The talk about minorities and majorities in the Arab world features a grave insult to the entire history of the region's population. As usual, the prevailing ideologies tend to limit reality and plurality in the Middle East and the Arab region to two pale colors, both participating in the toppling of the past and threatening the present. And if this region's extremely rich history teaches us one thing, it is that the ethnic groups, sectarian minorities, “dissident" religious denominations and even all sorts of heresies are an inherent part and a key component in the Middle East, and especially the Arab Levant. This was caused by many factors, including ones related to the major urban and civilizational centers on the outskirts of the region, their influence on new ideas and the fleeing of those fearing for their lives and beliefs to them. Some are also related to the diverse geographic and economic nature which pushed towards the emergence of separation lines between the groups and prevented their full integration within the wider ethnic or religious hegemony. Hence, the region extending from Egypt, to Iraq and Anatolia almost constitutes a natural museum of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Indeed, from the Sabians in Iraq and the old churches in the Euphrates region and the Syrian Jazira – and which have been there since the surfacing of the Nestorian movement – to the Islamic groups with their various interpretations of the Prophet's message and the Sufi groups with their own interpretations, the distinctive lines were drawn for societies in which the “other" was always an inherent part. As for European modernism, it only led to further plurality and diversity in our countries, with the arrival of the Protestant churches and their preachers. In other words, minorities constitute the base in this part of the world, while the talk about a “Sunni majority" is a mere limitation that undermines the existing facts. Within this majority, there is firstly an ethnic division between the Arabs and the Kurds, the tribes and the regions, and division between the rural and urban areas and between the classes, which practically prevents any worthy talk about a majority capable of politically rallying around the Sunni slogan, regardless of its content. In addition, there is demographic overlapping throughout the region between the various sects, which made them all adopt a minority behavior towards each other. For example, the Sunnis and Alawis along the Syrian coast and in North Lebanon exchange the minority and majority roles at the level of the villages and districts. The Sunnis thus constitute a majority in one area and a minority in another, and this affects all the sects, populations and groups, with no exceptions. And throughout the centuries, the region's population developed some sort of coexistence, which is an earlier version of modern European “tolerance." And those resorting to it deal in a pragmatic realistic way with the other groups, in accordance with their local influence. But a major problem contributed to the complication of this scene, i.e. the emergence of puritan calls influenced by nationalistic ideologies and pushed onto the religious groups. At this level, one must say that the calls for an ideal society that is pure on the ethnic and religious levels are not based on any actual facts, and that the ideological foundations used to promote a fictive past that is religiously pure can be easily undermined and refuted. In reality, the interpretation of the region's history as being a long series of inherited Sunni monarchies relying on dominance and bias, is a mere wretched interpretation similar to the calls for sectarian, religious and ethnic purity. These calls, which are issued by majorities lacking cohesion or frightened minorities seeking guarantees for their survival, are a mere modern form of known heresies in our region. However, the old ones used to be less violent and more capable of adaptation.
