تعج منطقتنا بظاهرة مجتمعية عجيبة هي رفض الرأي الآخر في العالم العربي. وهي في حقيقتها ليست سمة «فطرية» في الشخصية العربية، بل هي نتيجة تراكمية لسياقات تاريخية وسياسية واجتماعية، وأسباب معقدة ومتشابكة، تاريخية واجتماعية وسياسية. فمن الناحية السياسية عانت أغلب المنطقة العربية من الاستعمار والاستبداد الأجنبي والعثماني. ومن الناحية الاجتماعية والثقافية، البنية القبلية والعشائرية التي ترتكز على تقديس الانتماء والولاء للجماعة وليس للفرد، والتي يُعتبر فيها الرأي المخالف «شَقًّا للصَف» و«تقسيمًا للجماعة»، مما يهدد تماسكها وأمنها. هذه الثقافة امتدت إلى أشكال حديثة من «الجماعات» (حزب، طائفة، عائلة كبيرة). كما ساهمت التربية الأسرية والمدرسية التي تقوم على التلقين والحفظ وليس على النقد والتحليل والسؤال، وعلى الطاعة العمياء للأب والمعلم دون مناقشة، مما يخلق جيلاً غير معتاد على تقبل الاختلاف. كما أن الاستعمار والسردية الغربية التي وصمت ورسّخت فكرة تخلّف المنطقة العربية وثقافتها أدّت إلى تبني بعض من تلقى تعليمه في الخارج أو تأثر بهذه السردية الغربية لتأصيل القبول بكل شيء يصلنا من الغرب، والانبهار به ورفض ما سواه، والاستسلام لما يراه واقعاً لا يمكن تغييره.
كذلك ساهم التفسير الأحادي للنصوص وتقديم تفسير واحد مقدس للنصوص الدينية، واعتبار المخالف مبتدعًا أو ضالًّا في تأصيل هذه الظاهرة الثقافية. كما ساهمت معظم وسائل الإعلام، إما حكومية أو تابعة لأحزاب وتيارات محددة، في تفاقم هذه الظاهرة. فهذه الوسائل الإعلامية نادرًا ما تقدّم منصات حيادية، حيث تقوم على تعزيز وجهة نظر واحدة وتُشَيطن الآخر، ولا تُقدّم نموذجًا للحوار بين الأضداد. كل ذلك فاقم من ضعف ثقافة الحوار. وأصبح هناك خلط شائع بين «الاختلاف في الرأي» و«الخلاف الشخصي»، حيث كثيرًا ما يتحوّل النقاش حول فكرة ما إلى هجوم شخصي على صاحبها، مما يقتل أي إمكانية للحوار البناء.
هذه الظاهرة نجدها في جميع المستويات، من القضايا الهامة وصولاً إلى المواضيع اليومية البسيطة، الأمر الذي يجعل كثيرًا من الطرح الذي يقدّم في القضايا الهامة، مثل القضية الفلسطينية، إما متأثرًا بالسردية الغربية أو الإسرائيلية التي تقوم على أن الكيان المحتل قدر وحقيقة يجب التعايش معها، وخاصة في ظل فساد بعض القيادات الفلسطينية أو وقوف الدول الغربية مع هذا الكيان المحتل سياسيًّا واقتصاديًّا وعسكريًّا. وينسى البعض من هؤلاء حقيقة أن هذا الكيان خطر وجودي وتوسعي يعمل على خلخلة المنطقة وشغلها عن التنمية، أو هو متأثر بالأيديولوجيات القومية أو الدينية والحركية مثل الإخوان المسلمين. الشاهد أن كل حزب بما لديهم فرحون، فبعض من تشبّع بسردية الغرب تشبع أيضًا بالشعور الاستعلائي وأصبح يخاف من المخالف وينظر إليه نظرة علوية.
مشكلة رفض الرأي الآخر ظاهرة يستوي أمامها المتعلم وغير المتعلم والأديب والمثقف والناقد إلا من رحم ربي. وخطورة هذه الظاهرة تكمن في ضيق الأفق ومحدودية الخيار. في ظل ظاهرة الرأي الواحد تضيع من الأقدام الطريق. وتفقد أفضل الخيارات المتاحة مقابل المتوهم والمتخيل نتيجة المكان أو الثقافة أو الجهل المقدس. لكن الأمل يبقى قائماً في أولئك الذين يرون في الاختلاف ثراءً لا تهديداً، وفي الحوار جسراً لا حاجزاً.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
Our region is filled with a strange societal phenomenon: the rejection of opposing views in the Arab world. In reality, this is not an "innate" trait of the Arab personality, but rather a cumulative result of historical, political, and social contexts, along with complex and intertwined reasons, both historical and social and political. Politically, most of the Arab region has suffered from foreign and Ottoman colonialism and tyranny. Socially and culturally, the tribal and clan-based structure that emphasizes the sanctification of belonging and loyalty to the group rather than the individual, where dissenting opinions are considered "a split in the ranks" and "a division of the group," threatens its cohesion and security. This culture has extended to modern forms of "groups" (parties, sects, large families). The family and school education that is based on rote learning and memorization rather than criticism, analysis, and inquiry, along with blind obedience to the father and teacher without discussion, creates a generation unaccustomed to accepting differences. Additionally, colonialism and the Western narrative that stigmatized and entrenched the idea of the backwardness of the Arab region and its culture led some who were educated abroad or influenced by this Western narrative to adopt an acceptance of everything that comes from the West, to be dazzled by it, and to reject everything else, surrendering to what they see as an unchangeable reality.
Moreover, the unilateral interpretation of texts and the presentation of a single sacred interpretation of religious texts, considering dissenters as innovators or misguided, has further entrenched this cultural phenomenon. Most media outlets, whether governmental or affiliated with specific parties and movements, have also contributed to the exacerbation of this phenomenon. These media rarely provide neutral platforms, as they tend to promote a single viewpoint and demonize the other, failing to present a model for dialogue between opposing sides. All of this has intensified the weakness of the culture of dialogue. There has become a common confusion between "differences in opinion" and "personal disputes," where discussions about an idea often turn into personal attacks on its proponent, killing any possibility for constructive dialogue.
This phenomenon is evident at all levels, from important issues to simple daily topics, which makes much of the discourse presented on significant issues, such as the Palestinian cause, either influenced by the Western or Israeli narrative that views the occupying entity as a fate and reality that must be coexisted with, especially in light of the corruption of some Palestinian leaders or the political, economic, and military support of Western countries for this occupying entity. Some of these individuals forget the reality that this entity poses an existential and expansionist threat that seeks to destabilize the region and distract it from development, or they are influenced by nationalist or religious ideologies and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact is that each party is happy with what they have; some who have absorbed the Western narrative have also imbibed a sense of superiority and now fear dissenters, viewing them with condescension.
The problem of rejecting opposing views is a phenomenon that affects both the educated and uneducated, the literate and the cultured, and the critic, except for those whom God has mercy upon. The danger of this phenomenon lies in narrow-mindedness and limited choices. In the face of a single opinion phenomenon, the path is lost. The best available options are lost in favor of the imagined and the fanciful due to place, culture, or sacred ignorance. Yet hope remains for those who see in differences a richness rather than a threat, and in dialogue a bridge rather than a barrier.
Moreover, the unilateral interpretation of texts and the presentation of a single sacred interpretation of religious texts, considering dissenters as innovators or misguided, has further entrenched this cultural phenomenon. Most media outlets, whether governmental or affiliated with specific parties and movements, have also contributed to the exacerbation of this phenomenon. These media rarely provide neutral platforms, as they tend to promote a single viewpoint and demonize the other, failing to present a model for dialogue between opposing sides. All of this has intensified the weakness of the culture of dialogue. There has become a common confusion between "differences in opinion" and "personal disputes," where discussions about an idea often turn into personal attacks on its proponent, killing any possibility for constructive dialogue.
This phenomenon is evident at all levels, from important issues to simple daily topics, which makes much of the discourse presented on significant issues, such as the Palestinian cause, either influenced by the Western or Israeli narrative that views the occupying entity as a fate and reality that must be coexisted with, especially in light of the corruption of some Palestinian leaders or the political, economic, and military support of Western countries for this occupying entity. Some of these individuals forget the reality that this entity poses an existential and expansionist threat that seeks to destabilize the region and distract it from development, or they are influenced by nationalist or religious ideologies and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact is that each party is happy with what they have; some who have absorbed the Western narrative have also imbibed a sense of superiority and now fear dissenters, viewing them with condescension.
The problem of rejecting opposing views is a phenomenon that affects both the educated and uneducated, the literate and the cultured, and the critic, except for those whom God has mercy upon. The danger of this phenomenon lies in narrow-mindedness and limited choices. In the face of a single opinion phenomenon, the path is lost. The best available options are lost in favor of the imagined and the fanciful due to place, culture, or sacred ignorance. Yet hope remains for those who see in differences a richness rather than a threat, and in dialogue a bridge rather than a barrier.


