Nabi Kırmızı stated that on August 26, 1071, the Seljuk army under the command of Sultan Alparslan defeated the numerically superior Byzantine forces at Manzikert, opening the gates of Anatolia to the Turks. He said that, alongside Seljuk forces and Turkmen, the army also included soldiers affiliated with Muslim emirates and Kurdish elements. He noted that the Mervânîler, centered in Diyarbakır and Silvan, and the Şeddâdîler established political and military relations with the Seljuks, and stated that sources record that approximately 10 thousand people from the Mervânîler region took part in the battle.
Kırmızı argued that the alliances of the 11th century should not be assessed through today’s understanding of nationalism, but within the framework of sovereignty, allegiance, common threats and political interests. He recalled that, approximately a century later, the Kurdish-origin Saladin rose within the Zengîler sphere, where the Turks held sway, and that forces comprising different communities defeated the Crusader army at Hattin and captured Jerusalem.
The writer stated that the shared history of struggle between Turks and Kurds should not be turned into a claim of superiority, and assessed the Framework Law in terms of ending terrorism, strengthening social peace and reinforcing a common future.
Why it matters
By bringing the narrative of historical commonality into the current debate over the Framework Law, the article shows how the past is used in contemporary efforts to achieve social reconciliation. While this framework highlights examples of political and military cooperation in response to approaches that interpret Turkish-Kurdish relations solely through conflict, it also warns that 11th-century alliances cannot be explained through modern identity categories. Thus, the debate over the law is linked not only to security and ending terrorism, but also to the discourse of a shared past and social harmony. At the same time, the historical details presented without sources and potentially open to dispute leave unanswered the question of how firmly the political connection established is grounded in evidence. Therefore, the distinction between opinion and verified historical information needs to be maintained.