The Kurds, as a living nation within Islamic civilization, have played an important and defining role throughout the history of Islam and within the framework of this civilization. Hundreds and thousands of personalities, scholars, and experts have emerged from among them, who have rendered great services to religion and civilization. Certainly, the Kurdish nation, as part of this civilization, has taken its lion’s share and has always been a place of attention for central religious and Islamic institutions. The history of the Kurds within the global Islamic sphere has its own weight and position, and dozens of distinguished Kurdish personalities have emerged within this civilization and are mentioned and remembered as symbols and leaders.

This episode of religious discourse discusses the role of the Kurdish nation in Islamic civilization, examining what Islam and the Kurds have given to each other and how they have served one another, hosted by both professors of history, Dr. Hakim Ahmad and Dr. Qader Pushdari.

Initially, Dr. Hakim discussed the role and position of the Kurds from a historical perspective within Islamic civilization, noting that the religion of Islam reached Kurdistan from the second decade of the Hijra onwards. Within a short period, the people of those regions became Muslims as time passed, and later they were conquered. The arrival of the Islamic religion was not merely a military event followed by political changes; it was not just a change in the political map of the region, but something much greater, more significant, and more extensive. It was a transformation that occurred in the civilizational map of the region, in the map of forces, creating a change in the balance of powers, to the extent that we can say it was the greatest transformation in the middle centuries in terms of its consequences and effects, which continue to this day.

When the Kurds embraced Islam, not all of them became Muslim at once, but rather in different stages, or over the course of several centuries, and we can say this process came to an end. However, in terms of conquest, they were conquered in a relatively short time and somewhat easily compared to other regions.

When the Kurds became Muslim, over time they initially had a military role, then from the third century onwards, their political and administrative role began within the Abbasid state. Later, they entered some political movements and emerged as opposition to the Umayyad and later the Abbasid states. They also had a presence within the administrative or military institutions of the Abbasid state. This role gradually developed and progressed until we feel that culturally, intellectually, scientifically, and intellectually, the role of the Kurds became much greater. This role truly cannot be compared to the pre-Islamic period. What is very clear and evident is the role that the Kurds assumed after the advent of Islam, which is recorded and documented in historical sources, literary works, and Islamic literature in general. However, before Islam, this role is not clear, although we know that the Kurds are an authentic, deeply-rooted nation indigenous to the region, having existed for hundreds and thousands of years before Islam under different names and different governments. But what we mean is that after the advent of Islam, we see a very vibrant role of the Kurds, which was a kind of transformation in life, particularly what we feel in Islamic civilization.

Later, this role became the reason why the Kurds became known as a nation, were taken into account, and became a subject of debate among writers and historians of the medieval centuries about who the Kurds were and what they were. This served as a precedent for defining an identity for the Kurds, although problems arose concerning this identity due to the unstable and difficult circumstances and conditions that the Kurds experienced before Islam. As we know, they did not possess independent will and identity but lived on the margins of the history of the civilization of that time and were at the threshold of the advent of Islam. Now the Kurds became number one, by virtue of the fact that among the first regions to be conquered, Kurdistan was clearly present due to geography. This made the Kurds counted and became a subject of debate about who the Kurds were and what they were. What is important is that the Kurds emerged as a name, as an identification, and as a reckoning from that time.

The role of the Kurds in Islamic civilization and during the Abbasid period developed and continued in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, until the time when it reached its peak during the era of Saladin al-Ayyubi. Politically, militarily, and civilizationally, the Kurds were leading the Islamic world at that time. This was the greatest achievement for the Kurds, having a very significant resonance and reflection on all spheres.

Regarding what the Kurds gave to Islamic civilization and what they received from it, Dr. Hakim states: The Kurds gave much to Islamic civilization. If we speak in terms of personalities, the Kurds gave hundreds of great and famous personalities to Islamic civilization in various fields, in intellectual and philosophical fields, and in other sciences as well: Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Khallikan, Abulfida, Ibn Salah al-Shahrazuri, Ibn al-Hajib, and hundreds of others they gave to Islamic civilization.

He says, what they gave and what they received is a complex balance. Undoubtedly, the Kurds were one of the fundamental, primary, and foundational components of Islamic civilization, participating in creating that rich civilization that is Islamic civilization.

In Islamic civilization, there is a balance between (al-wahdah wa al-tanawwu’) – unity and diversity, multiplicity alongside unity and integration. These two are complementary to each other and are two sides of the same coin. The Kurds, while preserving their identity and characteristics in terms of culture, customs that are correct and proper and compatible with the Islamic religion, preserved them. Along with defending their identity, together with other nations, they all presented something for the sake of unity, which is called Islamic civilization. Each of them, if we consider Islamic civilization as a river, each of the other nations and races flowed like a tributary into that current which is Islamic civilization, and together they all created it.

The religion of Islam granted freedom to the Kurds, giving them the opportunity to be equal with other nations, to be able to play their role according to their ability and let their horse gallop in that field. As we mentioned earlier, this kind of equality in opportunity did not exist before, or it was not allowed. But now we see that the Kurds, under the shadow of the Islamic religion and this extensive civilization and that tolerance and acceptance of all kinds of diversity and differences, enabled the Kurds to become a number and a figure in their time until today, to which reference is made, or we now see the traces and monuments of Kurdish scholars and great personalities in various fields that show what they contributed to Islamic civilization.

Regarding how to benefit from Kurdish participation in the history of Islamic civilization, particularly the role of personalities like Saladin, Abulfida, and Ibn Salah al-Shahrazuri, Dr. Hakim says: Undoubtedly, if you look at history as the past, as a dead past, then we should not read history at all. But the most important thing we should work on is to keep history alive, or to breathe a living spirit into it. That is, to be able to employ it, invest in it, and use it for our benefit, for our today and our future. We must make today’s and future generations aware of who we are and what we possess, so that we do not cut ourselves off from the past, from those personalities.

We very much need to include these famous personalities of our ancestors in our educational programs at various stages, from the basic level to the college level, even in applied scientific departments, not just in the humanities. It is very important that our generations today at different levels know these famous personalities of their ancestors, take pride in them. This is one of the motivators for moving forward, for having ambition to be better. But when we cut ourselves off and do not read the past, our ancestors, those great personalities, this is a severance from our historical roots and origins. It is truly a very great catastrophe that we feel today, where many of our educated people and intellectuals today do not know Said Nursi completely, who lived the day before yesterday, not even that far away. They do not know who he was, do not know his works, do not know what he did, what service he rendered, what kind of personality he was at the level of Islamic global thought. They do not know who Saladin al-Ayyubi was, do not know basic information about him, or have cut themselves off from his true essence and origin. These are catastrophes. Truly, until today, not only in the scientific departments, but even in the social ones, they pass over them very quickly and do not give them their due right.

Often it is said that the Kurds are finished, we own nothing and have done nothing, we will never amount to anything. Where does this come from? From not knowing our past, from not knowing our history, from not being aware of our civilization. Otherwise, the Kurds have done much, have contributed much. We very much need to benefit from the past, employ it, use it, make today’s generations listen to it, introduce them to our past, let them know what level we were at and what level we are at now. This requires taking a stand and discussing it more.

Then Dr. Qader shed light on the role of Kurdish personalities in history and the Islamic world, noting that in reality, evaluation of personalities in Kurdish history and in the history of other nations has different perspectives. For example, the generation that lives now, or the contemporary generation, when it looks back at its history and evaluates the personalities of its past, certainly has a different view and perspective. But among the Kurds, the situation is quite painful to a great extent.

I see that there are two reasons behind this when you complain about the personalities of your past history and want them to do something for you, or to have done something for the nation, when in their era that subject was not at issue, or you want them to have done something for their nation that you now cannot do for yourself. You want to place the burden of your failures on their shoulders. Two major reasons are behind this issue:

First: In reality, it is misunderstanding, not knowing, for example, about historical reality. When you discuss the circumstances of historical personalities in different eras, you do not return to the era. We have something we call living with history, meaning the historical researcher when working on historical events and evaluating personalities and any historical subject, has a great need for living with history. They need to return to the era to be aware of what was in the era, how the situation was, and what needed to be done in that society. Which of those personalities who existed in that era could best respond to the demands of the time? We have a perspective in heroic or heroic interpretation of history, which is that the historical hero is always someone who reaches the spirit of their era, meaning they know the spirit of the era in which they lived, what society and their era need, and respond to the spirit of their era. At that time, they emerge as an outstanding personality in society and can lead society.

This is one aspect. On the other hand, a very important reason is misunderstanding of historical reality of the era. Another reason is the attempt to strike at and diminish the role of those personalities in the history of society, because some intellectuals or those who claim intellectualism, scientism, civility, and modernism believe that what is past is obsolete, something that has happened and passed, and if they had not existed, our society would have been better. This is a strike at that, and I often see this strike in reality coming from an anti-religious perspective and criticizing past personalities. They believe that those personalities, especially in our Islamic medieval history, represent Islam. If you give those personalities, meaning you tried to give in the history of Muslims and Islamic history, a large part of the responsibility for the decline and shortcomings and problems of our society, in reality, you have hung it on them.

These were the two reasons, as I said: one is misunderstanding of reality and the era and not being aware of historical circumstances, the other is intentional. They know how the era was and understand it, but deliberately criticize and break down personalities so that they think through undermining and breaking those personalities, they have both criticized the civilizational foundation that caused the emergence of those personalities – which is Islam – and on the other hand, from the perspective of criticizing those personalities, they have made themselves from nameless, unknown, and in reality, role-less people into someone people mention and discuss. So-and-so criticized Saladin, and another criticized so-and-so, creating talk and discussion, and becoming the subject of conversation. They have made criticism of those personalities occur in some way, where those critics who are targeted by criticism are made much more by such people, as I said, from that perspective.

For example, some people think that when they criticize those personalities of our history and create various discussions about them, they think they are discussing subjects that they are the first to discover and no one else has noticed. This is while all those criticisms and discussions that are created about Kurdish personalities, especially personalities like Saladin al-Ayyubi, have been discussed before, there is nothing new in them. The issue is, for example, you look at a famous historian like Ibn al-Athir who discussed a collection of subjects, historians of the era created some subjects and discussed them. He came and brought out more of those things that he had seen in the folds of those books and other people had not properly created them, because they knew those subjects were not correct, were truly fabricated, made up, created from the perspective of striking at personality, not discussed. He came to expose them more and put them forward and create various discussions about them as if to say he made an invention.

So this is why judging personalities in history without considering their historical circumstances is a great error. For example, you complain and criticize something that cannot be corrected, the person is not there for you to judge and defend themselves, nothing good comes of it, it only goes to damaging your own history, for the sake of nothing, striking at the personalities of your own history for the sake of nothing.

That is, notice that every nation in different historical stages needs symbols. Historical symbols and historical emblems play a very important role in gathering people around a specific identity, in motivating people, or in creating a kind of people’s assembly around a symbol to feel belonging and strong identity and feel proud of their history. When these historical personalities of ours are to be damaged, it is from the perspective of wanting to cut our society off from high symbols. Those symbols that become a reason for the gathering of a large part of us around a personality that is important for strengthening our belonging to our society, to our nation, to our language and our history.

This superficial treatment of personalities I see as wrong treatment and nothing good comes of it. Taking criticism, historical criticism of historical eras and historical personalities, can be done by historians with academic enlightenment and clear scientism – discuss the era, but not with the aim of damaging, not with the aim of striking at historical personalities and nullifying them before people’s eyes. But very often there are various discussions even among great historians of the past, those we call authentic sources, there are contradictions, in Ibn Athir and Ibn Khallikan, in Abulfida, in Ibn Kathir, in those various historians too, sometimes when discussing a personality, they say (law fa’ala hadha law qam bi hadha), meaning if they had done something, if they had done so it would have been so, if only they had done so, or if only they had not done so. This is normal, but attempting to damage and belittle – this is as I said, in reality, a problem, and some of our intellectuals are caught up in it.

Those subjects might be normal in advanced societies, in those societies that are stable, do not have problems of existence and threats to identity, belonging, language, and culture, where it might be normal for everything to be discussed and various discussions to be made about them. But for a society like ours that is a society cut off from the issue of identity and belonging and has suffered great persecution and oppression in history from occupiers, for you to come as an intellectual belonging to that nation, or as a personality belonging to that nation, in the same manner and with the tune of those people who want to damage your historical personalities and make you feel when the names of those people come up, you do not feel proud, but rather feel that those people are oppressive and evil personalities – this in my opinion might have other things behind it besides self-deception and self-promotion. Perhaps sometimes various other political subjects are involved. So this is the summary of the intention.

Regarding the controversy that arose recently about the personality of Saladin al-Ayyubi, Dr. Qader says: In reality, I do not think it is good to make Sultan Saladin al-Ayyubi a subject of discussion again. Our discussion, which is more specific to the role of Kurds and Kurdish participation in Islamic civilization, let me return to this subject. But he says: I think Kurdish intellectualism feels a crisis and to some extent lack’s identity when it resorts to criticizing some historical personalities.

Every historical personality that has existed in history, especially someone who has done political work and military work, is not free from mistakes. Those historical personalities, including Saladin, are not prophetic personalities, they are not social reformers, they are personalities who did political work, military work, and such work certainly involves killing, oppression. If the leader himself did not do it, their apparatus and entourage and the people around them might do it, their army or leaders might do it, for which they are responsible. Therefore, I do not understand what gain Kurdish intellectualism has in creating those subjects and discussing them.

Saladin, or a personality like Sultan Saladin, if he were not a very great global personality, few nations would not have tried to make him their own. In Arabic, in Turkish, in Persian, they all wanted him. Even non-Muslim peoples made him their own. Notice in the literature of the Crusade era and later in French poetry, in the poetry of European poets and in their literature, his name has come very clearly. The pages of history are full of his discussion and mention, the pages of Eastern and Western history.

We have no personality in human history as much as Sultan Saladin al-Ayyubi who has been loved and desired even by his enemies. Thousands of children have been named after him. I always say someone like Sultan Saladin, even if we cut all sources about his lineage, his very character, manliness, and courage are Kurdish, the characteristics are Kurdish.

Regarding why those Kurdish personalities in the past were not well-introduced, or let’s say could not be described and presented, others criticize them, Dr. Hakim says one of the reasons is what was mentioned – direct self-promotion. People come who propagandize for intellectualism, culture, and modernity, wanting to show themselves. The best way and means for self-promotion is to bring a great symbol that is well-known and great, and you come to criticize it. For that person, it becomes a talking point and a good media tool. But the person doing this thinks they are elevating themselves to their level, but in reality, the opposite is true.

What is important for me to point out is this: why should someone who is a writer, novelist, artist, actor, singer discuss history and analyze history, our past, our solution, our symbols, our personalities, come to criticize them? By what right, when it is far from their expertise? People speak on a subject that is not in their expertise. Today is the era of very precise specialization. My point is, just as someone cannot issue a fatwa on a religious matter, someone who is not an expert in a field in a science, a doctor cannot judge and write treatment for someone, similarly in other sciences, if someone is not a historian, a historical researcher, a historical scholar, they should not discuss Saladin and our history.

He says: It is true there are changes in the educational program, but it is still very little compared to the need. Ask anyone who has graduated from any level of social sciences, see how many Kurdish personalities in Islamic civilization they know. It is necessary in all centers, especially in religious discourse, to give importance to this subject, especially those working in da’wah, Islamic sides need to have that role in introducing those personalities of the past.

Also, Dr. Qader said: In reality, in the field of setting educational subjects, especially in social subjects, good work has been done. There are many things we cannot demand from middle or high school students, telling them they must know everything about Kurds and Kurdish personalities. For example, notice that in the social subjects of the eighth grade of basic education that is now taught, we are the authors of the book, Dr. Hakim was also with us, there those subjects are discussed very well, the personality of Sultan Saladin is discussed.

Also, if discussion is about the role of Kurds in Islamic civilization, this is taught in the history of civilizations in the tenth-grade prose, I am one of the authors of that book. For twenty years, that book has been set since two thousand and five in our institutions, in our education it is taught, very well discussing the role of Kurds in Islamic civilization and Kurdish personalities and those included. But as I said, curriculum or educational subjects are not for you to want to put everything in them, or demand everything from them. It is necessary for people to make efforts for themselves and understand.

He also said: In reality, history is a very broad field, an open field. One of the characteristics of history is that it is to some extent a broad space and an open field. Various people – journalists, politicians, and as we mentioned, artists in some way – if they want to discuss it, or you see an academic person in another specific field of the humanities who allows themselves to come and discuss some important subjects in history and also judge. Sometimes it happens that you come to discuss if somewhere in a session they tell you that you are an expert in philosophy, or an expert in Islamic research, or Arabic language, or any other subject, or economics, or law, discuss something about history for us. As discussion in a place, you discuss it, and these are normal. But you come to judge, you come to say so-and-so was good, so-and-so was bad, when you are not an expert in the field and do not know about it. When something comes to your hand, you think you have made an invention, so you quickly shout and publish it in newspapers, or discuss it on television and then judge and decide yourself, this was good, this was bad, this falls into grave error.

Another issue that goes into the category of ideologizing history, this is a very great error, meaning you come to give history an ideological reading. I like this and I do not like that, even among those various groups and perspectives within Islamic movements, this is a great error. The problem of some Islamic movements in Islamic history is that they do not distinguish between Islam and its history. Very often they view Islamic history as part of religion. When discussing an error of a personality like Caliph Harun al-Rashid, or Mu’awiya, or Yazid, or Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, very often they get upset, they think this should not be discussed, or it is not so, or they reject it. This Ya’qubi discussed it, the historian al-Tabari discussed it, al-Dinawari discussed it, those who were more pious and religious than me and you, they were not ashamed when discussing the error of a caliph, or deviation, or mistakes that exist in their history.

So therefore, the worst perspective is to ideologize history. This is a grave error and causes you bad understanding and causes you not to see history as it is. We always, in reality, our goal is for history to be shown as it is and history to be attempted to be transmitted as it is.

• Originally published in Religious Studies by the Center for Future Studies and translated by Nawroz Mohammed for Kfuture.Media.