Where are the marches against the Islamic State?

Yasmine Bahrani raises a valid question in her article in Washington post. If protests against the Israeli killings of innocent Gaza civilians was right thing to do, then what about protests against ISIS for killing innocent civilians? Indonesian Government has spoken out against ISIS and asked all Muslim nations to unite against ISIS.  Does it matter how ISIS was created and who is responsible?  It still needs condemnation from all Muslim quarters because Islamic State is committing crimes against humanity (F. Sheikh)

This summer, many Muslims marched in the streets of London, Parisand other cities to condemn the deaths of Gazans at the hands of Israel . Of course it makes sense to protest the bombing of schools and residential buildings. I marched in the streets against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon when I was a student, and I marched against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But, inexplicably, there have been no similarly large-scale demonstrations against the Islamic State for its horrific acts against Christians, Yazidis and even its fellow Muslims in Iraq and Syria. And there certainly haven’t been any marches protesting the beheading of innocents . It’s not hard to organize a march. So where are the demonstrations?

This is not the first time this question has occurred to me. For years, I have wondered about this absence of public outrage. When I asked about the murder of Iraqi civilians by Sunni and Shiite gangs, my fellow Muslims dodged my questions: “Why did the United States invade Iraq in the first place?” Yes, the U.S. invasion was a mistake. But why is it so hard to take a stand against the killing of women and children? I never got a straight answer.

To be sure, many Muslims have spoken out against the Islamic State, and some clerics have condemned this gang of terrorists; Qatar-based Islamic scholar Yusuf Qaradawi, for instance, said the Islamic State violates sharia law and declared “null and void” the group’s declaration of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. But their words merely echoed those of non-Muslims who have called for an end to the violence. Surely we can do better. Don’t Muslims have a responsibility to speak out more loudly than others? We need the world to see anti-Islamic State marchers taking to the streets with the passion that we saw at the Gaza rallies in London and Paris. Mainstream Muslims must express our rejection of extremism in clear terms, while doing whatever we can to stop young people from radicalizing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-are-the-marches-against-the-islamic-state/2014/08/29/531f6052-2ed0-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html?hpid=z3

 

“Stop Throwing My Country To The Wind” A Poem

This poem was written by Simin Behbahani, a prizewinning poet known as “the lioness of Iran” who died on Tuesday in Tehran. She was 87. It seems she is talking about Pakistan and its political /religious leaders. ( F. Sheikh)

 

Stop Throwing My Country To The Wind

If the flames of anger rise any higher in this land
Your name on your tombstone will be covered with dirt.

You have become a babbling loudmouth.
Your insolent ranting, something to joke about.

The lies you have found, you have woven together.
The rope you have crafted, you will find around your neck.

Pride has swollen your head, your faith has grown blind.
The elephant that falls will not rise.

Stop this extravagance, this reckless throwing of my country to the wind.
The grim-faced rising cloud, will grovel at the swamp’s feet.

Stop this screaming, mayhem, and bloodshed.
Stop doing what makes God’s creatures mourn with tears.

My curses will not be upon you, as in their fulfillment.
My enemies’ afflictions also cause me pain.

You may wish to have me burned, or decide to stone me.
But in your hand match or stone will lose their power to harm me.

 

What is Civilization?

  1. Did civilization progressed from savagery to barbarism to civilization?
  2. Is civilization a process by which nature is ‘recrafted by the civilising impulse?
  3. Does civilization have universal values or it is limited by geographic boundaries? 

A book review by Kenan Malik on ” Civilizations” written by historian, Felipe Fernández-Armesto.

‘It can now be asserted upon convincing evidence that savagery preceded barbarism in all the tribes of mankind, as barbarism is known to have preceded civilization.’ So wrote Victorian anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan in his 1877 classic Ancient Societies. According to Morgan, savagery, barbarism and civilization ‘are connected with each other in a natural as well as a necessary sequence of progress.’

The idea of history as progressing in a series of natural stages from savagery to civilization is a very Victorian notion, testament to the values of a bygone era. Ours is an age deeply skeptical both of the idea of historical progress and of the capacity of humans to be civilized. No one articulates better such skepticism than the historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto. The notion of ‘civilization’, he points out, is often a self-serving one, defining as ‘civilized’ the culture to which one belongs. This was particularly the case with nineteenth century European ideas of civilization, rooted in racial theory, which saw Europe at the summit of historical development, and the rest of the world as savage or barbarian. For Fernández-Armesto the idea of a progressive history is ‘repugnant’. History, he suggests, ‘lurches between random crises, with no direction or pattern, no predictable end’. It is ‘a genuinely chaotic system’.

But if Fernández-Armesto dismisses the Victorian concept of civilization, he doesn’t reject the idea altogether. Rather than describing civilization in terms of human progress, however, he describes it as a relationship between human beings and their natural environment. Civilization is the process by which nature is ‘recrafted by the civilising impulse, to meet human demands.’ In this sense every society is civilized, because every society is faced with a constant battle with nature. Certain societies, Fernández-Armesto believes, are more civilized than others, but only because they ‘more strenuously challenge nature’. This does not mean, as the Victorians thought, that such societies are in any way ‘better’. Indeed, according to Fernández-Armesto, civilization is often ‘irrational’ because in measurable ways such as ‘the durability of the way of life or the levels of nutrition or standards of health’, more civilized societies are often worse than less civilized ones.

Armed with this definition, Fernández-Armesto takes us on global tour.

Read full review

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/from-the-archives-on-civilizations/

Posted by F. Sheikh

 

Ask a Question

Dear Editors,

Why the Muslims around the world and especially in indian 
subcontinent remain emotionally charged towards their religion 
despite the fact they negate religious norms,practices, beliefs 
at every moment of their life? 
What are the philosophical rationale?

Thanks
Tahir