Mamdouh Bitar, Samir Sadek
Is it possible to “live together in agreement but disagree?” This is an important question for societies that have not yet experienced democracy and equality, and for societies of equality and democracy, which have achieved the possibility of living together in agreement and disagreement simultaneously. Living together in this way has led to progress and advancement, while peoples who do not know agreement in disagreement have lagged behind. No society’s life is free of problems and issues. Societies that agree on disagreement have resolved their problems through peaceful means, while societies that are at war due to disagreement have been mired in problems that have brought these societies to the brink of extinction and suicide.
The societies and peoples of this region are still unable to grasp the concept of “unity in diversity and diversity.” They insist on imposing homogeneity based on a sick monotheism. They remain unable to heal the disease of forced homogeneity and homogeneity. For a Kurd or an Amazigh to coexist with an Arab, they must transform into an Arab. If they are unable or unwilling to, they will be forced to do so by the sword. Local theology advocates the necessity of homogenizing the nation, meaning naturalizing everyone with a single nationality, such as Arabization.
Imposing homogeneity is neurosis, stupidity, and ignorance. A glance at the dictionary reveals that homogeneity means something the people do not recognize. The homogeneity of two people means the union of two people in gender and other characteristics. How can groups be united in gender and other characteristics? Even twins were unable to do that. To summarize and clarify, I will cite what is stated in the sociology book for the preparatory stage: “We live in a society characterized by the diversity of its individuals and groups. We find differences in religious, national, sexual, educational backgrounds, and others. Each of these groups has different characteristics, backgrounds, and aspirations. In order for us to be able to live in a safe environment, both health-wise and educationally, we must understand the other despite all his differences, see what is special in him, and strive to find the common denominator between us, so that this forms the basis for harmonious living and building a solid foundation for the future. With acceptance of the other, we maintain an environment that suits all individuals and meets the minimum of their ambitions and needs. Here, internal balance is created and a common belonging is created for everyone. Only in this way do we enhance the sense of belonging and the legitimacy of existence in each individual. All of this creates in him the desire to invest his capabilities to serve his society.” This is sociology in the preparatory stage, which denies and rejects the claim that the people are homogeneous or must be Homogeneous. This claim represents the height of intellectual shallowness. It’s as if these people had never been to school. They visited and were taught all this without understanding it. Herein lies the greater problem: indoctrination without understanding.
The tendency toward homogeneity, which has even evolved into the imposition of homogeneity by force, expresses a deep, vague sense of a disintegrating state of affairs in Arab life. Arabism has portrayed the societies of this region as one homogeneous entity, while historically, they were neither one nor homogeneous. Before the establishment of the Arab Empire, i.e., the Caliphate, there were human units such as the Nile Valley, the Levant, or the Arabian Peninsula. There was no natural, voluntary unity between Egypt and Iraq, for example. However, after the conquests, Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, and others were transformed into parts of that empire, which also included India, Spain, and others. The establishment of this empire through military occupation was a result of the desire, will, and interests of the occupier, and was not an expression of the desire and will of the peoples of the colonies.
The feeling of disintegration is due to the assumption of the existence of a natural, spontaneous, voluntary unification between peoples and regions that, starting approximately 1440 years ago, were transformed into an administrative unit within the framework of the empire. This administrative unit was linked to the center of the Caliphate, just as India was linked to the center of the British Empire. This did not mean that India and Britain formed a human, geographical, or cultural unity. The Commonwealth is not a union or a unit, but rather a system in which different countries exist as members and not as parts of Britain