ISIS vs Daesh? – PLSC 359: Global Governance

Every time I hear someone talking about the Islamic State, the first thing that pops up my mind is the terminology. It has become a common practice to refer to the militant group as they call themselves – The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Levant (ISIS or ISIL) and to simplify it we just use the short form: the Islamic State. But I just cannot keep myself from thinking why we would actually do that.

The international community does not recognize the existence of the Islamic State even though they proclaimed a caliphate. Their goal is to have their own independent and universal Islamic state to rule and to expand. By referring to them as the Islamic State, we do exactly what they want to achieve. If we do not recognize the group as a state, we should not use the word state in its name.

There is another way to refer to them and that is the acronym Daesh which is based on Arabic translation of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but it has a very negative connotation and the group actually detest this name.

I realize it is not possible that the whole world would start calling the group Daesh overnight, it is just not possible as the name Islamic State is too embedded in people’ s minds by now. But slowly step by step, we should try and use the acronym Daesh more and more. To spread the new practice, it is especially politicians and influential people who should be using the name Daesh in their speeches, also journalists should use the term and people should learn about it at school. If we do not want the Islamic State, we should not promote it by giving them the feeling that the world acknowledges the existence of such a state.

Rohan Dalal says:

April 4, 2016 at 12:16 am

I think this post highlights some important aspects of not just Islamic State but also Terrorism as a whole. Although your focus is on the terminology of the IS, it is symbolic of the overarching issues that are faced in characterizing and defining terrorism. Specifically, what I am referring to are knowledge gaps that exist when dealing with such actors and their inherent implications. Taking the example of Assad’s condemning of protestors as terrorists, we can observe the issues that arise with such terminology. To solve this issue, we should not confine ourselves to specific instance of terrorism such as Daesh or Al-Qaeda, but rather consider the causes and ideologies of terrorist as a whole. To do this our first goal must be to clearly define terrorism and adopt a universal stance towards it. My contention is that the inadequacy that arises in solving terrorism is created through an inherent disagreement regarding the ideologies that cause terrorism.