The unity and the difference is, perhaps, one of the most prominent features that has characterized and continues to characterize human activity throughout the ages, as the human presence within the social, political and cultural systems is based on the conflict between these two concepts. This conflict is the mainstay of the common belief that there is an anti-contradiction that allows the meaning of a mosquito to be met, and not in the distant future to show us, or to us, this belief at first sight. In fact, this belief can be classified as wrong and ill in all respects, but it must be taken into account that such allegations are met with some shortcomings. The difference has been calculated as a point for the human race, since the pure desire for contrast that emerges in the midst of human behavior is only a feature rooted in its instincts, a feature that may turn into a suppler that makes the difference contrary, which is the ultimate goal of the successor. The combination itself is nothing but a source of enrichment that makes the road to a new mother of other intellectual paths that enrich the cultural heritage and refine it and make it a stock that is subject to the criteria of diversity and prosperity, which never eliminates the fact that unity, on the other hand, is a glittering property that unites the individual: in fact, the outstanding between unity and separation can be established on opposite sides. Hence, it can be said that the presence of this intellectual dualism is a matter of bitterness, and this is manifested by several angles in which the degree of importance of one of the two elements differs, or its presence is overshadowed by the disappearance of the main objectives of its perspectives. If we deal with the issue on the part of society, there must be an equal presence of unity and unity, the first is the agreement of the individuals on the system of the constraints as well as the laws governing this process. If the agreement in this area is not definitive and utopian, it remains in all cases an agreement of predominance, which may be called the predominance of unity here. This is the last one, which, while based on the dominant unified idea, guarantees the right of all to be different, the order that is evident in ensuring the right of each person to choose the people who accompany him and to choose his social connection as he pleases, and to measure on that example the implicit necessity of marriage between them. Taking the moment from a cultural point of view, the special identity of the heritage imposes itself as a desire that calls for an important unity presence. This absolutely eliminates the central role played by different cultures. This is the last one that blends different cultures in an attempt to create a new species characterized by a universality that brings together civilizations and peoples, which makes this difference the point of encountering many entities, i.e. this difference is a path of unity and not just a way of separation, which gives this unity the character of diversity. Although there have been some anomalies that make cultural dissonance a stumbling block to progress with the knees of civilizations, this makes multiculturalism a difficult problem. So this aspect, as a result, indicates a stereotypical correlation between the two, the existence of the one alone without any other. If we move to the educational perspective, the imperative here is unity rather than differentness, which also corrects the possibility of this latter being, but it solves it in the second place. Unity ,from the educational perspective, is only to ensure the proper composition of learners. It is reasonable to have these different types of teaching and indoctrination through different stations of the course, which may give us a loss of the learner’s identity. There must therefore be a single educational pattern, or the individual must have a single path in the light of the multiplicity of educational problems. From this perspective, it is contrary to the fact that the difference may be beneficial to the individual by giving him various sciences and knowledge, but it may confuse the process of the indoctrination system of the indoctrination of the inhuman mind, which may disturb the balance of its intellectual structure. In the end, it is not possible to definitely confirm a separate unit and the component. The unit is rooted in the structure of the different, and the different order of us is to distinguish the unit. The creation of a component is a fundamental element in the building of the human identity of each individual, and unity is a major format that frames the general existence of al-Farrad. Human entities continue to differ until the unit is reached as a conditional result, and the same pattern continues to branch out until the alliances unfold. Unity is a natural and necessary matter to ensure progress, and the difference is a human requirement that necessarily means contrary, and between that there is a singular nature of human nature.
