Allah has created all living things with different characteristics and has provided a living space accordingly. There are fundamental differences that distinguish plants from animals and animals from humans. The nature of these differences has revealed a hierarchy among living things. The inability of some living things to move or make a sound; although some living things can make sounds and perceive, they are deprived of reason and thought; this hierarchy has been established by the fact that some living things take on some responsibilities together with their intelligence and thinking ability. Of course, we cannot see this as a vertical hierarchy. However, we can talk about a horizontal hierarchy formed within the framework of rights and responsibilities.
Just as we see the difference between living species, there are also differences among people. These differences perhaps lead to the existence of a system that makes the world livable. We can say that having different abilities, different physical, social and psychological characteristics ensures the existence and harmony of social integrity. We are not just talking about a harmony that arises from the difference of people sharing the same geography. The fact that different geographies complement each other makes the world livable. When we look at the differences from this window, we will see that they gain more meaning.
Every person has certain belongings that they do not have a choice when they are born. We can also talk about belongings that he can preferably change later on. This is a difficult choice that requires a person to make important inquiries and to isolate himself from his belonging. While a person does not have the opportunity to choose and change his ethnic affiliation, he has the chance to change his belief system later. But we must also accept how difficult it is in the social structure. Since we have to see people as responsible as long as they are voluntary beings, we cannot comment on people based on obligatory affiliations.
Within the framework of these explanations, we cannot accept the inclusion of concepts such as identity and the other in our lives as problematic. The problem is not the belonging to the identity or the difference of the other. The problem is that the meaning attributed to identity exceeds the boundaries of belonging and negative meanings attributed to the other. Identity, as a manifestation of the sense of belonging in the geography where people live, is acceptable with its aspect that enables it to preserve its difference and exist with its social personality. On the other hand, the problem begins when identity turns into privilege, when it is given a special meaning, when it is the main determinant of good or bad, right or wrong, right or wrong.
We value the other because it reveals a person's uniqueness and makes their difference meaningful. On the other hand, if one's own affiliation is seen as the representative of good and right and the other as responsible for bad and wrong, it means that othering comes into play. While the other is valuable, those who become marginalized represent the enemy. While accepting the other brings with it understanding, othering is based on prejudice. Those who manage to distinguish this fine line manage to become the color of the social pattern, while those who get lost in this fine line disrupt the social rhythm.
With its geographical differences, it has enough historical background and heart to live in peace and tranquility. Our only shortcoming today is that we have not been able to demonstrate a will for it. The feeling we need for this is hidden in the belief that differences are the mercy of Allah.