The Islamic Arabs, or Arab Islam, have lost their battle for civilization and progress, and the proof of that is what we see today of backwardness and barbarism. This situation forces anyone who is concerned about his country and himself to ask the necessary and urgent question: How did this happen?

Arab Islam or Islamic Arabs struggle, fight, martyr and die in various battles, and most or almost all of these battles are directed against an imaginary external enemy that cannot be defeated firstly and is of no use in defeating it secondly, because in reality the external enemy is not responsible for the fall of Islamic Arabs into the abyss of decadence. The real battle must be against the real enemy, and the real, malicious enemy lurks in the depths of the peoples. It is the mind afflicted with coma and blockage, which has caused the loss of vision, logic and direction, and led to illusion, loss, ignoring reality and falling into the trap of duality and its madness, the madness of grandeur and the madness of victimhood, the madness of loving democracy and practicing its killing, the madness of boasting about independence and the right to self-determination coupled with the madness of fighting independence and the right to self-determination. Independence is necessary for Arabists, but Kurdish independence is harmful to them. The crushing of Arabs by others is bad, but the crushing of Arabs by others is good, and their crushing of each other is better.

The real battle of the Arabs is not with the other, but first and foremost, it is a battle with the twisted logic that has made this region a ship without a rudder or compass. In the eyes of the world, the Arabs have become nothing but strange creatures that wander aimlessly and gradually commit suicide! It is an inevitable battle to liberate the Arab mind from its dark, stifling prison, a battle to give thought, art, politics, economics, society, media and other areas of contemporary life roles and responsibilities that have become lost, scattered and confused. They think wrongly and work in the wrong direction, and the result is ultimately wrong.

The Kurdish issue has exposed the Arab mind, which was confused by the passion for “separation.” The Kurds are accused of trying to separate and of being passionate about separation. Therefore, they are traitors and are trying to destroy the country by dividing and fragmenting it. After promoting the principle of the right to self-determination (Wilson after World War I), and the decline of foreign colonialism, the right to self-determination took on another dimension that expressed itself through separation from an independent state, as happened with the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan and recently the separation of South Sudan from Sudan. In general, it can be said that the oppressive state, which does not have a democratic-legal content, is more productive of secession movements, or rather secession. The right to self-determination from the colonial powers is one thing, and the establishment of an independent state by secession from it is another thing. Every secession movement has its own characteristics and circumstances that deserve a special evaluation, historically, economically, humanly, and geographically.

The question that has not been seriously asked yet is, who is the separatist? Is it the Kurds or the Arabists, is it Bangladesh or Pakistan, is it the south of the two dams or the north of Sudan? Let us take South Sudan, for example. The north of Sudan colonized the south, so the south demanded secession and the formation of its own state since the 1980s. Anyone who follows the Sudanese civil war over secession finds that the basic problem lies in the nature of the relationship between the mother country on the one hand and the rebellious southern region on the other. Separation has become a natural result of the poor relationship between the south and the north, and the poor relationship is related to the crisis of the Sudanese regime and the way it deals with other Sudanese groups under the laws of Islamization of the state at the expense of the south with its ethnic and religious diversity, Christianity and paganism. Before Sudan split, it was not a single state, but rather a northern occupying or colonial force and a southern colony. The de facto division preceded the legal division, and the one who practically and legally divided it was the north, which abolished all possibilities of coexistence with the south, so that the south had no alternative. Only schism and separation.

Let’s come to the Kurds in Syria and the way the Arabists and Islamists deal with them. Is it permissible to blame the Kurds for their desire to determine their fate in the way they see fit, and not in the way the Arabists and Islamists see fit for them? The crisis with the Kurds was originally a crisis of Arab-Islamic failure to define and understand national unity. The least component of national unity is the geographical factor, and the most component of national unity is the human and psychological factor, the unity of will through coexistence!! And the unity of will is not achieved by coercion and breaking ribs, but rather by proving that coexistence is beneficial to all. Coexistence cannot be beneficial to all except through equality among all, and equality among all is not achieved by forcibly Arabizing the Kurd by the Arabists. Equality does not mean boxing the Kurd with the Arab belt and boxing the Arab belt with the Alawite belt. National unity is not achieved by stripping some of their citizenship or considering some as refugees or guests, i.e. second-class citizens. Failure to respect these principles represents the rock on which national unity cracks. The practical division always precedes the legal division, whether in Sudan, Syria, Iraq or Türkiye.

The ones who deserve the title of separatist are the Arabists and Islamists, who practically divided the country before dividing it legally. In light of equality, neither Kurds nor non-Kurds think about separation. Syria, the state, has turned into a carcass from which anyone who can escapes. There is no difference between the situation of the Kurds and the situation of the Christians, Amazighs or Copts in Egypt. The Christians separated and fled abroad because they do not have a sectarian geography like the Kurds, Alawites or Druze. What would the Alawites do if they were treated as the Kurds were treated???