The politically correct use of the term ‘so-called Islamic State’ is completely counter-productive.

In June this year David Cameron appeared on BBC Radio 4 and suggested that the broadcaster refrain from using the term ‘Islamic State’ for fear of offending the Muslim community.

The BBC’s response to this has been curious. Director-General Lord Hall stated that only by referring to the group as a name it uses itself could the broadcaster maintain its impartiality. However he added that the name is often caveated by using the description ‘so-called’ in front of the name ‘Islamic State’.

In reality, the BBC has completely capitulated to the Prime Minister and now only ever refers to the group as the ‘so-called Islamic State’.

What’s in a name?

It must be said that David Cameron himself seems a bit confused about which name is most unlikely to cause offence.

Like President Obama, Cameron refers to the Islamic State as ISIL, which means the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ISIS on the other hand means Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham.

While Levant is a French term whereas Al-Sham is an Arabic term, both refer to roughly the same region incorporating Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. Therefore it’s hard to see how one could be more offensive than the other.

In any case both terms are dated as in 2014 the group changed its name from ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham’ to simply ‘Islamic State’ in order to show that its territorial ambitions are limitless. That is probably a detail the public should know about, and therefore the new name should be used by politicians and journalists in some form or another.

How best not to offend?

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson suggested that the right term to use would be the pejorative Arabic term, Daesh, which means ‘a person who creates disunity’ and removes any reference to Islam. In his interview with Radio 4, Cameron almost seemed to goad the BBC that they wouldn’t have the courage to use the term.

It is worth keeping in mind that there are a minority of Muslim youths in this country who do sympathise with the views of the Islamic State. The Prime Minister should consider how much more radical these people would become after seeing him learn only one word of Arabic which is used to denigrate an organisation they consider to be legitimate representatives of Islam. This brings us to a wider discussion.

David Cameron agrees with the vast majority of Muslims in saying that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. But the issue is the moderate majority of Muslims would never even consider launching a terrorist attack against this country. It is the minority who have radical views but have not yet decided to act on them that need to be dealt with and rehabilitated.

Sunni Islam is a non-hierarchical religion in which no person on Earth can decide for everyone what does or doesn’t represent Islam, albeit IS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has claimed to appoint himself to exactly that role. Without a supreme authority like the Pope, Muslims are able to decide for themselves whether moderate or radical clerics are the ones preaching real Islamic values.

In the absence of an Islamic leadership to decide what is or isn’t Islamic, radical Muslims will inevitably wonder what right David Cameron, who is neither a Muslim or a theologian, has to decide what represents Islam. Inevitably when these people go online or watch television they will simply be getting angrier and angrier hearing middle class non-Muslims, who they can’t relate to in any way, talk about a ‘so-called Islamic State’ or a ‘Daesh’.

If politicians and the media do want to talk about how ‘un-Islamic’ the Islamic State is, they would be wise to educate themselves about Islam and actually engage in a theological discussion as well as a political one.

An excellent article was written by Yale lecturer Graeme Wood explaining that while Al Qaeda are in effect political Islamists, the Islamic State is exactly what the name suggests, a 100% religious organisation.

No matter how hard we wish, we will not turn the Islamic State into a political group and we will not get them to have the same discussion as us.

If we are unwilling to engage in a comprehensive theological discussion it would be wise not to poke dangerous radicals with a stick by trying to decide what represents their religion.

The ‘correct’ name

For any journalists or politicians, the name that ticks all boxes should be blindingly obvious.

The ‘Islamic State organisation’.

This neutral and unemotional term simply shows that IS is an organisation claiming to be an Islamic State.

The rigorous discussion of what actually constitutes an Islamic state has gone on among Muslims for over a thousand years and will probably go on for a thousand years more. Therefore it is best we leave that argument to Muslim scholars and theologians and focus on the one fact that needs no debate. The Islamic State is a brutal extremist group which threatens civilised people worldwide and needs to be wiped out as soon as possible.