Seven Incorrect Reasons by Khamenei Against Promoting the English Language

In a series of oppositions, Ayatollah Khamenei has previously opposed humanities, student camps in Kish, and music concerts at universities. Recently, in a surprising statement, he opposed the expansion of the English language in Iran. He did not call for the abolition of English but criticized its promotion and spread for 'self-made' reasons outlined as follows: First: The irrationality and unhealthiness of promoting the English language. He states: insisting on promoting the English language in our country is an unhealthy act... Are we to promote their language with our own money, with our own expenses, with our own problems? Is this rational? I don't understand! Second: The language of science is not limited to English. He rightly states that the language of science is not only English but concludes: why are other languages not taught in schools as a designated language? What insistence is there on [English]? Why is French or German not taught? Third: English is a legacy of the tyrant. This [teaching of English] is a legacy of the tyrant era, this is a legacy of the Pahlavi era. Fourth: Eastern languages are the languages of science. Without being able to provide an example, he claims that the languages of advanced Eastern countries are also foreign languages; these are also languages of science. Fifth: Objection to teaching English from lower levels. He says: We are constantly bringing [teaching English] down to lower levels; in elementary schools and kindergartens! Why? Sixth: A general ruling against foreign languages in other countries. He states that: in other countries, they pay attention to this issue and prevent the influence and interference and development of foreign languages. We... have opened the field. Seventh: Retaliation under the pretext of creating problems for the Persian language. He says: We want to promote the Persian language; we must spend and work hard. [When] they abolish the language chair somewhere, we must make diplomatic contacts to ask why you abolished the language chair. They do not allow it. Seven incorrect propositions: First: Why should promoting the English language be considered an 'unhealthy' action? Does language acquisition harm human health? Second: Why is promoting the English language irrational? At least he admits in these statements that English is one of the scientific languages of the world. Given this, why is promoting a scientific language irrational? Third: Khamenei claims that the promotion and expansion of the English language is a legacy of the Pahlavi (tyrant) era and concludes that it should be opposed. If this statement is correct, then all lasting legacies of the Pahlavi era, such as the judiciary, modern schools, universities, iron melting industry, airplanes, trains, etc., should also be opposed. Secondly, this proposition can only be made by someone who is unaware of international relations after humanity's ability in navigation. From the 15th century onwards, due to European states' ability to traverse seas and oceans, four major languages—Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English—spread beyond their borders. As a result, we see that the language of Brazil is Portuguese, and the language of many Central and South American countries is Spanish. Likewise, English is the language of the United States, and French and English are the official languages of Canada. The spread of the English language is not influenced by the will of the Pahlavis but rather by the relationships of the colonial era, especially after World War I, when British influence and then American influence increased in Iran. Evidence for this claim is that before then, the common foreign language in Iran was French, which gradually gave way to English. Furthermore, if promoting the English language is a legacy of the Pahlavis, it is evidence of their foresight and insight that, with the expansion of this language, Iran was propelled from the traditional era to the modern era. Fourth: Khamenei claims that Eastern languages are also languages of science. This statement itself is evidence that the speaker does not understand the meaning of 'scientific language.' Although, for example, science and technology are currently flourishing in Japan, can anyone claim that the Japanese language, with its difficult script, is a scientific language? Khamenei has not been able to provide a single example to prove that we have a scientific Eastern language. Despite the great efforts of Iranians throughout the history of human knowledge, today, although Persian can be counted among the languages of poetry, literature, and art, it cannot be considered a scientific language of the world. A scientific language is referred to as a practical language that scientists can generally communicate with. With this description, which Eastern scientific language can currently be found? Fifth: Khamenei objects to why English is now being taught from lower levels, such as from kindergartens. This statement is a sign of ignorance of scientific findings, as most children aged 3 to 5 can easily learn five languages. If Khamenei had said that attention should also be given to other languages alongside English at lower levels, it would have shown his wisdom and insight, but the objection that English should not be started from lower levels is akin to saying that the mother tongue should not be started from lower levels. Why does Khamenei sometimes speak in Arabic? Why does he not have this sensitivity towards Arabic? Is Arabic not a foreign language? Sixth: Khamenei has made a general claim without providing examples that: 'in other countries... they prevent the influence and interference and development of foreign languages.' a) As can be seen, this statement is general, meaning that in all countries of the world, they prevent the development of foreign languages. Is this claim true? If Khamenei's example is North Korea, then yes, this statement is correct; otherwise, in most countries of the world, attention to an international language, especially English, is included in their educational systems, to the extent that in a country like Finland, students graduate knowing or mastering four or five languages. Has it ever been seen in countries like France and Spain (which are considered international languages) that they have prevented the teaching of, for example, English? If not, where did Khamenei come up with such a weak statement? b) If Khamenei's claim is that the native language should be purified from the pollution of foreign words, this is a correct statement that no one opposes, but if his claim is (which it is) that foreign language influence and development should be completely prevented in Iran, then this statement is equally true regarding the Arabic language. So why is the teaching of Arabic mandatory in some levels? Why does Khamenei sometimes speak in Arabic? Why does he not have this sensitivity towards Arabic? Is Arabic not a foreign language? Now, if it is said that Arabic should be learned because there is a necessity in it (for example, the Persian language is mixed with Arabic or it is the language of the Islamic faith and the religion of the majority of Iranians), the same necessity for learning English is embedded in this scientific-practical language. Would it not have been better for Khamenei to place himself in the position of an enlightened leader instead of attacking the English language, recommending that Iranian children be raised multilingual in kindergartens? What kind of claim is it that the audience is led to believe that most countries of the world prevent the teaching of Persian? Yes, perhaps there are cases where some Arab countries (not European) have created this prohibition for political reasons, but generalizing it to most countries of the world is contrary to reality. Khamenei's attack on promoting English from childhood is akin to hitting water in a mortar and shows his ignorance of the advancements in world technology. Thanks to the learning technologies now available to everyone, it is even unnecessary for your child to learn a language in kindergarten. A small computer or even a smartphone can teach your child English. Seventh: The claim that in other countries, there is a prohibition on teaching Persian is an extreme exaggeration. a) In Egypt, after nearly four decades of severed political relations, there are now about a thousand Persian language learners. In the United States (the Great Satan!) and England (the wicked!), the learning of Persian has reached the point where both countries have Persian-speaking spokespersons. The Persian language is of interest to most countries in the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world. What kind of claim is it that the audience is led to believe that most countries of the world prevent the teaching of Persian? Yes, perhaps there are cases where some Arab countries (not European) have created this prohibition for political reasons, but generalizing it to most countries of the world is contrary to reality. b) Furthermore, even if other countries prohibited the teaching of Persian, is this a justification for us to prohibit learning English, which is the most scientific, practical, widespread, and international language, from kindergarten? Is this not raising a wall of ignorance? A Clear Stance from Rouhani on the English Language: There are many such oppositions from Ayatollah Khamenei, but his recent opposition to focusing on and promoting the English language was so immature and unskillful that it immediately prompted a reaction from Hassan Rouhani. With strong logic, he cites the Indian subcontinent as an example and states: 'Today, the Indian subcontinent, with over two billion people, has been very successful in the field of IT due to its mastery of the English language... We must learn a language that creates more jobs for the future young generation and strengthens our economic communications.' Rouhani's statements are significant for three reasons: First: Rouhani's statements are clearly a direct and immediate response to Khamenei's remarks and have no other audience. Second: His example from the Indian subcontinent contains an important point. He could have cited the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, but he deliberately chose an example from a place where the tragic and bloody injustices of the British against the people there are well known. With all the injustices inflicted by the British on India, why did India not ban the English language out of hatred for the British? Third: The close relationship between India and the English language, alongside other factors, has now led, as Rouhani states, to India being considered one of the leading countries in the IT industry. If India had listened to Khamenei's advice and replaced English with German or Spanish, could it have achieved this remarkable success? Should hostility towards the British government be answered with hostility towards the scientific-practical English language? As Rouhani says, 'We must learn a language that creates more jobs for the future young generation and strengthens our economic communications.' This is the secret that Germany, France, Spain, and all the world, except for Ayatollah Khamenei, have understood and have not gone to war against the English language, even if they are hostile to England and America.