Islamic State or Daesh?

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 7^th 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.