Originally Posted by mikedreamer787
It is bad. How can you tell? Two tell-tale signs:
1) It denies any link between Islam and the activities of the extremists. Wrong. At the root of this 40-year problem is that both the peaceful majority and the extremist minority think that they are acting in accordance with "the true Islam".
2) It advocates that English speakers cease using the names "ISIS", "ISIL" or "IS" and instead use the name "Daesh" because it is neither "Islamic" nor a "State". This is total bunkum - "Daesh" is simply the anglicised form of the abbreviation in Arabic of "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shaam". It is true that the term is disrespectful in Arabic, mainly because it sounds something like a term of abuse. See
here for more. But this applies only in Arabic. To my mind, those who advocate the use of "Daesh" among English-speakers do so principally because they want to break the connection in our minds between Islam and the extremists - presumably because they think we are bigoted fools who will go on Islamophobic rampages unless shielded from the truth, and because we are unlikely to know that "Daesh" and "ISIS" are word-for-word the same.
Awareness of both of these points is important because the self-censoring aspect of Western debate is a real issue. We need to find a long-term solution to the problem of Islamist extremism, which has been with us in its modern form since the 1970s. We can apply temporary solutions by force or internal security measures, but the only one that will stick is a definitive, pan-sectarian, scholarly delegitimisation of the ideology espoused by ISIL and other salafi jihadist groups. Such a solution can ONLY be delivered by Muslims; anything delivered from outside the religion will not have the required credibility. Diverting our attention from this fact, whether through the devices used in the liberal media or by movements such as #NotInMyName, stops us from properly analysing the problem. Without taking steps to encourage the resolution of the ideological battle, we are condemned to endless repetition of costly and futile military interventions.
Thanks to our cultural heritage, we can intuitively identify extremism that claims to represent Christianity, and ostracise its members without regard to political correctness. It is totally unthinkable, for example, that the BBC would allow a Ku Klux Klan sympathiser to espouse political views on Newsnight or similar (at least, without being overtly labelled and challenged by all other panellists and the presenter). But we do not have sufficient societal knowledge of Islam to do the same with its extremists. For years, Muslim leaders have complained over the tolerance we extend to extremist clerics in "Londonistan", and just last week the BBC provided links to CAGE from its story on the killing of 'Jihadi John'. After Paris, we need to have a debate over this tolerance. Should we ban the Muslim Brotherhood, as some Gulf leaders have recommended? Should we exercise more control over extremist activity on the internet? Do we get enough economic benefit from our relationship with the Saudis to compensate for the moral effects and physical consequences of the bile spewing from clerics tolerated by the royal family as a condition of its power?
Denying any link between Islam and the actions of extremists stops this vital debate before it has even begun. Perniciously, warnings like "talking of Islam in this way risks provoking the far right and must be avoided" are just plain wrong - if mainstream politicians don't start to grapple with these issues in public, the far right will begin to gain support from people who see their concerns being ignored. Witness the resurgence of the National Front in France. Certainly, don't tar all Muslims with the same brush, and it is a debate in which careful wording is vital - but don't avoid the issue. Doing so is counterproductive on many levels.