Friday, 3 July 2015
David Cameron says: “Don't call the Islamic State the 'Islamic State'.”
The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has just criticised the BBC for referring to the Islamic State as the “Islamic State”. In response, the BBC's John Humphrys made the obvious point that, well, it's called the “Islamic State”. So what's Cameron's preferred alternative? It's the acronym 'ISIL'.
In full, Mr Cameron (during an interview on BBC Radio 4) said:
“I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State because it's not an Islamic State; what it is is an appalling, barbarous regime.
“It is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words 'Islamic State'.
“I wish the BBC would stop calling it Islamic State because it's not an Islamic State; what it is is an appalling, barbarous regime.”
Various other political Islamophiles have got in on the act too. The Scottish National Party (SNP) leader (Angus Robertson), for example, also called for politicians and the media to stop using the words 'Islamic State'. Roberson added that the US Secretary of State (John Kerry) and the French foreign minister (Laurent Fabius) were already “using the appropriate term” (which, apparently, is Daesh).
Mr Robertson went on to say:
“The time has come in the English speaking world, to stop using Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL, and instead we and our media should use Daesh as the commonly-used phrase across the Middle East.”
So it's seems that Mr Roberson has seen the flaw in Cameron's own alternative. Yes, 'ISIS' or 'ISIL' isn't good enough either because it also includes the word “Islamic”.
However, Cameron himself said that he doesn't
“think we will move them all the way to Daesh so I think saying ISIL is better than using Islamic State because it is in my view neither Islamic nor a state”.
Now I don't want to spoon-feed readers, but Cameron preferred alternative (as Mr Robinson noted) stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Yes, the first two words are “Islamic State”. This is also almost like saying: “Don't call Nazis 'National Socialists': call them 'Nazis'.” Anyway, as the phrase goes: “A rose is a rose by any other name.”
Is Cameroon attempting to do what Leftists, postmodernists and post-structuralists do in our universities, councils, law firms, etc. – alter the way we think by changing the words we use?
In any case, the fact is that the Islamic State almost perfectly replicates Mohammed's own state and that of his “companions”. It does so more closely than any other Islamic/Muslim state or empire has done since Mohammed's death. The fighters of the Islamic State have replicated almost everything Muhammed and his own fighters did: slavery, sex slavery, beheading, child marriage, crucifixion, expansionism/imperialism, jizya (the Islamic tax) and the rules of dhimmitude.
If anyone doubts me on this, simply spend a few hours reading the Koran, hadith and the various lives of Muhammed. I'm tempted to advise people not to read Muslim accounts of Mohammed's life. However, even they aren't averse to chronicling the fact that Muhammed was a slave trader, a warrior, a beheader, a plunderer and someone who married a six-year-old (who later consummated the marriage when she was nine years old). If Muslims were adverse to chronicling these facts about their prophet, then there wouldn't be a problem with the Islamic State in the first place.
In a certain sense you can almost understand what Cameron and so many others are trying to do. They think that by lying or dissimulating about Islam, Muhammed and the Islamic State that they'll help further the cause of that almost mythical beast: moderate Islam. In fact he's doing what many Leftists do all the time: he's “lying for Justice”. However, precisely because the entire enterprise is based on a mountain of lies and deceits it probably will never work. Yes, both Muslims and non-Muslims know that Cameron is lying about Islam and Muhammed. His pet project, therefore, is almost bound to fail.
What Cameron is doing is utterly perverse anyway. Fair enough, historically all sorts of Christians have said their own version of Christianity is the “true one”. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists have said the same to their own co-religionists. Nonetheless, in all these cases it was people from within their own religion that they were castigating. (Protestants criticised Catholics and vice versa, Sunni Muslims criticised Shia Muslims and vice versa, etc.) However, in Prime Minister Cameron's case we have a non-Muslim preaching to the Muslim world about “true Islam” and, correspondingly, the “perversions of Islam”. This is utterly incredible. It's almost like Britney Spears lecturing Steven Hawking on the true nature of physics and cosmology.