Isis

What a fraught, divisive, infuriating sort of year it’s been. It started with me attempting to go on a blind date and being clocked by a speed camera doing 35 in a 30 in the dark on the way home. And on the way to the speed course, obviously, I pranged my car trying to park. I took this to be an omen. The ex-builder boyfriend was duly dusted off and put back into active service. In February, while having two new tyres fitted at a tyre shop in Wandsworth, I found myself being hit on by a jihadist tyre-fitter. We got chatting as I sat in his waiting room. He sat at his desk, beneath a golden passage from the Koran, and I somehow ended up telling him I had been to Iraq. The next thing I knew he was confessing to the fact that he was just back from there, for top secret reasons.

For the past few weeks, British news-papers have been informing their readers about two contrasting battles in the killing grounds of the Middle East. One is Mosul, in northern Iraq, where western reporters are accompanying an army of liberation as it frees a joyful population from terrorist control. The other concerns Aleppo, just a few hundred miles to the west. This, apparently, is the exact opposite. Here, a murderous dictator, hellbent on destruction, is waging war on his own people. Both these narratives contain strong elements of truth. There is no question that President Assad and his Russian allies have committed war crimes, and we can all agree that Mosul will be far better off without Isis. Nevertheless, the situations in Mosul and Aleppo are fundamentally identical.

The Islamic State’s pretence to nationhood was based on the holding of territory. With the battle for Mosul this week, together with the loss of the land that it controlled in Syria, that pretence is becoming harder to maintain. The area involved is now limited to a few shattered cities, and corridors between them. The decline of this terror organisation is to be welcomed. But this is a war which can have no neat ending. If Isis were a genuine state, it would by now be forced to consider unconditional surrender. That is not going to happen. More probably it will dissolve, its leaders and lesser agents making an escape or going into hiding. There is a danger that many Isis fighters will attempt to return to the European cities from which they came and continue an underground jihad.

Home Schools in England would have the right to select pupils by ability, under plans outlined by Theresa May, the Prime Minister. New grammar schools would take quotas of poor pupils or help run other schools, a Green Paper proposed. ‘We already have selection in our school system — and it’s selection by house price, selection by wealth. That is simply unfair,’ Mrs May said in a speech. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, said the idea that poor children would benefit from a return of grammar schools was ‘tosh’. Oversubscribed Catholic schools which wished to expand would be able to choose all their additional pupils on grounds of faith.

Here's a strange thing. In a TV interview on Thursday morning, Hillary Clinton said that Isis want Donald Trump to become President of the United States. In her words, Isis are currently saying, 'Please, Allah, make Trump president of America'. Personally I have no idea which ticket Isis will be campaigning for, come November. But I do find this all very confusing. We all learnt from President Obama that Isis have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, when the group decapitated the American hostage Peter Kassig a couple of years ago, the Commander in Chief insisted that ‘Isil’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith’. But if Isis are not Islamic, why would they be praying to Allah? Has Hillary 'mis-spoken'?

It was impossible not to feel rather sorry for the radical Muslim ‘cleric’ Anjem Choudary and his imbecilic henchman Mohammed Rahman as they were each sentenced to five and a half years in prison by a British court. ‘Allahu Akbar!’ his supporters chanted as the sentence was delivered, an invigorating, all-purpose phrase used during decapitations, bombings or just as one is walking down the street. I have taken to using it as well recently, most especially at a critical juncture when I am pleasuring my wife. I think she appreciates it, although I would not be so ungentlemanly as to wake her up and ascertain for sure. Mr Choudary and his pet halfwit have received their sentences largely, I think, for wishing the complete destruction of western civilisation.

Christians continue to be slaughtered in the Middle East. But as reports of genocidal atrocities mount up, our governments have found a new reason to sit on their hands. Christians, the theory goes, don't have it as bad as the Yazidis. As 'people of the book’, Christians enjoy privileged status. Rather than suffering the full extent of Islamic State's depravities, they can pay a tax (Jizya) in return for protection. It sounds credible and contains just enough theology to bamboozle the secular population of the international community. Here's the Office of the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights: 'While Christian communities still living in Daesh controlled territories live difficult and often precarious existences...

E .D. Hirsch Jr., the American educationalist and author of Cultural Literacy, has a new book out that may throw some light on why France has such a problem integrating its Muslim population. Called Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children From Failed Educational Theories, it’s a comprehensive attack on the progressive approach that has done so much harm to schools in the West. Hirsch identifies three ideas in particular: that education should be ‘developmentally appropriate’, with the emphasis on learning through discovery; that it should be ‘child-centred’, taking account of different ‘learning styles’; and that the overarching aim of education should be the cultivation of ‘critical thinking’ skills.

An increasing number of women are entering into the institution of marriage with their dream partner: themselves. In her cover piece this week, Ariane Sherine investigates the women who have brought a new literalism to saying, 'I do'. But is this just a quirky fad? Or are we witnessing a profound social change? Lara Prendergast speaks to Ariane and Spectator editor Fraser Nelson on this week's Spectator podcast. Ariane tells Lara: 'There are an increasing number of women who have decided, because they don't have a man - or maybe some of them don't want a man - that if they can't find Mr Right, well, I'm going to embrace myself and marry myself and it's going to be a really positive and self-affirming ritual. I'm going to invite all my family and friends and have my big day, man or no man'.