Disagreement is a human nature, diversity is a source of enrichment for societies, and holding onto principles is not extremism in itself. The problem begins when a person thinks that their conviction gives them the right to disparage others, or when they replace argument with accusations of treason, and dialogue with cancellation. A healthy society does not require its members to be identical in their thoughts, but rather to respect human dignity and rights, and to resort to the law in regulating their relationships.
Extremism has multiple forms that go beyond reducing it to religious extremism associated with takfir (declaring others infidels) or justifying violence. It can be intellectual when the mind closes off to a single opinion and refuses review, political when the dissenter is accused of treason simply for their differing position, and class-based when a person's value is measured by their economic or social status. It may take a racist, sectarian, or partisan form, as it appears in daily life when others are disparaged because of their backgrounds or groups are denied opportunities for participation because of their affiliations. In the digital space, these manifestations expand when platforms turn into arenas for defamation, incitement, and the spread of hatred.
Despite these different forms, they share a flaw in how the other is viewed; the human being is reduced to their affiliation, opinion, or social position, and their right to dignity and respect is overlooked. It may start with a word involving discrimination or mockery, then repeat until it becomes a familiar behavior, before turning into an exclusionary stance that finds those who justify it. Therefore, confronting extremism does not begin only when violence appears, but from the moment disparaging others becomes acceptable in discourse and behavior.
This phenomenon does not arise from a single cause. Upbringing based on blind obedience, weak critical thinking, and the absence of dialogue in the family and school may contribute to building a mind less prepared for review and accepting difference. It may be fueled by feelings of injustice, marginalization, and discrimination, or limited opportunities for participation, or rhetoric that exploits fear and anger to divide people into warring groups. Misinformation and inflammatory content may also deepen polarization, especially when a person is only exposed to ideas that confirm their own convictions.
However, extremism should not be reduced to poverty, poor education, or marginalization, nor should religious or political affiliation be considered evidence of it. This is an approach that does injustice to individuals and misinterprets the phenomenon; multiple intellectual, personal, and social factors overlap in its emergence, and difficult circumstances do not necessarily lead to intolerance or violence.
Here, education advances to its natural position, not as a means for preaching, but as a process for building the mind, conscience, and behavior. The requirement is not to teach our children to accept every idea or abandon their convictions, but to teach them how to discuss what they reject, defend their positions with arguments, and review their judgments when new facts become clear to them. Education on difference does not mean we agree on everything, but that we learn how to disagree without insulting, and how to reject an opinion without denying the right of its holder.
Hence, schools and universities are required to do more than teach the values of tolerance in curricula; values are rooted through practice and example, not words alone. When a student is allowed to ask, discuss, and express their opinion with respect, they learn to manage difference practically. But when a question is met with disapproval, a differing opinion with mockery, and a mistake with humiliation, the educational environment may reinforce behaviors that contradict the values it proclaims.
The family remains the first school where a child learns the meaning of difference and the limits of dialogue. An environment that respects opinion, discusses behavior without degrading the person, and balances firmness with respect, helps its children deal consciously with diversity. Religious, media, and cultural institutions also bear the responsibility of promoting discourse that rejects hatred, corrects misconceptions, and distinguishes between legitimate criticism and incitement, and between pride in identity and disparaging the identities of others.
However, education and dialogue are not enough; confronting extremism requires the rule of law for everyone, equal opportunities, combating discrimination, and expanding societal participation. It also requires distinguishing between intellectual disagreement that is met with dialogue and argument, and incitement to hatred or assault on rights, which requires a clear stance and fair legal procedures. Neither leniency with assault protects society, nor does turning disagreement into an accusation help its stability.
In Jordan, as in all societies, inclusive citizenship, the rule of law, and respect for diversity remain pillars of stability. Religious affiliation, social origin, or political position should not become a criterion for disparaging a citizen's rights or questioning their patriotism. National unity does not mean eliminating diversity, but is based on common ground that protects rights, allows participation, and ensures equality before the law.
Confronting extremism is not a temporary campaign, nor the responsibility of a single institution, but a continuous educational, cultural, and societal project that begins with the family and school, extends to the university, media, and state institutions, and is completed when a person feels that their dignity is protected, their rights are preserved, and that difference does not deprive them of their place in their society.
Perhaps the question most worthy of asking ourselves is not: How do we make others think like us? But rather: How do we build a society whose members can disagree without quarreling, hold onto their principles without being intolerant, and maintain their unity without eliminating their diversity?
A strong society is not one that is free of difference, but one that possesses the awareness, justice, and education to prevent difference from becoming a cause for hostility, and makes respect for the human being a principle that does not change with the change of their opinion, affiliation, or status.
