The More You Know…Why it matters what we call ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State
“Islamic State is what they’re calling themselves as if they were a nation; we’re not recognizing them as a nation” (Kovaleski, 2015). “ISIL is not Islamic … and ISIL is certainly not a state” (Obama, 2015). These negative honor challenges by (in-group)[1] world leaders deny the Islamic State (IS)[2] patronage and effectively denounce them as an out-group on the world stage; thereby denying ISIL’s recognition as the Caliphate of all Muslims commanding sharia, religious, social, and political control — the limited good that Islamic State seeks.
This group has called itself by many different names since its genesis, with the latest “Islamic State” (al-Dawla Al-Islamiva) implying that the group is the world’s only Islamic state: that they represent and lead all Muslims, thus creating a world wide in-group Muslim patronage line with authority over approximately 1.6 billion people and control of some 51 countries worldwide. ISIL’s brand of Islamic law, the finite limited good, wishes to obtain honor bestowed upon the patron IS, with recognition as a state; which intuitively becomes a negative challenge to the United States (US), the United Nations (UN), other Islamic Shia and Sunni groups.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ISIS caliph leader reportedly killed in an US airstrike in September of 2014 but refuted by coalition and US sources, has made threats to attack Americans and other western countries, adding fears ISIS is a danger to the West. This challenge and response is yet another contested volley between the US and ISIS as it relates to the limited good of world recognition. IS’s attempt to claim honor as the caliph patron in-group of Muslims worldwide contends honor is owed them as a result of gaining control of large areas of the Middle East including Iraq and Syria — an opinion disputed by the US and the UN as they continually refer this group as ISIL.
To the US, ISIS stands for the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” a designation that may indicate the best way to combat the group is to take them on militarily in both of those countries. ISIL stands for the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.” The Levant is a larger area of the Middle East that includes many countries in the region such as Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Syria. But the Obama administration has shown much more willingness to attack ISIS in Iraq than they have to attack them in Syria, they seem to have decided it is in their best interest to leave the “S” out of the name and refer to them as ISIL — representing a negative honor challenge to IS and jeopardizing the limited good of establishing IS as the predominate patronage in-group for all Muslims.
Barack Obama, as representative of the free world and President of the United States, refuses to recognize IS as anything other than an insurgent terrorist group stating, “Islamic State is what they’re calling themselves as if they were a nation; we’re not recognizing them as a nation,” adding “ISIL is not Islamic … and ISIL is certainly not a state” (Obama, 2015). These statements demarcate ISIL as a out-group as defined by President Obama along with the other in-group allies and are a direct negative honor response of ISIL’s attempt to obtain the limited good of patron status over Muslims worldwide. President Obama’s statements cast ISIL as a shamed out-group and limit the groups control for the finite resources of land and control as caliphate.
The U.S. is not interested in mounting hostile actions against Middle Eastern states such as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Israel or Palestine — known collectively as the Levant. Doing so would create a negative honor challenge potentially causing international relationships to become tainted and strained — a net loss in the limited goodwill between the U.S. and partnering in-group nations in the fight to suppress or defeat ISIL. In a speech outlining his military strategy President Obama clearly preferred the term ISIL to Islamic State, saying that the group did not represent Islam and was not recognized by any world government.
ISIL makes many challenges to the U.S. in an attempt to be recognized as a world power. Some examples include, calling for jihad against the U.S., encouraging acts of violence on U.S. soil, recruiting youth from Minnesota and even depicting the beheading of Americans. These examples are negative honor challenges against the U.S. In their attempt to obtain worldwide patron status of their caliphate over Muslims and shame the U.S. ISIL attempts to obtain the limited good of sharia law and create a positive response along with in-group status. However, the U.S. refuses to recognize ISIL as anything but a negative out-group; to be defeated, contained or otherwise neutralized.
IS, ISIS or ISIL, the naming and nomenclature is relevant and truly important to the United States, and to the world. Maintaining positive relations with recognized in-groups and promoting peace and stability (limited good) is a positive honor that distinguishes patron status to the U.S. on a worldly scale. By default, out-groups, such as ISIL continually present negative honor challenges in an attempt to shame the U.S. through their caliphate driven terroristic acts of beheadings, forced slavery and imposed sharia law upon innocent citizens; attempting to obtain issues of Muslim control and international recognition (limited good) as a nation state — their stated goals.
To the U.S., UN, and the many nations that possess international patron status, ISIL is a terrorist. Viewed as an international thug with the negative associations that come with being regarded as a client to the patron world powers. The honor and limited good of international recognition as a state is unattainable for ISIL — a detested out-group — so long as it continues acts associated with terrorism and oppression. As Bruce Hoffman explains, “terrorism is designed specifically to have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate victims…it is meant to instill fear within a wider target audience [and] is designed to create power where there is none…and to effect political change on a local or international scale” (Hoffman, 2006, pp. 40–41). By Hoffman’s definition, ISIL is a terrorist organization; but has not achieved the normative status of a world-recognized nation. Therefore, it has not attained its stated goal of establishing a new Islamic caliphate across the Middle East encompassing Muslims worldwide.
[1] Markers such as in-group and out-group are based upon Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity and Intergroup relations work first published in 1982.
[2] ISIS is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIL is the Islamic State of Iraq and “the Levant,” and really that is probably more of an accurate description because “the Levant” covers a larger area of influence and control by this group. Formerly known as Jamaat al-Tawhid wa-l-Jihad, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), then it became al-Dawlat al-Iraq al-Islamiyah (Islamic State in Iraq). In 2013 the group became known as ISIS (al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham), but using Arabic characters it has an acronym of (Daesh) which is used in a derogatory sense that the group despises as it is often associated with “daeshi” meaning a bigot who tries to impose his views on you. The group’s latest official name is Islamic state (IS).
Plugged-In would love to hear your thoughts on this or any other issues related to homeland security. Please comment and let us know what you think!
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/pluggedin1504 @pluggedin1504
And on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pluggedin1504
See our other stories:
