Language is not merely a tool for communication and interaction; it foremost represents a cultural issue. Language is inherently connected to its speakers' behavior, geography, and practices. When an occupying force intervenes, altering the Arab's lifestyle and dismantling structures that defined their culture and faith, it effectively detaches them from their reality as expressed through their language. Consequently, it becomes easier to persuade them to adopt another language under the pretense that it aligns with their aspirations and new horizons shaped by the occupation, not by their own vision and culture.
This manipulation is evident in the fact that as occupation embedded concepts of selfishness and individualism—moving from extended to nuclear families, even seeking to destroy the family concept itself—the term "nation" has lost its civilizational significance for many Arabic speakers today. Its psychological meaning has vanished from their inner sense, rendering them ready to abandon the term and its concept in favor of a foreign word or translation that embodies disunity and insularity.
Ultimately, the Arab may come to believe that his language is antiquated and unable to keep up with the times, thus willingly forgoing it for another, particularly not realizing the occupier's philosophy has created a contradiction between the requirements of the Arabic tongue and the characteristics of contemporary life designed to fit another's mold, not theirs.
Moreover, language carries values, and when the Arab speaker's morals are separated from these values, there is no longer an inner need for their language. The sacrifice of concepts like kinship and family leads to a corresponding devaluation of these notions in the language itself.
The Arabic language distinguishes between 'ammat' (paternal relatives) and 'khala' (maternal relatives), but as the sense of these relationships fades, the new Arab will only need a term like "oncle," which lacks attachment to either paternity or maternity and their associated social and ethical dimensions.
The nation has been severed from its defining elements, losing its need for a language that encompasses all these aspects at their highest levels. Conversely, it has been connected to foreign elements that draw it to another's language, igniting a fury against its original tongue. As a result, Arabs may resist their own language, either consciously or unconsciously, as an obstacle to embracing the constructs of an era designed for another's tastes, not their own.
Immersion in the materialistic Western system leads the Arab speaker to lose their spirit and desires, turning to the material Western language to express their ambitions. As their language of metaphors and poetry becomes irrelevant, one must recognize that languages do not simply reflect realities as they are but our conception of existence and representation of those realities. Every language is a window to view the world from a particular angle hidden from others due to their language, as our perspective is hidden from them.
Those who adopt a foreign language as their own fail to consider the long-term consequences since every language's terms are linked to the speaker's psychological and symbolic meanings before they connect to material and sensory ones.
How will a language community receive the word 'modesty' if it has lost all symbolic and psychological meaning in a society founded on such values? Similarly, what resonance does 'democracy' have in a community that only knows oppression and tyranny, especially when the word has lost all meaning, as seen in the aggression against Palestinians?
The biased adoption of English seems motivated not by an innocent desire for progress but by an ideology intent on stripping the nation of its moral heritage, as it has its material wealth. How can we influence or understand a nation without speaking its language? The Western materialists themselves, through their experts, have had to learn Arabic and its dialects to analyze Arab society with anthropological and sociological methods, laying the groundwork for invasion and further destruction.
Every nation that has advanced has clung to its language. If lacking in certain knowledge areas, they transfer knowledge through translation, as successfully demonstrated by the Islamic civilization richening Greek philosophy previously distorted by Syriac translators.
Those who accuse Arabic of being difficult do so because they often studied in foreign schools where they adopted other languages as their mother tongue. The simple solution is to learn Arabic properly, as one learns other languages with enthusiasm. Any language not learned in youth will naturally be more challenging and require effort to master.
It's clear that the Arabic language remains vibrant and active, defying the barriers of time and maintaining effective communication as older languages have died out. Convicts and Modern remains intelligible without the need for translation, unlike ancient English or French texts.
The Palestinian era has rejuvenated Arabic, reaffirming its connection to life against the occupier's attempts to brand it as backwards, and renewing its link to its values despite efforts to sever it. This era declared the distrust in the West and its language, advocating Arabic as the language of spirit, life, values, and humanity.
Understanding that no nation can live without its language and that Arabic is the pathway to understanding and interacting with depth, we must realize that progress is not about the language spoken but cultural readiness for development. Language functions to reflect culture and existence.
In summary, adopting English for advancement is a clever fallacy aimed at maintaining domination and occupation. Language diversity offers humanity a wealth of answers and chances for salvation. The criteria for progress relate not to language but the cultural framework and openness to evolution, with language following as confirmation or contradiction—reflecting society's interaction with existence.
Arabic, which has historically contributed to civilizational knowledge, beckons us not to close ourselves off or reject other languages, but instead to utilize them like bees cross-pollinating, without denying or erasing our identity.
For those who can, learning all languages of the world is encouraged with the stipulation that it does not replace one's original tongue. Education must be in the nation's language, for learning in another's language is equivalent to using another's mind, leading to a loss of one's intellect and language and a surrender to others' elements.
Thus, it's essential to foster Arabic language use broadly and resist movements calling for its replacement, defending it not only as a means of communication but as a repository of human culture, knowledge, and values.
