The New Zealand Defence Force will now
refer to Islamic State (IS) as “Daesh”, the Arabic acronym for the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant. It is
likely opinion leaders here will follow those in the U.K., U.S. and France. This essay explains the reasoning behind the
intention to change IS’ name, and why we should be wary of its demonisation.
The first five paragraphs carry background
information and definitions. Readers familiar with these terms can skip to The Western Reaction to IS for a
nuanced assessment that won’t be found elsewhere.
Background
to ‘Daesh’
Daesh is the preferred Arabic name for
Islamic State. It stands for Dawlat al
Islamiyah fi'al Iraq wa al Sham, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and
Sham (Syria). But there is more to this
than a convenient acronym. In Arabic,
Daesh sounds similar "Daes," which means "one who crushes
something underfoot," and "Dahes," which means "one who
sows discord." It may also imply ‘darkness’ and ‘bigoted’. As a result of this play on words, Daesh has
become a derogatory expression. In turn,
IS leaders have threatened
to "cut the tongue" of anyone who uses the word in public.
Middle East and North African (MENA) states
see, accurately, IS as an active and existential threat to both their borders’
and their nationhood’s integrity. In
this the rest of the world agrees, and it will support these states (at least
those that it hasn’t assisted in destroying) in any way possible without
actually get their hands dirty (or more correctly, dirtier).
International
Response
The BBC’s director general Lord Hall has
rejected demands by more than 100 British MPs to stop using the term
"Islamic State" on the grounds that it “gives legitimacy to a
terrorist organization that is not Islamic nor has it been recognized as a
state and which a vast majority of Muslims around the world finds despicable
and insulting to their peaceful religion."
This statement compounds ignorance with naivety which can only be
redeemed by use of the word ‘mendacious’.
Lord Hall said
that the proposed alternative, "Daesh," is pejorative and using it
would be unfair to the Islamic State, thereby casting doubt upon the BBC's
impartiality. Unfortunately, his
response confers a modicum of legitimacy on IS.
France, with its strong Arab links, is
perfectly happy to appease the Arabs, with prime minister Manuel Valls giving
the distinct impression of spitting out the word “Daesh” when referring to an
IS atrocity, and foreign minister Laurent Fabius calls IS "Daesh cut-throats".
Pressure is increasing on others in the
West to refer to IS as Daesh. Some comes
from government members – the lead MP who wrote to the BBC is Rehman Chishti, a
Pakistan-born Conservative MP. Other
sources are the media who are in an optimal position to normalise use of the
word. The justification of this is on
the grounds that, in UK PM David Cameron’s words, “because it is neither in my
view Islamic nor a state.” But Cameron’s
‘my view’ qualification has meant that he is not giving approval to Daesh,
rather, he wants the BBC to modify Islamic State with ‘so-called’. US Secretary of State
John Kerry has increased his usage of the word beyond just talks with Arabic
leaders.
I will continue to use the term Islamic
State or IS for other reasons, which I will explain soon.
The
Caliphate
IS regards itself as a caliphate, a
foundational concept and a theme which runs through Islam right up to the
present day. It is the core narrative of al
Qaeda and a goal of the Muslim Brotherhood. Regardless of what
happens to IS, it will never go away.
To understand the caliphate one needs to
understand the concept of tawhid,
Islam’s concept of universal, absolute and
uncompromising monotheism that transcends the world. There is no ‘out’ from this. You, dear reader, I, and everyone else on
earth is born with this original, pure nature called fitra which inclines us, in Islam’s
doctrinal world, towards tawhid. Then,
as the former Cat Stevens says, “It is only his parents who make him a
Christian or a Jew.” This is why Muslims
refer to converts as ‘reverts’ as they turn back to the natural state of
Islam. This is the caliphate in its most
abstract form.
There are frequent
references by individual Muslims to the nation of Islam, our people, and the
global Muslim community or nation, which in Arabic is known as the ummah. This represents Muslims’
collective identity which reinforces the individual’s persona. The majority of Muslims consider their Muslim
identity more important than their national identity, and as such put a high
priority on the ummah. This is the caliphate in its unrealised form,
creating an international bond of unity.
Less favourably, it facilitates group-think, obliges Muslims to assist
others in need such as illegal immigrants, puts non-Muslims into the out-group
category while at the same time claiming that in the West they themselves are
the out-group, and enabling anything considered anti-Islamic to receive
universal opprobrium. Beware of Muslims talking of ‘their community’, for they
talk of the caliphate.
It is a form concrete
in imagination only. The modern world
does not have a place for it. When
people are to be ruled by the word of Allah and not man, democracy is out of
the question. As are borders, nation
states, secularism, and anything that intermediates between Allah’s will and the
people of his world.
To achieve God’s will, then, the caliphate
has to be made real by force. This is
the responsibility of volunteers from the ummah,
helped by al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, an endless procession of
fundamentalist preachers funded by Saudi petrodollars, and the manipulation of
Western opinion with the help of the anarchist and Marxist Left in what must be
the most unlikely pairing of bedfellows in history.
The one thing that links the anarchist Left
with radical Islam is the need for chaos, out of which a new order can
arise. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the
Western response and the Arab Spring created this situation in MENA. Strategically important states such as Libya
with its six African state borders and Mediterranean coastline, and Iraq with
its four Arab state borders as well as Iran and Turkey, quickly came under the
radicals’ control. Islamic State filled
in the gap formed by the retreat of Syrian state troops. Its surge in popular support, combined with
canny financial management and with the religious face of its present leader
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Thus was created the latest incarnation of
the caliphate, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Islamic
State – is it Islamic?
There’s no shortage of people willing to
refer to IS as “neither Islamic nor a state.”
Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and many Muslim community leaders
are quick to deny the credibility of the IS name. For their own reasons these people consider
Islam should work in a certain way, that a state should follow certain
definitions, and anything failing this standard can have its claim refuted. Such
opinions are self-referential and lack validity.
Islam is a religion unlike any other. It is based on the immutable words of Allah
as reported by Islam’s prophet Muhammad, meaning that the 7th
century morality it espouses cannot be changed, only interpreted by
scholars. It is a complete system for life with religious, political and
governmental, social and charitable, economic, legal and judicial, educational,
and military components. It applies to
the entire world, meaning the world has to change, not Muslims. It is neither permissible nor necessary to exercise
critical thinking since the answers to any problem lie in the Koran and the
hadith, that vast collection of Islam’s oral traditions relating to their
prophet Muhammad’s life.
Since its inception Islam has faced the problem
of resolving changes in society with its binding laws. Its inability to change has led to regressive
standards of living and education, while maintaining a façade of moral
superiority over the West. As predominantly-Muslim
states yield to modernising pressures, the convictions of the deeply religious result
in jihad, holy war, waged on the less
pious in order to restore Islam to what should be, in their minds, the
pre-eminent religious, social and political system to rule the world.
The creation of the Islamic State, then, is a
gift from Allah. It is an opportunity
for the faithful to create a state ruled by sharia
or Islamic religious law. No other
country is ruled in this manner which means their pious citizens feel unable to
live by Islam’s procedures and thus cannot enter paradise. The Islamic State offers them entry to
paradise, so whatever the hardships, sacrifices and actions of extreme violence
they make, it will be worth it in the afterlife.
Religious justification for such a life is a
prerequisite, and were IS to fail in its Koranic-based moral and religious
defence of its actions, its expansion would be curtailed rapidly. This is not the case. It is not for the West, nor is it for other
Muslims, to judge IS on its Islamic credentials.
Islamic
State – is it a State?
There is considerable flexibility in
establishing what constitutes a state.
Basic requirements are for a defined geographical area, a population
subject to a single governing entity to which it pays taxes in return for
protection and stability, and that it is not subject to any other state. Islam boasts of being a complete system –
economic, political, governmental, social, judicial, military and religious,
and its comprehensive rules and IS’ successful economic model give it a measure
of sustainability. Despite lack of
international recognition and consequent legitimacy, IS has achieved at least
the facsimile of statehood.
It is incumbent, then, on those claiming
“IS is not a state” to provide a definitive reason why IS fails to make the
grade. None is forthcoming. It is thus warranted to refer to IS as a
state, whatever qualifications one wishes to apply to it.
The
Western Reaction to IS
The creation of a fundamentalist state out
of a rudimentary collection of al Qaeda offshoots – the heads of the Hydra we
were warned about – came as a shock to the West. Credit where it’s due, Islamic terrorists are
able to repeatedly create massive, unpredictable and traumatic events.
Western response has been principally to
augment ME states which have most to lose.
The United States’ role as ‘globo-cop’ has been curtailed by the lessons
learned in Iraq and Libya, which is no comfort to states calling for active
defence against IS.
Of greater interest to me as a commentator
on the defeat of the West at the hands of resurgent Islam is the effect IS has
on Western perceptions of Islam in general.
The true significance of Muslims’ demands
to change IS’ name is to create a false distinction between Islam and the
actions of IS which is bringing Islam’s barbarism into the spotlight.
This serves four purposes.
Delegitimisation
Firstly they seek to diminish the
legitimacy of IS to act in Islam’s name.
This is similar in purpose to depreciating ‘lone wolf’ terrorists as
mentally unbalanced.
Individual Muslims may express disgust with
IS’ actions but its undoubted success in obtaining Western recruits indicates a
far wider support for its brazen victories than is publicly acknowledged. Islam is a religion of conquest and IS’ triumphs
feed into this very popular narrative.
Terror and Lure
Secondly
is Islam’s doctrine of dawah baina al targhib
wal tarhib, that is, preaching between terror and lure. Muslims are required to submit to the will of
Allah and failure in this will be met by the threat of Allah’s wrath in hell
for eternity. Those who succeed have the
absolute certainty of eternal peace and carnal pleasure in paradise. Life
in this world is of no consequence except as preparation for their place in the
afterlife, which explains the frivolous expenditure of human lives in the Muslim
world.
For
non-Muslims, to whom entry into paradise is forbidden and are condemned to hell
for eternity, a warning is needed to demonstrate the unconditional supremacy of
Islam, courtesy of among others, Islamic State, whose members are instructed by
the Koran to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.”
The
lure, that of eternal peace, and only be achieved by reversion to Islam.
The Less-Evil Option
Thirdly
is the principle of the lesser of two evils. IS raises the profile while Western Muslims
look virtually normal with enhanced visibility as they seek to keep IS in
check. For the moment.
Keeping
Islam’s dirty little secret
Fourthly and most importantly, both Islam
in the West and the Islamic State have the same ultimate goal of global Islamic
hegemony. But those in the West have the
Muslim Brotherhood’s prescriptive path to follow while ingratiating
themselves into prominent public positions, whereas IS operates in failed
states. By sending its operatives into
Europe this path is disrupted and Europeans will become aware too early about
Islam’s goal. Thus, Muslims in
significant positions in the West want to maintain a wide berth between
themselves and IS.
Conclusion
In spite of denials Islamic State’s name is
clearly a justifiable description of its position, albeit it nascent and possibly
temporary nature. When Western leaders
say “IS is not Islamic or a state”, it is an act of appeasement in the manner
of “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Neither statement sustains scrutiny but they maintain a semblance of
dignity as the Western ships of state sink beneath the waves of Muslim
immigration. The Islamic conquest of
Europe is a fait accompli, but as a corpse, its culture will take decades,
longer, to realise it is actually dead, consumed by the maggots of triumphant Islam.
