(If you would like to help defray the costs involved in producing this blog, please note the Paypal donation box on the Home page.)
After the gruesome murders of over thirty British tourists on a Tunisian beach Friday, the British Prime Minister David Cameron was quick to condemn the atrocity. But he was also quick to remind those listening that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists have seized and perverted Islam.
He is now calling on the national media to stop referring to “Islamic State,” the name that ISIS calls itself.
“Methinks he protests too much!”
For years now, we’ve been hearing of terrorist acts committed by Muslims in many different countries. Yes, occasionally, we hear of a terrorist act committed by Hindus and individual acts of violence by supposed Christians, like the one in Charleston two weeks ago. But most terrorism is committed by Muslims, both Shia and Sunni.
Sometimes, it’s hard for politicians to come out and tell the truth, but one day somebody will have to, if we are to ever win “the Great War of our time,” as Michael Morell calls it. Mr. Morell was the former deputy director of the CIA.
Mr. Cameron’s call to end the use of the term “Islamic State” led to a discussion on the BBC World Service (radio) this morning. It amazes me with so much going on, with terrorist attacks threatening us all and with IS constantly expanding its territory, that we can indulge ourselves in discussions of semantics on worldwide radio.
At one point, the term “Islamic State” was being discussed. One contributor said we should not use it as ISIS is not Islamic and not a State. What is it then?
I googled a definition of “state.” The following definition came back: “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” Based on this definition, IS is certainly a state, or country. It’s not a “state” as in the US, which is a federation of 50 states. But it is as much a state as Germany, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
It has territory. In fact, it has more of it every week. It now controls most of Libya and has clearly expanded its influence into Tunisia, with two major terrorist attacks in three months.
It’s also an “organized political community under one government.” It’s certainly not organized like other countries, but in its own way it’s organized and has a central authority that lords it over the people, just like other governments.
So why can’t it call itself “Islamic State?”
The problem is that it gives Islam a bad name.
But, that’s nothing new. Islam has had a bad name for 1400 years, ever since its founder, the prophet Muhammed, told his followers to go out and kill all infidels, to conquer the world.
Our ancestors knew that this was reality. On a number of occasions during this long time period Europeans were in a state of armed conflict trying to stop Muslims from conquering Europe or the Middle East. Yes, President Obama was correct when he reminded listeners that Christians did some terrible things, but now is now. It’s not Christians that are threatening to shoot or behead us en masse, it’s Muslims in general, al-Qaeda, al-Shahaab and ISIS in particular.
And it doesn’t help when Messrs Cameron and Obama keep repeating that Islam is a religion of peace.
In fact, it shows them up as being ignorant of history.
It also shows that they haven’t read Graeme Wood’s groundbreaking article on ISIS in the March issue of The Atlantic, the most read article in the magazine’s long history. Wood’s long article showed that ISIS represents true Islam, that the organization’s roots can be found in the seventh century and that they see themselves fulfilling eschatological prophecies before the advent of the Messiah.
Refusing to recognize this is irresponsible. People cannot defend themselves if they cannot clearly identify the enemy. ISIS is the real Islam and it has territory, so it has every right to call itself “Islamic State.” In fact, it’s the perfect name for this political entity.
One of Mr. Cameron’s predecessors as prime minister, a fellow Conservative leader, Winston Churchill, did not come on the radio after every Nazi attack to remind the British people that it wasn’t the Germans who were doing this, it was only the Nazis who represented hardly anybody. If he had, it’s doubtful that victory would have been achieved.
Mr. Cameron’s England is more reminiscent of a book written shortly after World War II. In George Orwell’s “1984,” the Ministry of Truth told nothing but lies, even going so far as to rewrite history for the newspapers. It was almost impossible to think for yourself. If you did, it wouldn’t be long until the Thought Police caught up with you. Today’s “thought police”, employees of the Ministry of Truth, are the multiculturalists who keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and threaten us with prison if we say otherwise.
Meanwhile, the “proles,” the proletariat, the ordinary people of Orwell’s England, were fobbed off with endless entertainment, so they wouldn’t think too much. It’s a good thing he died in 1950 – an evening with cable television would have finished him off, anyway.
Mr. Cameron should remember Hans Christian Anderson’s tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the story of a gullible king who was sold a miracle new fabric that only his loyal subjects could see. Then, one day while riding in a parade, a little boy, who was not privy to the secret of the new fabric, shouted out before all, that the king had no clothes on. As Danny Kaye sang it in song: “Look at the king, the king, the king…..the king is in the all-together, the all-together, as naked as can be.”
One day, with increased acts of terrorism in our own countries, it will become impossible to keep repeating the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.
But, by then, it may be too late!