Michael Arizanti

PKK distinguished itself by its radical left makeup – and they recruited people from the lower classes…

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), is a militant Kurdish libertarian socialistic organization founded by Abdullah (“Apo”) Öcalan in the late 1970s. Although the group initially espoused demands for the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, its stated aims were later tempered to call for socialistic autonomy – confederalism with the Iranian and the Turkish states. PYD themselves and the official sources in the U.S. admitted on many occasions that the PYD is the Syrian branch of the PKK. The U.S. then-defense minister Ashton Carter confirmed the substantial ties between PYD and PKK during a testimony before the Senate panel on 28 April 2016.

Background

The name Abdullah Öcalan may not sound familiar to most people, but is known to everybody in Turkey. Writing in KurdishAspect.com in 2007, a columnist named Sosun Welat explicitly accused Öcalan of serving as an agent for MİT and blamed him for perpetrating a “systematic betrayal and treason to [the] Kurdish cause.”

“Öcalan played a double agent role for years,” Welat wrote. “His rise and fall was well planned and controlled by [the] Turkish state. He and PKK provided cover for [the] Turkish state to … destroy [the] Kurdish heartland, its way of life, culture, language.”

Welat and other observers believe that prior to the forming of the PKK, in the mid-1950s, Turkish intelligence infiltrated Kurdish activist groups and helped establish their Communist credentials, thereby providing a legitimate excuse to oppress Kurds in the name of preventing the spread of Communism (which would, of course, please Turkey’s then-new allies in Western Europe and the U.S.).

Then in the 1970s, so the theory goes, Turkish intelligence facilitated the emergence of PKK, hoping to use it as a counterforce that would weaken other Kurdish insurgents. “MİT planned to split Turkish leftist groups by creating (its own) Kurdish leftist group, PKK — but apparently it got out of control,” said Emrullah Uslu, an analyst at the Jamestown Foundation and a professor of political science and international relations at Yeditepe University in Istanbul.

During the 60s and 70s Turkey was going through major social changes. This changes gave proliferation and made different kinds of Kurdish nationalist groups in Turkey very strong and popular. During this time period the PKK emerged, formally founded by Öcalan in the late 1978 as a Marxist organization, that claimed to be dedicated to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. PKK distinguished itself by its radical left makeup – and they recruited people from the lower classes. The group also distinguished itself by its radicalism and espoused violence as a central part of their cause. PKK espoused violence and demonstrated early its willingness to employ force against Kurds perceived as government collaborators and the group espoused violence as a tenet central to its cause and demonstrated early its willingness to employ force against Kurds perceived as government collaborators and against Kurdish organizations who for decades had worked for a free Kurdistan.

In 1979 Öcalan became close to the Syrian Baath party, and he departed Turkey for Syria, where PKK established connection with militant and Palestinian terrorist organizations. In the early 80s made a deal with Palestinian groups for them to provide PKK military training and support. In the early 80s, Kurdistan Democratic Party also made a huge mistake, by allowing the PKK militants to create camps in Qandil mountains, from which PKK launched an armed campaign against Turkey in 1984. This became the start of decades with terrorist acts committed by the PKK in Turkey and across the world. The PKK subsequently perpetrated frequent acts of terrorism and conducted guerrilla operations against a range of targets, including government installations and officials, Turks living in the country’s Kurdish regions, Kurds accused of collaborating with the government, foreigners, and Turkish diplomatic missions abroad.

In the 1990s, the PKK began shifting its goals away from the pursuit of independence outright toward the (in theory) attainment of autonomy and equal treatment within Turkey. Öcalan in particular began articulating a social theory that abandoned the concept of a nation-state as a solution to Kurdish issue.

According to Öcalan’s former right-hand-man, Hüseyin Yıldırım, “Öcalan controls the PKK and the ‘deep state’ controls Öcalan.” As Yıldırım sees it, “Öcalan made an agreement with the ‘deep state’ at İmralı [prison] to save his life.”. This was also indirectly confirmed by Öcalan himself On Aug. 8 2008, when Öcalan addressed the prosecutor of the Ergenekon (Turkish deepstate) trial, there it was made clear that unless the deep state in Turkey has been exhausted, the PKK will survive. It was made clear by Öcalan that the deep state supports PKK violence. As long as the deep state is alive, the PKK will not vanish. If democracy prevails in Turkey.

Assad and PYD

The PYD (Democratic Union Party) emerged as a Syrian “Kurdish” party in 2003, even though forming political parties is illegal under Ba’athist one party rule. Syrian intelligence saw in it a mere restructuring of old PKK members under a more localised leadership, and therefore decided to give them their support. In 2015 Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has admitted his regime provided weapons to PYD, “The Kurds are fighting the terrorists with the Syrian army, in the same areas… [They are supported] mainly by the Syrian army, and we have the documents.
“We sent them armaments, because they are Syrian citizens, and they want to fight terrorism. We do the same with many other groups in Syria, because you cannot send the army to every part of Syria. So, it is not only the Kurds. Many other Syrians are doing the same,” Assad said at the time.

Syrians have always been integral to the PKK. Although the regime oppressed its Kurds, it also encouraged them to join the PKK to deflect their local aspirations. An estimated 7,000–10,000 did so. The regime also permitted the PKK to open a Damascus office and to establish training camps in Lebanon’s Beqa Valley under Syrian control.92 A noted Kurdish analyst contended that more than one-third of PKK members are Syrian, according to the Washington Institute.

In 2012 PKK founded the People’s Council of Western Kurdistan, a locally elected assembly to provide social services. The Movement for a Democratic Society (TEV-DEM) was established as an umbrella organization incorporating the PYD, youth movements, and other PKK organizations. But its key task was to negotiate an ultimately failed powersharing agreement between the PYD and parties loyal to the kurdish cause. In reality, these organizations are PYD facades. This multitude of front organizations has confused Syrian Kurds and contributed to their political apathy. For their part, U.S. officials have noted that there is no difference between the PYD and YPG and the PKK.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Modern writers have directed multifaceted attacks on Saudi Arabia by spreading a calculated smear campaign and all sorts of malicious allegations, ranging from; Saudi Arabia promotes terror and violence, it harbors extremists, sponsors militant Islam worldwide and is responsible for the global threat against humanity through radicalization and terrorism. This is and are, indisputably shameless lies that only emanate due to a lack of knowledge and a deliberate concerted effort to malign Saudi Arabia and ultimately Salafi school of thought, whereas the concise truth and reality could not be furthest from the truth in relation to these baseless allegations. Cdr Youseff H. Aboul-Enein writes:

The Saudi Kingdom as a government has tamed Militant Islamists and settled back to Salafi Islamists trends, spreading its peculiar and intolerant brands of Islam through dawa and not violence [1].

This contradicts the views and claims of other writers, that Saudi Arabia promotes violence, this in of itself shows the fallacy of their arguments. Some writers have expanded on this discourse while explaining key facts associated with Saudi Arabia. They say Saudi Arabia is known to spread Salafism and according to the definition of Salafism, which I must add, is self-concocted and a fabrication, in order to justify their narrative and an understanding that conforms to their falsehood. In reality, all such terms related to Salafism are false as there is only one type of Salafism. I am referring to terms like ‘Quietist Salafism,’ ‘Political Salafism’ and Jihadi Salafism,[2] which, undoubtedly apart from minor fact of being conjured up to categorize modern trends, is outright erroneous.

We can deliberate on this later, but when Jessica Stern; a research professor out of Boston University and who also served on the Clinton administration’s National Security Council Staff and J.M Berger; a fellow with George Washington University’s programme on extremism, explained these terms,[3] whilst borrowing them from Quintan Wiktorowitz.[4] According to their definition of ‘Quietist Salafism’ they say:

The quietist faction is, in a sense, the strain of Salafism that has responded the least to the world events of the twentieth century. Individuals in this group understand their central project to be the purification of Islam and do not participate in politics.[5] Though there are quietists Salafis across the Muslim world, the center of gravity for this movement is the existing religious establishment in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is somewhat atypical for a country in the Muslim world, but the very things that make it unique have made is hospitable to the quietists.[6]

On one hand, many like J. Stern and J.M. Berger, the example here; argue that Saudi Arabia has been an influential champion of Salafism, and we know from the first principles of Salafism; that it vehemently denounces, rejects, refutes and openly warns against terrorism, extremism and militancy. However, both writers, naively allude to:

It suggests, in a sense, that Saudi Arabia is responsible for movements such as ISIS because of the role that the Saudi Arabian government played in facilitating the spread of Salafism across the region.[7]

As injudicious and untruthful as it sounds, which is undoubtedly the case, this diatribe would have been just ridiculed and brazenly dismissed as a very poor judgment of error, but to add insult to injury, they quote an article of Ed Hussain as evidence![8] This article is a culmination of half-truths and some rudimentary information, spun to give a repulsive intent; the authors quote it to suggest a colossal claim, this has but except caused them stern embarrassment. Furthermore, both writers have themselves defined Salafism as:

Salafism is a loosely organised movement within Sunni Islam…but there are core features to the movement. Salafism is call for a return to the beliefs, practises and sincerity of early Islam. In fact, the term “Salafism” is a direct reference to these early years, and refers to the first few generations of Muslims, known as the salaf. Salafis prefer the Islam of these early Muslims and believe that centuries of human interpretation – influenced by pre-existing religious traditions, cultural biases, political agendas and individual self-interests – have corrupted Islam and led to decline across the Muslim world.[9]

So, should it not be the case for anyone who “suggests,” that at the very least they look at the teaching, ideology and methodology of the Salaf, who the Salafis ascribe to, with regards to the modern trends and themes and labelling Salafism and thus Saudi Arabia being responsible for the terrorist group, ISIS?

Is this not a huge leap over clear facts and perhaps total disregard for the truth while ignoring fundamentals precepts of Salafism. We find further contradictions in the understanding of these modern writers, and this is the case with most of them. They, Cdr Youseff H. Aboul-Enein argue that Saudi Arabia spread Islam through daʿwah and not violence, where as Stern and Berger argue Saudi Arabia exported their brand of Salafism which ultimately and by default led to the formation of ISIS and their activities. However, when have ISIS ever been at the forefront of giving daʿwah and in a non violent manner, in fact the total opposite. ISIS have killed Muslims openly, is this the daʿwah that is being referred to? These basic points are indeed sufficiently adequate to show the intelligent mind – the fallacy of these points suggested and hypothesized by these writers.

Some writers have focussed on the Wahhabīs as a movement and have also obviously projected a vivid view of the association between them and Salafism. Malise Ruthven labels the Wahhabīs as fundamentalists and asserts they formed close ideological ties with the Muslim Brotherhood from around circa 1960 to spread Wahhabī fundamentalism.[10] This is also a gross error chronologically and also false because their ideology and the ideology of the Wahhabis and Salafis is poles apart, in doctrine and in methodology (Manhaj).

Even in recent times, when Saudi Arabia has continued its efforts in curbing radicalisation and fighting terrorism, ISIS continues its campaign of terror in the Kingdom and there have been at least Nine separate incidences of violence and terror attacks carried out with ISIS claiming responsibility. So much so that even the holy sanctuary of Madīnah and the Prophet H‘s mosque was not spared by these mindless terrorists, while the people were preparing to pray and break their fast in the Holy month of Ramadhān.

Saudi Arabia has seen terrorism and violence in its Kingdom prior to 9/11, from around 2000, with an increase in the violent terrorist attacks year by year, with the most recent being July 2018. Does a country subject its citizens and its visitors, who are protected and under the safety of the sovereign state; to violent terrorism, suicide bombings, destruction of property and life, indiscriminate senseless killings? Of course not! Then how do these modern writers, without any regard for the truth and respect for the dead, hurl baseless and false allegations at Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and Salafism for the spread of violent terrorism. Foreign secret services although implicated, were surprising cleared by the police of their country, very conveniently of any involvement, but the allegations of foreign involvement in destabilising Saudi Arabia with a relentless campaign of terror are very much still on the table.

This short treatise of the Saudi Arabian Salafī scholar, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin b. Ḥamad al-ʿAbbād al-Badr is a repudiation of the people whose ideology is to cause corruption and chaos throughout the lands. They cause destruction and devastation physically; to life and property as well as emotional and psychological trauma to all those affected by their reckless killing, suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing under the satanic principle of ‘collateral damage’. In current times various groups and organisations have arisen, whose intent is to kill innocent civilians, Muslims and non-Muslim, the elderly, women and children. Such heinous crimes are severely reprimanded in Islam and they also oppose its pristine teachings based on divine scriptures. These wicked and evil people distort and manipulate the scriptural texts, so that they conform to their whims and desires.

This treatise, ‘With What Reasoning and Religion Can Bombings and Destruction Be Considered as Jiḥād?’of Shaykh ʿAbd al-Muḥsin addresses the important issues of killing innocent people, suicide bombings and senseless destruction, which was authored after the Riyadh bombings in 2003. This treatise also clarifies the Salafist view on the unlawfulness of suicide bombings, violent terror, the killing of innocent people and the sanctity of human life, which the Salafis have always advocated. Let this treatise also serve as a reminder to the detractors, who exert considerable effort to discredit the teachings of Salafiyyah, which is free from the so called brands of Salafism. We pray that individuals affected with the ideas of the Khawārij and extremists, benefit from this treatise while reading it with an open and sincere mind.

Abu Khuzaimah Anṣari, Abu Ḥibban, and Abu Rumaiṣah are preachers based in Birmingham-UK.

The article first published on Salafiri.com.