, coercive, and domineering culture of the West. This issue of cultural invasion that we have raised has caused some individuals to be greatly disturbed and say why do you call it cultural invasion!? While cultural invasion is actively challenging in the field, some have tried to find it in corners and edges! This cultural invasion is not limited to some superficial and apparent phenomena; the issue is that a cultural entity in the world, relying on oil, veto power, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, and political power, seeks to impose all the beliefs and frameworks it prefers on nations and countries. This is why a country sometimes falls into translated thinking and tastes. When it thinks, it thinks in a translated manner and takes the intellectual products of others. Of course, not the first-hand products; but second-hand, copied, and worn-out products that they deem necessary for a country and a nation and inject into that nation through propaganda, presenting them as new thoughts. This is a greater and harsher calamity for a nation than any other.

The thinking minds of our professors and students must analyze many legal, social, and political concepts, whose Western forms and frameworks are considered by some as divine revelation and cannot be questioned, in the vast research workshops of various sciences; they must question them; break these dogmas and find new paths; both for their own use and to propose to humanity. Today, our country is in need of this; today, our expectation from the university is this. The university must be able to provide a comprehensive and profound software movement for this country and this nation so that those who are diligent and hardworking can build the true foundation of a prosperous and just society based on Islamic thoughts and values. Today, our country wants this from the university. What work should they engage the university in that would divert students and professors from this path? Rest assured, one of the things that is currently of interest to intelligence services is this point: to see how they can divert the awake student and the aware Iranian university from the path that can lead to the elevation of the country and prevent it.

Of course, I have spoken many times about the imported thought and culture of the West. Some may interpret this as a form of bias and obstinacy. No; this is not bias and obstinacy. To chain a nation, nothing is more possible and easier than for the powerful of the world to shape the beliefs of that nation and country according to their needs. Any belief that compels a nation to rely on itself, trust in itself, move forward, and strive for independence and freedom is the blood enemy of those who want to seize the entire world with concentrated power and exploit all humanity for their own benefit. Therefore, they fight against that thought. In contrast, they try to promote various thoughts and beliefs among that nation that lead it to think in the way they want. When it thinks that way, it will act and move that way. This is a very common tool; it is colonial theorizing. This has been done since the beginning of the revolution in Iran and continues today. It has also been done in other parts of the world; it is not specific to this era.

In the nineteenth century, the English began colonial wars and invasions. They went to Africa, Asia, India, and other places, conquering countries and enslaving people. Today, tens of millions of African Americans who live in those conditions are descendants of the same slaves that these so-called civilized individuals of the nineteenth century pulled from Africa and from among their families and from the arms of their fathers and mothers to take them there for labor and servitude. These actions were blatant crimes. To justify these irrational, unlawful, and against all human laws actions, they fabricated so-called intellectual and enlightened theories. The very name "colonialism" is one of these theories; that is, we go to develop these regions! Exactly the same issue exists in the world today. Those who want to work on the lives and human resources of nations and exploit them, one of their tasks is theorizing for nations.

I want to draw the attention of our university environment and our student youth to be cautious of the imported Western theories that have no goal other than maintaining those domineering relations of the West with countries like ours. Of course, under various names, many words are spoken; however, the goal is nothing more than one thing. This revolution, this system, and this great popular movement have come and broken the dominance and authoritative control of the West in this country. Today, Western values do not exist legally and commonly in our country. Today, giving the country's benefits to foreigners is considered a reprehensible act in our country. Today, the table that had been spread in this country with thousands of temptations - especially by the Americans - is seen to be gathered up. This is not a small loss for the centers of global power and domination. What can they do to return the situation to its previous state? In the early days of the revolution, they naively came and started a war; but when their noses were rubbed in the dirt, they realized that this was not the way. Therefore, they resorted to cultural warfare. Cultural warfare is not easy; it is the work of the elite. Therefore, the elite sit down, think, and write prescriptions, and unfortunately, some inside relay those same ideas! They say things, and some translate them into Persian and give those words a local form! We must be cautious of these.

I have many serious words to share with the university environment and the university youth and professors. These words are serious; they must be confronted. One cannot just erase the issue and sit comfortably in a corner. Some individuals want to erase the issue. When we say enemy, they ask what enemy? When we say conspiracy, they say you are pessimistic! The issue cannot be resolved by erasing it; the issue does not get solved; one must think. Of course, the reason I share this with the university class is that I hold the university in high regard. I feel the value of the university for the country with all my being. The university provides the pinnacle of services that can be offered to a country. The university is very important for the country.

Of course, the revolution and the university have provided numerous mutual services. If we were to compile a list of the mutual services of the revolution and the university, it would be a long list. The university has provided great services to the revolution. From the year 42, when the Islamic movement emerged, the university was among the first places that responded. Of course, at that time, the atmosphere of the university was completely unfavorable; however, the university elements, both professors and students, did not fear the atmosphere and responded, albeit as a minority. Throughout the struggle, from 42 to 57 - fifteen years - one of the elements in the front lines was the university, which I witnessed closely. Today, there are some who present their own interpretations and explanations. They were not in the university, some of them were not even in Iran; they watched from Europe; sometimes they did not even have the patience to watch and were not aware of the news. Today, they come and talk about the services of the university! They were not aware of who the student was at that time, what they were doing, what was happening in the university, and what feelings, efforts, and struggles existed. It was said:

The muezzin does not know the time of the call to prayer, nor does he know how long the night has been.

Ask the length of the night from my eyes, for not a moment of sleep has entered my eyes.

In that era, we saw the university up close. When the movement began, the university gradually became molten; until in the last year, the presence of the university overshadowed many other environments. After the revolution triumphed, among the first individuals who took on very effective roles in the early steps of the victory of the revolution were elements from the university, some of whom I suddenly saw among the esteemed professors present in this meeting, and memories of those days of Imam's arrival and their roles revived in my mind; in places where neither name, nor bread, nor false fame was at stake; only pure and sincere struggle was visible. Then, during the war, three thousand student martyrs were sacrificed for the revolution and Islam, of which ninety belonged to your university. These are not trivial matters; these are the services of the university.

The revolution also provided great services to the university. In my opinion, the greatest service of the revolution to the university was two things: one is that it gave the university a sense of independent national identity and saved it from being attracted to and mesmerized by foreigners and being passive in the face of foreigners. It was like this before the revolution. The second is that it reconciled the university with the people. The university before the revolution was an isolated island in the midst of the turbulent ocean of the people. Leaving aside the exceptional elements of committed and faithful professors and students, at that time, the prevailing atmosphere of the university was such that if you entered the university, you had to turn your back on the public culture, public faith, public beliefs, and the people's attachments. The university environment for a large majority of professors and students was a space of purely personal concerns. Except for a few who were political and revolutionary, the concerns of other individuals were personal concerns. They did not have social concerns and did not feel the pains of their society. The most important wish for a student at that time was to obtain a means to escape beyond the borders. The university was enamored with the West and did not want to innovate. It was not that professors and students did not have the desire for this; the prevailing culture in the university was not this culture. The culture of dependency was heavily promoted by the Shah's regime. Those who claimed to be intellectuals within the university were not popular intellectuals; they were café intellectuals, detached from the people! Many of them left after the revolution and today in European countries, they are still café intellectuals, and their primary environment is the cafés! The university had such a situation. The revolution saved the university from these two great plagues; it made the university self-thinking, independent, self-confident, capable of production - of thought and knowledge - connected with various segments of the people, related to the people's culture, and connected to the attachments and loves and attractions present among the people. This is of great importance.

Let me tell you, these two points are important points that if there is a danger threatening the university from the foreigners and enemies, bombing these two essential and important centers is the goal; to take away the confidence from the university, to try to introduce translated thoughts and theories into the university environment and infiltrate them into the minds of students and professors, and to separate them from the faith and attachments of the people. This is the fundamental danger. The remedy is to maintain a strong intellectual connection with the masses and to cling tightly to the fundamental roots of the revolution. My dear ones! The connection with the revolution must be strengthened as much as possible. We, the Iranian nation, had lost our dignity, status, and identity in the international environment. The revolution restored this identity, status, and dignity to the Iranian nation.

Today, Western theorists and propagandists are trying to bring back the line of regression to the West - the line of returning to the same Western submissiveness - under the guise of a semi-intellectual theory; as a new idea; the theory of globalization and the theory of changing discourse. They say that the students of this era can no longer be the students of the anti-colonial era. They say that the era of opposition to colonialism and global arrogance and shouting death to global arrogance is over; the era of justice-seeking and fighting against capitalism has come to an end; the era of idealism and political disavowal and allegiance has finished; the new student discourse is the discourse of globalization, globalism, the discourse of realism, the discourse of joining the new world order; that is, becoming the backdrop for America! This globalization is called globalization; however, its essence is Americanization. Its meaning is that the Iranian nation, despite the struggles it has made, despite the flags it has raised on the peaks of victory, despite the great awakening it has brought about in Muslim nations, must once again become the backdrop and tool for securing American interests, just like before the revolution. The goal, stripped of any pretense, is nothing other than this; however, they want to hide this goal under beautiful names - globalization and transformation and progress.

Of course, for twenty years, Western institutions and theorists have been repeating these words. For several years now, within our own country, a number of ignorant and naive individuals, or those who are biased and captivated, have been expressing these words in various languages. The issue that is raised for the so-called liberal democracy - which is neither liberal nor democratic; it is the system of global arrogance and exploitation - and the Zionist companies and their allies is nothing other than the ability to control all the essential centers of global interests from their power centers, in a completely monopolistic and totalitarian manner. They accuse the revolution of monopolism so that the revolution rises against their monopolism. They introduce the world as a global village so that they can seize the leadership of this village. They give slogans of cultural unity and global cultural hegemony so that they can impose their culture on all the cultures of the world. In matters related to themselves, in the realm of Western culture, in the realm of cultures that have been the basis for colonialism, they do not allow the slightest challenge or dispute at the international level; however, they want you to believe in multiplicity and multiple interpretations in your own culture and beliefs and emotions and the fundamental principles of your own. They want you to allow anyone to speak and express their views according to their own interpretations regarding your faith and thought and culture; however, they do not allow such a thing regarding themselves! No one in the world is allowed to have a multiple interpretation of American interests. Wherever their interests dictate, they intervene decisively. If they are asked on what basis they have intervened, they create a theoretical justification for it! Just a few days ago, it was reported that a plan was proposed in the U.S. Congress that the President of that country should have the right to assassinate his opponents anywhere in the world! If they are asked why, they present a justification for it; a justification that serves American interests; however, they want you and me to look at that justification with the same perspective and accept it with all our being and faith. Is there any greater bullying than this?!

Four or five years ago, free elections were held in Algeria; however, when they saw that these elections would lead to the victory of a few individuals they did not favor, they organized and assisted in a military coup and suppressed the people. Everyone in the world acknowledged that those elections were free; a manifestation of popular sovereignty - and according to their own definition, democracy - but at the same time, they crushed and suppressed it! If someone asked why they were suppressing, they would present a justification: because the Islamists are coming to power and they oppose our views on global issues and democracy! This means they define their own cultural and intellectual foundations; they do not allow anyone in the world to challenge or dispute these foundations; however, they dispute your intellectual foundations and principles and values and solid and proven Islamic beliefs, and if you say why, they protest: it is a matter of multiple interpretations; this is one interpretation, and that is another interpretation; thus, they believe in cultural pluralism! If you ask why, they accuse you of being dogmatic and stagnant, saying why you oppose cultural pluralism; while they themselves do not believe in pluralism at all in defining their interests and the concepts that these interests are based on, and they do not accept it! These are the things that the Muslim youth and student must think about with awareness regarding these goals and ambitions, make decisions, speak out, and take action. Some individuals, under the guise of new ideas, translate those same words into Persian and discuss them and write articles about them, undermining all the values of a revolution and the solid intellectual foundations of a nation. While these are not new ideas; these are well-known words; the source of these words and the motives of their speakers are also clear. Those who produced this thought and culture aimed to dominate other nations and countries and cultures. Is it right for us to come and translate and repeat their words?!

Of course, the university can play an important role in this regard. I am an advocate for a university that is principled, aspiring, people-oriented, active, and intellectually vibrant. I never recommend a university and universities to be conservative and content with what they currently have in terms of thought, culture, and knowledge; no, the university must continually ascend the ladder of elevation and progress. I believe that conservatism and contentment with what we have, and lacking ambition and aspiration in all areas of thought and culture, is the death knell for the revolution. The revolution fundamentally means taking bold steps, which must be followed by other bold steps. Concepts must be understood correctly and with proper delineation of concepts, one must move forward.

Today, one of the commonly used terms is "reformism." I have said this in Friday prayers and have repeated it many times; I believe that reformism is an inherent part of the revolution. The revolution, in essence, means a great and forward-moving movement, which is never stagnant and is constantly progressive. This progressiveness is the same as reformism. Of course, if the Americans want to come and teach us about reformism and say you should do these things to be reformist, it is obvious that we will not accept it; because what they consider reformism is nothing but a regression to the past. If today, instead of a vibrant, independent, courageous, and popular government of the Islamic Republic in this country, a reactionary monarchy obedient to the West existed, they would consider that reformist. That kind of reformism is good for them. If that kind of reformism is good, let them act on it for themselves. Reformism - in the true sense of the word - is an inseparable part of the revolution, and a Muslim student cannot be non-reformist. Reformism is not a political pose; it should not be used as a political pose or a means to win the hearts of this or that; it should not be used to legitimize a face. Reformism is a duty and a struggle. The government and the nation are obliged to be reformist; however, they should not allow others to define reformism for them. They must recognize, seek, identify, and define their own reform. The opposite of this is American reformism and foreign-favoring reformism.

One of the things that is currently at the center of the enemy's psychological warfare - which I must mention - is that they say the third generation of the revolution has distanced itself from the ideas of the revolution! Then they attach a philosophy to it - like all the fabricated, false, and counterfeit philosophies that are only created to justify a false and incorrect statement - so that no one dares to say this statement is wrong. They say this statement is based on a philosophy! What is that philosophy? That philosophy is that in all revolutions, the third generation has turned away from that revolution! What falsehood, what nonsense! Which revolutions are you talking about? In 1789, a revolution occurred in France; however, neither the third generation nor the second generation turned away from the revolution; rather, the first generation turned away! After four or five years, a movement arose against the first revolutionaries, and they seized power for three or four years; then, after four or five years, they acted against them. By the time they reached 1802, the essence of this revolution had changed so much that someone like Napoleon was able to come and place the crown of kingship on his head! That is, a country that had fought against monarchy and had placed Louis XVI under the guillotine, after ten or twelve years, found itself in a situation where Napoleon Bonaparte came and placed the royal crown on his head and declared himself emperor, ruling in that country for years; and then, for nearly eighty or ninety years, various monarchies - of course, different monarchies and dynasties - were established in France, which were constantly at war, degradation, and corruption! That revolution did not reach the second or third generation; because the foundations of the revolution were weak. Today, after two centuries, some individuals in the Islamic Republic shamelessly come and present ideas that could not bring a revolution to fruition in its own time, with bold headlines to the Iranian revolutionaries; revolutionaries who have been able to create the greatest revolution with solid foundations and preserve it against storms for many years.

The October Revolution in the Soviet Union also did not reach the third generation. Not even six or seven years had passed since the victory of the revolution when Stalinism came to power. Stalin came to power, and today, anyone they want to accuse of being a bully, tyrant, oppressive, and distant from humanity is compared to Stalin! This is indeed true; Stalin was truly the embodiment of these bad traits. The so-called workers' government, which was formed for the weak classes, turned into a regime of absolute personal tyranny! Stalin did not even allow the Communist Party, which was the dominant force in the Soviet system, to make decisions in certain areas. With that harsh and immense situation, Stalin continued a thirty-year absolute regime; no one dared to protest. You may have heard about those strange exiles. The first book published after the collapse of the Soviet government that described the oppressive conditions of the Soviet Union was a novel - whose name I do not remember now - two volumes of which have been translated into Persian, which I have read; it is very well written and describes the situation of that time. This is related to the situation after Stalin, when the situation completely changed, but the method of that despotism remained. Therefore, the issue of the second and third generations and these statements was not the case; from the very beginning, everything was lost.

What philosophy is this, which has been matched with which revolution and where has it been experienced that the third generations of revolutions turn away from the revolution? No, this depends on what the ideas of that revolution are. If the ideas of a revolution can convince the second, third, and tenth generations due to their authenticity and correctness, that revolution will have eternal life. The ideas of the Islamic revolution are ideas that have eternal life. The quest for justice never becomes outdated; the quest for freedom and independence never becomes outdated; the struggle against foreign intervention never becomes outdated. These are ideas that will always attract generations. Their theorists sat down and wove these ideas, and the simple-minded individuals here believed them; they said the third generation of the revolution rejects the ideas, and as the attraction of the revolution diminishes, we can take the revolution from the hands of the revolutionaries and take it into our own hands! "Our own" means who? It means those who had dominated this country for years before the revolution! I say this thought is very naive and foolish. They should be assured that the same enthusiasm, excitement, faith, and emotions that existed in the youth of that day and enabled that work to be done, exist in this young generation as well. They should know that any stone thrown at the revolution will ricochet and return to their own heads. The revolution does not become outdated, and the fire of the revolution, when it engages with their decayed cotton warehouse, will still be fresh and will burn.

As for the university, I believe that the university has been and will continue to be the main base of the revolution. The young student will not allow the university to become a safe haven for the enemies of this nation and the deceived foreigners. One day, they made a wrong calculation and were slapped by the students themselves. Today, it seems that some again want to make the same wrong calculations; but they should be assured that they will again be slapped by the students themselves.

Of course, I believe that the university is self-sufficient and does not need to inject external assistance. The advantage that the university of 79 has over the university of 59 is this: today, the generation of professors is also the same committed and faithful generation that we had very few of in 59. I do not say we had none, but we had very few. Today, thanks be to God, our universities are filled with committed professors, committed students, and committed managers. Therefore, I am not worried about the universities. However, I tell you students, you are the sentinels of this fortress. Be careful that your trenches do not become weak. Continuously repair the trenches. The trenches are cultural and intellectual trenches; repair these. Self-building in thought, ethics, and revolutionary spirit among students is a duty - both for each student regarding themselves and in terms of the university environment. This self-building is the same as repairing the trenches and fortifications.

Today, the discussion of freedom is frequently repeated in the university. Some say freedom is not given, it is taken. I say freedom is both given and taken, and it is also learned. "Freedom is given" means what? It means that the authorities of governments do not have the right to deprive anyone of the natural right to freedom - that is, legal freedoms. Of course, this is not a favor that governments do; they must give freedom, and this is a duty and obligation. "Freedom is taken" means that every aware and conscious individual in society must be familiar with their right to freedom and its limits and demand it. And as for "freedom is learned," it means that freedom has its own etiquette and culture that must be learned. Without the culture and etiquette of freedom, this great blessing will not be provided for anyone and any society - as it deserves to be. If in society, the etiquette of freedom does not exist and individuals do not know how to use it, they can be assured that they will lose freedom - which is a necessity for an active, diligent, and progressive society - and from the perspective of Islam, this is a catastrophe for a society. Losing freedom is a catastrophe. From the perspective of Islam, any form of despotism and dictatorship - whether individual despotism or collective despotism; collective despotism is just like individual despotism, there is no difference; party despotism is also like individual despotism; sometimes it is even worse - and that one person wants to take the fate of the people into their hands based on their own whims is rejected, and if it occurs anywhere, it is a catastrophe. If we do not know how to deal with freedom and do not recognize the culture and etiquette of freedom, this will happen. Some want this to happen. Some want to create chaos and disorder by making us unfamiliar with the culture of freedom so that people become thirsty for a powerful despot. In some societies, the chaos and disorder reach a point where people wish a tyrant and bully would come to establish order! Some want to lead this society to that point. They want to use freedom in a bad and incorrect way and irresponsibly play with the thoughts, feelings, faith, and attachments of the people and the needs of society to incite the society. These are the enemies of freedom. Freedom should not be discredited. Freedom should not be turned into a dagger and aimed at the chests of the defenders of freedom. Freedom should not be played with. Those who mention freedom but are not committed to the culture of freedom are not supporters of freedom. They betray freedom. Freedom should not be a means of breaking the law and striking at the roots of the Islamic Republic system. In the East and West of the world, no system welcomes those who strike at the roots of that system; however, the Islamic Republic has shown this dignity. For a long time, some, in the name of freedom, did whatever they wanted with the faith and attachments of the people. The Islamic Republic also - for whatever reason - remained silent; the system tolerated and, in a sense, showed dignity.

As a servant to you and a brother to the present assembly and as someone who is devoted and interested in your dignity and loves the student body, I tell you: the Islamic Republic and its officials no longer have the right or intention to tolerate those who want to act against the interests of the people, against freedom itself, and against the destiny of this nation under the slogan of freedom. In their own circles, they have sat down and said we want to carry out a legal overthrow! This is strange! We do not recognize anything called legal overthrow. Any movement or effort aimed at overthrowing is considered an act of war. The punishment for a warring individual is known in Islam. This is not specific to us; we who have so many enemies and adversaries and have been besieged economically and propagandistically in the world must be more vigilant; however, others think the same way.

Since the beginning of the revolution, we have had two kinds of revolutionaries, and our revolutionaries have played two kinds of roles. Some revolutionaries were positive revolutionaries; some revolutionaries were negative revolutionaries. In the early days of the revolution, we referred to a negative revolutionary as one who withdrew from the field of work, effort, and movement, where there was trouble. They were revolutionaries, but they were seeking prestige and comfort; a revolutionary who said I have done my struggle before the revolution, now I want to be respected. Therefore, such individuals did not enter the field of danger and trouble, where four people might complain.

A number of others were positive revolutionaries. They were willing to spend their reputation as well. Wherever they thought their presence could help, they were present with all their being. If it was the front, they acted one way; if it was the university, they acted another way; if it was the cultural or political field, they entered the field. A negative revolutionary withdraws from work; however, if at any time a task falls into their hands, they take on a negative attitude and adopt an opposition-like stance; as if they have no responsibility in any work! A positive revolutionary, even if they are of no importance, considers themselves the most responsible individual and enters the field.

I want to tell you: my dear ones! Youth! Be positive revolutionaries. The university must cultivate positive revolutionaries; this nation and this history need you; you must prepare yourselves. If you are in the field, a very bright future awaits this country. Today, we are unique in some respects in the world; in some respects, we are unparalleled. We are unique in terms of geographical location, in terms of the connection and linkage of these two parts of the world, and in terms of being located in a region that has very diverse climatic conditions and is ready for all kinds of work. We are unparalleled in terms of some resources in the world; at least in terms of society, we are unparalleled in terms of the abundance of various underground resources in the world; oil and gas and such resources on one side, and human resources on the other. We have so many young people, and they are not just any young people; the Iranian youth are talented, intelligent, and aware.

If the nation and the government collaborate, with hope for the future, with unity and solidarity, and by discarding some of the words that the enemy wants to forcibly inject into the minds of this nation, they enter the field - as they are thankfully entering the field - and consolidate their efforts, you should know that in the not-too-distant future - which you will certainly witness - our country will reach the peak of elevation. This is our right and share from the human resources of the world. We have talent, we have history, we had a flourishing period in the fourth century Hijri - that is, the tenth century AD. You know that the tenth century AD is approximately the beginning of the well-known Middle Ages in Europe, which lasted for six or seven centuries. Of course, the Middle Ages did not start from the tenth century; it started before that; however, the tenth century is the peak of darkness in Europe. You know what was happening in your Iran and in the Islamic world during the tenth century AD and the fourth century Hijri? The fourth century Hijri was the flourishing century of science and philosophy in your country and in the Islamic world; the century of Avicenna; the century of Farabi; the century of Razi; the century of great divine philosophers; the century of personalities whose scientific works still dominate the world to this day. Today, Iran is undoubtedly much more prepared than it was during the time of Avicenna, Farabi, Khwarizmi, Razi, and Sheikh Tusi to nurture such great personalities. Why do they not want to allow it? If they do not want to allow it, why should you and I submit? Why should you and I act exactly as the political planners of America and the Zionists and others need for their renewed dominance over Iran?! This is a disgrace! Even if no one understands, it is a disgrace in our hearts. The products of our universities must be positive revolutionaries, active revolutionaries, responsible revolutionaries, committed and hopeful revolutionaries; and I hope it will be so. When I look at the university environments - including this dear university environment - I see this.

The last point pertains to the Olympiad students and outstanding students in this university and some other universities. Let me mention two points regarding them: the first point is that the government and officials must appreciate them and provide them with facilities. The outstanding minds and intellects are not only those; among the young and old students and professors, we have many individuals who are like this - whose excellence has been clearly demonstrated in exams, experiences, and various competitions - the government must appreciate them and provide the means for their scientific advancement so that they do not feel the need to distance themselves from their environment.

The second point is that they themselves should consider this intelligence quotient and memory and talent as national wealth; these are national treasures; they are not personal treasures. They should use them for their country, nation, and family; these are divine trusts and gifts; they are not private property. They should not say the government did not reach us. Even if the government did not reach them, this is not an excuse. I mention this so that these good young people, who God willing will become prominent scientific figures in fifteen or twenty years, remember our words today.

What is your opinion about publications and the press? Do you approve of the judicial approach?

Many people ask me this question. My answer is this: I consider the press to be a necessary and indispensable phenomenon for our society and for any society that wants to live well. I see three main duties for the press: the duty of criticism and oversight, the duty of honest and transparent information dissemination, and the duty of proposing and exchanging opinions and thoughts in society. I believe that freedom of the pen and expression is the undeniable right of the people and the press. I have no doubt about this, and this is one of the explicitly stated principles of the constitution. I believe that if a society loses free and developed press and free and understanding pens, it will lose many other things as well. The existence of a free press is one of the signs of a nation's growth and truly itself is a source of growth; that is, on one hand, the growth and freedom of the nation brings it into existence; on the other hand, it can also increase the growth of the nation. Of course, I believe that alongside this value, there are other values and truths that should not be trampled upon by the freedom of the press and freedom of the pen. The great art is to be able to preserve both freedom and understand the truth, to have free press, and not let those harms touch it. This is how one should act.

Regarding judicial intervention, I must say that in the work of the court and judicial ruling, no one - including myself - has the right to intervene, nor do they intervene. The judge must be able to decide freely. There should be no pressure against or in favor of the judge. There should be no pressure against this ruling or that ruling. There should be no atmosphere created against the judge. The judge must be able to issue a ruling according to the law, free from the pressure of the atmosphere. Therefore, intervention should not occur, and as far as I know, there has been no intervention in the courts related to the press. I believe that oversight of the press is a necessary duty and a required task. This is the essence of the constitution and the law of the press and ordinary law as well. Without oversight, the national interests and demands will certainly not be met by the press. Some individuals think that public opinion is a free and unrestrained area that they can do whatever they want with! Public opinion is not a laboratory mouse that anyone can do whatever they want with! With incorrect analyses, rumor-mongering, slander, and lies, they harm the faith, emotions, beliefs, and sanctities of the people. This is not correct. Therefore, oversight is necessary so that these things do not happen. This is a duty, and if it is not carried out, it raises the question of why it is not carried out. Who is responsible? Primarily, the government agencies and then the judicial agencies. If the government agencies fulfill their duties, it will not be time for the judicial agencies. If the government agencies, for any reason, cannot carry out the tasks assigned to them, the judge must step in. The judge is like a referee; one should not expect the judge not to rule. A referee in a sports field warns the offending player and gives a warning. If the warning is ineffective, they show a yellow card. If it is still ineffective, it is natural that the law shows a red card to them. There is no choice. One should not complain about the judge at all. Anyone who irresponsibly wants to take the lead in guiding public opinion does not have the competence for this task. Public opinion must be guided by the press. If someone irresponsibly and, God forbid, maliciously wants to take this guidance into their own hands, they will certainly make a mistake. No one allows a drunk and sleepy driver to drive. Even if they are allowed to drive, you would not get into their car.

Anyone who takes the pen in hand must have piety, honesty, chastity, and fairness towards others as part of their second nature. In a talk I gave at the beginning of this year, I said that some newspapers are bases for the enemy. Some individuals were surprised! I recently heard that documents from the CIA regarding the role of that organization in the press before the 28th of Mordad have been published. Of course, I have not seen it myself; but what has been reported is very interesting. It shows which newspapers were spread in Tehran with the money and guidance of the CIA to pave the way for the coup of the 28th of Mordad. Of course, we have seen examples of this in other places: during the time of Salvador Allende in Chile, one of the important roles was played by newspapers; to portray Allende's two-year government as unsuccessful and mobilize all thoughts against him and ultimately bring that calamity upon him. Of course, at that time, no one confessed; but later everyone understood who the players were and what their motivations were and from where they received their orders and who facilitated it. One cannot wait for a calamity to occur and then discover it. Today, we must see and act with open eyes.

Are the institutions and agencies related to the leadership under supervision and inspection, or are they above supervision? Are your representatives in the institutions and provinces being supervised?

I say that no one is above supervision. The leader himself is not above supervision; let alone the agencies related to the leader. Therefore, everyone must be supervised. Oversight of those who govern - because governance naturally means the accumulation of power and wealth; that is, the assets of public funds and social and political power are in the hands of some rulers - is necessary and obligatory to ensure that they act as trustees and do not abuse their power and their souls do not rebel. This is a necessary and obligatory task and must be done. Of course, this division - between the agencies under the leadership and those not under the leadership - is a wrong division; we do not have such a thing. According to the constitution, the three branches of government - executive, judicial, and legislative - are under the leadership. Other agencies are the same. Being under the leadership does not mean that the leader manages an agency; however, in any case, it does not matter; they must be supervised. Of course, the oversight in our country is unfortunately still not specialized, scientific, and effective. In some cases, it is not impartial either; we must admit this. However, all government and public institutions should not be afraid of accountability. It is said: "Those whose accounts are clean have nothing to fear from accountability." They should clean their accounts so that they do not fear accountability. Therefore, it is not the case that the agencies related to the leadership are exempt from oversight; no, in our view, inspections are necessary. Of course, they are also present and are being supervised. However, this does not mean that no errors occur; but it is not due to negligence and allowing errors to happen.

How do you stay informed about the affairs and issues of society? Does everyone tell you everything?

I try to stay in touch with realities through both formal and informal channels. The reports that are given to me are very diverse. They include reports from various intelligence agencies - whether the information related to the Ministry of Intelligence, or that which pertains to the intelligence of the armed forces, or that which relates to some of the news agencies of government agencies - and part of our office's work is information dissemination; like the public relations office and the inspection office, which are in constant contact with the people through letters and phone calls. I have numerous meetings with various individuals and social groups and receive many letters. In any case, my ear is an active ear; however, at the same time, I do not claim to know everything. It is also impossible to know everything; of course, I may know some things and not know others. I believe that for any official in a government agency - whether it is the responsibility I have or the responsibilities of other officials - detachment from realities and distance from the people is a factor of decline. I believe that an official should not allow themselves to be distanced from the realities of society and from the news that is circulating in society. Of course, detachment from the people - which in the expression of Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) is the veil from the people; that is, having a veil and not facing the people at all - is very dangerous. The Imam said to Malik al-Ashtar: "The lack of knowledge of affairs"; due to detachment from the people, a person's awareness of everything diminishes. Of course, I also visit the homes of individuals. One of the things that, thanks be to God, I have done from the beginning of my presidency until now - of course, sometimes more, sometimes less - is that I visit the homes of individuals from the masses and sit on their carpets, talk to them, and experience their lives up close. Of course, let me tell you, being informed about the people is one aspect of information; the other aspect is being informed about the enemy. No one has asked me whether I am informed about the enemy or not; but I myself say: yes, I am not unaware of the enemies. Many think that sometimes we shoot arrows into the dark and talk about the enemy. No; it is not shooting arrows into the dark; we know and feel that the enemy is present. In fact, just a few days ago, some American newspapers reported on the statements of the head of the CIA, which were also reflected in some of our newspapers. He said that we have activated our agents in a number of countries - including Iran - and mentioned that we have agents whose mother tongue is that of those countries. Then, specifically mentioning Iran, he said we have agents whose mother tongue is Persian and their average age is thirty. It may raise a question for some as to why they say these things. When information becomes abundant and overflows, its importance diminishes for the owner of that information; thus, many things can be understood from the corners and edges of the statements. Yes, not seeing the enemy is not an art.

During the time of Hafiz, four emirs ruled over Shiraz one after another, one of whom was Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq - although his name is Sheikh, he was not a Sheikh - and Hafiz mentioned his name in several places because he was very fond of him. Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq was young, handsome, and very indulgent. Amir Mobarez al-Din - who was one of the kings of that region - moved from Kerman towards Shiraz and intended to capture this city. To attack Shiraz, he was coming quietly so that the Shirazis would not realize and he would suddenly besiege Shiraz, denying them the opportunity to defend themselves. Some people became aware of the situation, and the agents of the government also understood the matter; however, no one dared to inform Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq of the situation. The enemy reached close to Shiraz and set up camp in front of the city. The minister of Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq finally saw that this could not continue; tomorrow the enemy would attack the city, and the king was unaware that the enemy was behind the city. Is it an art for a responsible person to not know where the enemy is?! The minister came to Shah Sheikh Abu Ishaq, but saw he did not dare to tell him directly! So he entered through the side; he said the weather is very nice and spring-like, and the desert is green; do you not wish to go up to the roof of the palace and see outside? Under this pretext, he took the king out of the palace and brought him to the roof. When the king went up to the roof and looked, he saw people camped in the desert. He asked whose camp it was. He said it belonged to Amir Mobarez al-Din. He asked when they arrived. He said - for example - ten days ago. This king, who was without honor and incapable, instead of immediately coming and putting on his battle clothes - of course, he later fought and was initially captured and then killed - said, "They did not feel sorry for themselves to come to war in this pleasant spring weather!" This is how one cannot take on important responsibilities in society.

What is your view on violence? You speak of mercy, logic, and dialogue, yet still, some from various factions beat the drum of violence. How should this be treated?

Violence can be viewed from two perspectives; or we can say it can be considered in two phases. One phase is ethical and legal, and one phase is propagandistic and psychological warfare. These should not be mixed together. In the legal and ethical context, our duty regarding violence is clear. I have said many times that anyone who illegally violates the rights of individuals and resorts to violence is condemned. Islam's view is the same. In Islam, even punishments such as limits and retribution are meant to prevent violence. Someone who has murder and theft in their nature is given limits and punishments to prevent them. There is no discussion about this. I have said many times, including in Friday prayers, that I oppose equating the meaning of violence with Islamic punishment; regardless of which faction it comes from, it does not matter. When a bad act occurs, it cannot be said that, for example, a good young man, or a young man from a certain faction, or a young man affiliated with a certain group did this act, thus the badness of that act is somewhat diminished; no. When it is bad, it is bad; there is no discussion about this. However, there is also a propagandistic phase that has launched a psychological war against the revolution. Who were the first to introduce the name violence as a negative point for our country in the world? Those whose hands are stained to the elbows in the blood of innocents - that is, the Americans - those who have illegally assassinated anyone they wanted in the world; but now they want to legalize it! These are the ones who talk about violence and condemn it. The Zionist radio and the Zionists are the ones who discuss violence. These are presented as political and propagandistic issues. It is not something that one can consider as a reality to express an opinion about. One should not be negligent about this either. Some individuals are thirsty for power, or are sick, or are foolish; thus, they repeat those same words. They accuse the great Imam, who was the embodiment of mercy and compassion, of violence. The Imam was a knowledgeable person and truly the embodiment of mercy; a man who led the revolution with such firmness, was so precise in the emotional matters. I have experienced this several times with Imam.

On one of my trips to one of the provinces of the country, the mother of a prisoner who later became a martyr came to me and said a sentence that expressed her devotion to the Imam and emphasized that I should tell him. I went to the Imam and told him; I saw that he became like a very distressed person, and tears filled his eyes. During the war, when the children brought their piggy banks to donate to the front, I went to see the Imam the next day. He had seen this scene on television and was so excited and affected that I was truly astonished!

The Imam was the embodiment of feeling. A compassionate, kind, and extremely emotional person. To accuse such a person of cruelty. Why? Because during his time - in the case of Operation Mersad - the law was executed against a number of criminals and murderers. A number of individuals had fought against these people, for whom there was a specific punishment in the law. The Imam had executed the law. Of course, the Imam did not do this; the responsible agencies of that time did it; however, they accused the Imam of cruelty! Today, some ignorant, foolish, or uninformed individuals repeat these things inside. This is truly an injustice. Someone comes and presents this - which is a propaganda dispute and a psychological war against the revolution and the Imam and Islamic values - as a fight against violence. What does this have to do with the issue of violence? Everyone's view on violence is clear. At that time, the Imam issued a stern statement against those who sometimes acted harshly against individuals who did not observe appearances, because they were resorting to violence and their actions were illegal and illogical.

What facilities have been provided for the employment and marriage of students?

In a meeting I had recently with the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, I again emphasized the issue of employment for graduates - which I consider to be a very important matter - and I am following up on it. Recently, I also advised some high-ranking officials in the country, especially the Supreme Council of Employment, that thankfully they have taken action and are doing things. We hope that part of the employment problem for specialized forces - which is very important - will be resolved through the efforts of the parliament, the government, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, and the relevant officials. Of course, part of this is related to the overall economic situation of the country, and one cannot hope to resolve all problems in the short term; however, certainly important works can be done. Of course, the issue of employment is related to the issue of marriage, and one of the obstacles to marriage is this employment issue; however, regarding marriage, I say: my dear ones! Do not underestimate the cultural obstacles to marriage. Marriage is necessary for the youth, and the youth want it. Of course, there are obstacles, but not all obstacles are economic. Economic obstacles are part of the problem. The main obstacles are cultural - habits, boasting, accumulation, envy, and extravagance - these are what prevent the necessary actions from taking place. You and your families must open these knots. I am very pleased and happy with the student marriages that are held every year. If they get used to conducting marriages simply, without adornment and without formalities, I think many problems will be solved. The essence of marriage in Islam is simplicity. It was the same in the early days of the revolution; however, unfortunately, this culture of accumulation, boasting, and capitalism has complicated things a bit. Unfortunately, some officials have created problems with the extravagant marriages of their families.

And peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.