Over the past two years, a greater publicity about the Kurds has taken place; more recently maps have been circulated from media to websites that portray the future boundaries of the 'long expected' Kurdish state. Many describe the 'need' for an independent Kurdistan, stating that in the 'volatile' Middle East, an independent Kurdistan will be a pole for secular and democratic Muslims who will form a break wave against Islamic fanaticism.

When the criminal supporters of this fantasy fall short of 'historical arguments', they transfigure themselves to oppressed peoples' advocates: like all the other peoples, Kurds 'must' have a national home! This is the supreme stage of their fallacy! In fact, there cannot be a Kurdistan, because simply there are no 'Kurds'.

Kurds are not one people.

To start with basics, Kurds are not one people, they do not speak one single language, they do not write their languages by means of one writing system only, they do not believe in one and the same religion, they have no common culture and lifestyle, and they have very varied perspectives and targets.

Gathering under one roof all the populations that the Western centers of colonial conspiracy intend to include within the borders of a coffin (do not call it 'country' if you please) will be lethal to most of these peoples, and in addition detrimental to the security of other ethnic groups that will form the various 'minorities' of that place -- if we consider all the different peoples that are called 'Kurds' as one ethnic group, and therefore the rising local 'majority'.

Little Academic Knowledge about the 'Kurds'

Of course, no one would consider the academic knowledge about one people / nation as a prerogative to achieve independence and national statehood. However, at this point is revealed the fallacy of the secretive Western groups of power that intend to materialize this plan; they mendaciously present all these peoples as one: the 'Kurds'!

Quite contrarily to their assumptions, onsite reality is strikingly different from the Western labs where the falsehood of the 'one Kurdish people' is being fabricated. These various peoples -- erroneously called at the international level 'Kurds' -- are not just one people, but many; they have different origins that cannot be retraced easily. How could we put them together just for the needs of the next explosion in the Middle East?

Kurdish languages and ethnic groups

Kurds speak three main languages and at least twenty additional dialects. In Turkey, the main 'Kurdish' language is Kurmandja, but other 'Kurds' speak Zaza (also called Dimli), Botani, Marashi, Hekari, Ashiti, Shemdinani, and other dialects.

In Iraq, the main 'Kurdish' language is Sorani (centered around Suleymaniyah), but people speak also Kurmandja (called Bahdinani here), Hawleri, Mokri (very important for Literature), Hewrami, Gurani, Rawanduzi, Kirkuki, Garmiyani, and other less commonly used dialects.

In Iran, 'Kurds' speak Sorani, Kermanshahi, Sandjabi, Gurani, Pahlawani, Kalhori, Kordali, and other less commonly used dialects.

Not only the differences between two of these languages and dialects can be very great, and as the number of the languages is big, bilingualism is not common, and cannot be a remedy.

Centrifugal bilingualism

In addition, because of the political situation and the prevailing national language, all these various 'Kurds' of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have been characterized by a type of bilingualism whereby the second language is per case Turkish, Farsi or Arabic.

This phenomenon is due to the imposition of exclusively one national language in all these countries that, despite their different politico-socio-economic conditions, adopted varied versions of nationalism.

Origin

There are two prevailing theories about the origins of all these peoples that are called Kurds in a recapitulative way. The problem is precisely that, if we take some of these "Kurdish" languages as reference point for a linguistic -- historical evaluation, we are led to different hypothesis than in the case we select some other "Kurdish" languages for starting point.

In one case, we retrace Kurdish as Indo-European language, close to the group of the Iranian languages. However, examining Kurmandja and Zaza, we are inclined to consider Kurdish as closer linked to the Caucasian languages, like Georgian.

All this involves a lot of biases, as Kurdology is a very new branch of Orientalism with insignificant past (less than three decades), and political interest and involvement has been easily discernible in most of the cases, such as the Mitterrand patronized Institut Kude de Paris. Certainly, academic interest about the Kurds has been expressed in numerous volumes and articles over the past 100 years but it was not systematized into a discipline before the early 1980s.

With the Kurds being at the mercy of Russian, French, English, German and more recently American agents, linguistic elements and historical data have been restructured according to politically motivated targets, and even worse, the diversity of the sources, namely the tremendously varied 'Kurdish" languages and dialects, helped greatly these academic maneuvering.

Historical names and Historical reconstruction

Every nationalism tries to retrace a millennia long history, seeking for similar names in the Dawn of the Civilization. Historical names of peoples are a vast subject of historical analysis, and we know very well that the same name has been many times attributed to another people for numerous different reasons. The Medieval Greek historiographers named the first Turkic peoples who appeared in the East of today's Turkey 'Scythians'. But can we afford today to make similar confusions?

When millennia long intervals separate two names of peoples that look similar but are devoid of any other historical reference, source, epigraphic evidence and the like, the two names are most probably totally unrelated. All this is to firmly denounce the academically irrelevant and absolutely inconsistent references to Ancient History of the Kurds that can be found in partial articles like those of wikipedia.

Kurds have no relations with the Guti of Middle Zagros mountains, and there cannot be Kurdish past that antedates the 7th BCE and the Assyrian references to Zikurtu a small people of the Iranian plateau, at the easternmost confines of the Assyrian empire of those days. Can we establish a relation between the Zikurtu of the Assyrian -- Babylonian texts, the Asagartiya of the Achaemenid Old Persian inscriptions, and the Kardouhoi of the Ancient Greek references? Possibly, but with great difficulty and a lot of reserve. Nothing antedating those dates can be plausibly related to the past of some of the peoples that presently are named 'Kurds'.

Neither does this imply that all the 'variants' of the Kurdish constellations can be considered as descendants of the Zikurtu -- Asagartiya -- Kardouhoi. The most plausible interpretation is that some of those who are called 'Kurds' today may descend from various peoples of the Antiquity, involving the aforementioned and several other peoples.

How 'Kurds' write their different languages?

Unique case in the History of the Mankind, the 'Kurdish' constellations write different of the aforementioned languages and dialects in three different writing systems. 'Kurds' in Turkey write their languages in Latin characters, imitating therefore the Turks.

'Kurds' in Syria, Iraq and Iran write their different languages in Arabic / Farsi writing, with some additional signs.

'Kurds' in countries of the late USSR, mainly Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia write their languages in Cyrillic alphabet, as result of the forced russification that was tyrannically implemented during the Soviet years.

Adding to the linguistic, the scriptural division gives a dead end to any dream of pacific Kurdish unification under one state -- umbrella.

Different Kurdish Religions

The different peoples that collectively are called 'Kurds' believe in various religious systems; in their majority they are Sunni Muslims, but there are many Shia 'Kurds' in Turkey, in Iraq and in Iran. Automatically, it is understood that the linguistic boundaries among those called 'Kurds' are not the same as the religious groups' demarcation lines. There are usually Sunni and Shia among the 'Kurds' who speak the same language.

In addition, there are Yazidis, who form a separate religious group, whom the Muslims almost consider as Satanists.

There are 'Kurds' who are Bahais, and there are 'Kurds' who are Ahl-e Haq.

Some of these groups' religious theological -- philosophical differences represent a gap greater than the one existing between Islam and Hinduism or Christianity and Buddhism.

Independent Kurdistan: the Last Act of Western Immorality and Suicide

That is why it would be extremely useful that anyone listening to theories about the 'right' and / or the 'necessity' of a unified Kurdistan, formed out of the detachment of parts of the territories of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, instead of thoughtlessly and easily accepting that criminal colonial propaganda, which for a moment looks pro-Kurdish, asks the following questions:

- Who will say what the official language of this so-called Kurdistan will be?

- Who will specify the official writing system of the language accepted as official in 'Kurdistan'?

- Who will decide about the official religion of the impossible to form country?

- Who will prevent one 'Kurd' from killing another in the effort to impose one language over another, one writing system over another, or one religion over another?

- Or because such a state may be necessary for the criminal interests of an apostate Freemasonic lodge, the 'Kurds' should be killing mercilessly one another for the next decades?

- Who will prevent the Genocide of the Aramaeans at the hands of Kurds?

- Why those who 'envisage' a huge and impossible Kurdistan do not offer any place for freedom and democracy for the Christian Aramaeans of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran?

- Who will prevent the wars between this bogus-Kurdistan country and all its neighbors?

All this does not signify that all these peoples are not oppressed, and their condition should remain the same as now. A great improvement is needed indeed; but it must be improvement, not a fallacious improvement-looking deterioration.

What to do for all these oppressed peoples of the Middle East will therefore be the subject of another article.

By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
www.americanchronicle.com