Hajj-2025 flight operation starts today
The Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony has completed all necessary arrangements for smooth operation of Hajj flights. On the first day of the Hajj flight operation, six flights will be operated, two from Lahore and one each from Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta and Multan.
Under the government Hajj scheme, 89,000 pilgrims will be transported to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah through 342 flights. During the first 15 days of the operation, pilgrims will be flown directly to Madinah. The hajj flight operation will continue for 33 days. The last Hajj flight from Pakistan will depart on May 31.
Minister for Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony Sardar Muhammad Yousaf has asked intending pilgrims to uphold national image during Hajj journey by strictly following Saudi laws.
In an interview, he advised pilgrims to strictly adhere to all rules, regulations and instructions issued by the Saudi authorities as these are designed for the smooth conduct of Hajj. He felicitated the pilgrims for being chosen for this sacred journey and said they also serve as ambassadors of their country. He advised them to remain fully focused on prayers during their stay at the Holy land.
About his recent visit to the Saudi Arabia, Sardar Muhammad Yousaf commended the arrangements made by the Saudi leadership for the guests of Allah. He highlighted their continued efforts in ensuring the comfort, safety and well-being of all the pilgrims. He also called upon pilgrims to pray for the peace, progress and prosperity of Pakistan, unity of the Muslim Ummah, and for the oppressed Muslims of Gaza and Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
On the other hand, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Lahore General Hospital, Dr. M. Maqsood has advised those going to perform Hajj to begin regular walk and endurance exercises immediately to build stamina, enabling them to better cope with the harsh weather and physical exertion.
He emphasized that Pakistani performing Hajj are going to embrace a profound spiritual obligation, involving long walk and physically demanding rituals which may lead to fatigue, physical weakness and other health challenges.
Dr. M. Maqsood stressed that individuals suffering from chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases or joint pain must pay extra attention to their health and carry essential medications and sufficient water during the pilgrimage. He highlighted that staying in Arafat and Muzdalifah, walking long distances, performing Tawaf and completing the Sa'i can be physically strenuous. Despite the excellent arrangements made by the Saudi authorities, the medical expert noted that elderly and chronically ill pilgrims may experience discomfort, breathlessness or anxiety due to overcrowding so, elderly pilgrims are strongly encouraged to take special care of their health in Hajj days.
Keeping in view the extreme heat in Saudi Arabia, he recommends that pilgrims must carry water, a wet towel and an umbrella at all times. Moreover, they should follow their doctors' advice regarding daily medication for diabetes, blood pressure, heart disease and other health conditions to avoid medical emergency.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Was Pakistan necessary?
Listen to article Was Pakistan necessary? The question, as always, arises as we are close to celebrating the 78th anniversary of "independent" Pakistan. The creation of Pakistan in 1947 remains one of South Asia's most contested events. To its proponents, it was an essential homeland for Hindustani Muslims to safeguard their religious and political rights. To critics, it was a tragic consequence of failed negotiations, colonial strategy, and the politics of religious nationalism. To address this question, we must understand the ideological foundations, political context, human cost and post-partition realities. At the heart of Pakistan's creation was the Two-Nation Theory, articulated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League. It claimed Muslims and Hindus were not just religious groups but distinct nations with irreconcilable differences. In his Lahore Resolution speech (March 22, 1940), Jinnah declared: "We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilisation." Writers like Stanley Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, 1984) portray Jinnah as a pragmatic leader who saw partition as the only solution after failed talks with the Congress. Ayesha Jalal, in The Sole Spokesman (1985), suggests Jinnah may have used the demand for Pakistan as a bargaining tool for maximum Muslim autonomy within a united India, only accepting partition when compromise failed. Opponents of the theory, such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, argued religion alone could not define nationhood. In India Wins Freedom (1959), Azad called the partition a historical blunder, insisting that Hindustani Muslims were too culturally rooted in Hindustan to be separated by ideology. The political collapse of the 1930s-40s shaped the final outcome. The Muslim League's poor showing in the 1937 provincial elections and the Congress's reluctance to form coalition governments deepened Muslim fears of exclusion. Ian Talbot (Pakistan: A Modern History, 2009) identifies this as a turning point for Jinnah's mobilisation of Muslim sentiment. The failure of the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, which proposed a loose federation to avoid partition, was decisive. Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal (Modern South Asia, 2004) argue that partition was not inevitable; it became "necessary" only after mistrust and political rigidity destroyed the possibility of compromise. The consequences were catastrophic. Between 1-2 million people died in communal massacres, and over 15 million were displaced. Contemporary reports in The New York Times and The Times of London recorded mass killings, abductions and sexual violence. Yasmin Khan, in The Great Partition (2007), highlights British unpreparedness for the transfer of power, noting that the partition "created not just new borders but new wounds" that remain unhealed. Post-independence, Pakistan faced deep identity dilemmas. Should it be a secular Muslim-majority state or an Islamic theocracy? The 1971 secession of East Pakistan into Bangladesh exposed the fragility of religious unity in the face of linguistic and ethnic differences. As Akeel Bilgrami (Secularism, Identity and Enchantment, 2014) observes, the premise of a single Muslim identity was flawed when confronted with South Asia's diversity. In India, Muslims who stayed behind became a vulnerable minority. The rise of Hindutva politics under BJP has reinforced some of Jinnah's warnings, but others contend that the partition itself hardened communal divisions, making reconciliation harder. So, was Pakistan necessary? It depends on the perspective. Through ideology, it provided a political refuge for Muslims in an increasingly majoritarian India. Through hindsight, it appears as a tragic product of political failure, religious nationalism and colonial opportunism. Hamza Alavi, in Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and Ideology (1987), urges us to see Pakistan's creation as not just nationalism, but a complex interplay of class interests, imperial strategy and identity politics. In the end, Pakistan was neither inevitable nor universally desired. It was born of missed opportunities, rigid leadership positions and imperial designs. Yet, its creation permanently altered the subcontinent, offering a lasting lesson in the perils of division and the staggering cost of political failure.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Trade ambitions and sanctions realities
EDITORIAL: It is a promising signal that Iran and Pakistan have chosen to deepen economic cooperation at a time when the region — and indeed the world — is realigning itself under shifting power equations. A USD 10 billion annual trade target is no small ambition, and President Pezeshkian's first official visit to Pakistan since taking office underlines Tehran's readiness to work with Islamabad to meet it. The warmth on display, from Lahore to Islamabad, and the repeated gestures of solidarity exchanged between the two delegations reflect encouraging maturity in bilateral ties. But ambition alone doesn't move trade. As with most things in this part of the world, the bigger story lies in what isn't being said. The last time Pakistan tried to pursue a transformative energy partnership with Iran, through the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, the entire project was brought to its knees by American pressure and the threat of sanctions. Today, the geopolitical temperature is even higher — and the sanctions' regime is far more aggressive. So the question is simple: how exactly do both sides plan to reach that USD 10 billion mark? The Americans have made it clear that even friends and strategic partners are not exempt from the rules. India was sharply reprimanded for engaging too openly with Russia. European states have faced secondary threats for exploring trade that could circumvent restrictions. In this environment, it is inconceivable that Washington will sit idle while two Muslim neighbours forge an expansive trade relationship with one of the world's most heavily sanctioned economies. And yet that's precisely why this initiative matters. If Pakistan and Iran can demonstrate an effective, legal framework to grow trade while navigating the sanctions' minefield, they may offer a blueprint for others in the region facing similar dilemmas. But that framework has to be clearly articulated. Otherwise, this remains yet another round of high-sounding intent with little prospect of implementation. Border markets, local currency settlements, barter mechanisms, and third-party intermediaries have all been discussed in the past. But without serious institutional design, and real political will, they haven't gone far. If this renewed push is to succeed, both capitals must show how the mechanics of trade will be shielded from punitive action, how banks and customs authorities will be protected, and how businesses will be incentivised to take part despite the obvious risk. There is also a diplomatic layer that cannot be ignored. For Pakistan, this balancing act will only become harder as it tries to maintain strategic relations with both Iran and the west. The same applies to Iran, which must decide how to engage regional players without endangering its existing partnerships. Quietly, both sides likely understand that a successful trade expansion must also include a quiet understanding with Washington; or, at the very least, the ability to convincingly demonstrate that the arrangement does not violate international obligations. It is also worth asking why there hasn't been more transparency from both governments about how these goals will be achieved. The statements from the Iranian president were full of brotherly warmth and regional vision. The Pakistani side echoed those sentiments. But beyond calls for unity and generic pledges of cooperation, there is still little detail on how a sanctions-proof architecture will be built. This silence is understandable, perhaps. But it is also dangerous. In an economic environment as fragile as Pakistan's, and as constrained as Iran's, lofty goals without credible roadmaps invite not just scepticism, but policy fatigue. Stakeholders — whether state-owned firms, private traders, or regional partners — need clarity before they can commit. Still, this moment holds promise. For once, both countries are aligned in political vision and economic intent. If they can now align on execution, the results could be transformative. But they must also be realistic. In today's world, trade isn't just about tariffs and logistics; it's about sovereignty, resilience, and the skill to navigate hostile global currents. That's the test before them now. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Israel's ‘Vietnam'?
Israel's Gaza takeover plan has aroused a great deal of froth and indignant verbiage at the UN and in many countries of the world. To take a representative sample, UN Assistant Secretary General Miroslav Jenca told the UN Security Council on August 10, 2025 that the plan risks another calamity with far-reaching consequences reverberating across the region, causing further forced displacement, killings and destruction. The UN's humanitarian office OCHA said 98 children had died from acute malnutrition since the start of the conflict in October 2023, with 37 deaths since July 2025, figures that are probably a gross underestimate. OCHA's Coordination Director Ramesh Rajasingham says, 'This is no longer a looming hunger crisis – this is starvation, pure and simple.' People do not need this belated description of events in Gaza when they are confronted daily by pictures of emaciated children in hospitals being cared for by distraught but incredibly calm mothers. Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said 'over two million victims are enduring unbearable agony', while Israel's plans for the takeover of Gaza City are 'illegal and immoral'. All this diplomatic huffing and puffing is taking place in the hallowed halls of the UN in New York, where the Security Council is meeting to address the issue of Israel's plans for Gaza. Notable absentees at the meeting are the veto-bearing US and its ally Israel, both berating even this articulate waterfall of words, which nevertheless remain as hollow as the shameful inaction by Arab and Muslim countries in solidarity with their oppressed Palestinian brothers and sisters. Some of these worthy neighbours of Israel continue to enjoy diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv and others even feel little or no compunction in entering into lucrative trade and economic deals with the Zionist entity. So much for Muslim solidarity. The death toll (probably an underestimate) since October 2023 has climbed to 61,430, most of whom have been killed while seeking food at aid centres. All the hot air emanating from Palestine's original Muslim supporters and, lately, Western capitals finally appalled at Israeli cruelty and falling back on the moribund 'two-state solution' for fear of worse, cannot and will not change an iota of the misery and suffering of the people of Gaza. Only action will. There has been unceasing talk, and protests by people in Western countries, to boycott Israel in arms and the economy, on the lines of the boycott that so successfully hollowed out South Africa's apartheid regime. But this holy campaign has yet to see the light of day in any meaningful sense, misgivings and vows of cutting off arms supplies by Germany and others of late notwithstanding. Benjamin Netanyahu's plan is to take over Gaza City and another area not yet fully in the control of the Israeli army to destroy Hamas and rescue the remainder of the Israeli hostages still with Hamas. But even his own military chief has expressed strong reservations regarding the plan, fearing the hostages will be lost and the Israeli army bogged down in a protracted guerrilla war with Hamas. He was firmly overruled by Netanyahu and has now agreed to implement the plan. The far-right in Netanyahu's Cabinet wants the plan to be strengthened and made more rigorous. It feels the plan does not go far enough. By this they mean their desire to capture Gaza and eject the Palestinians. Netanyahu's 'short timetable', destruction of Hamas and rescue of the hostages are all likely to fail. The Israeli military's professional assessment is probably nearer the mark. Netanyahu intends, if his plans succeed, to impose a government in Gaza composed of neither Hamas nor the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). He is hoping to impose a government of the elements opposing Hamas, composed mostly of bands of Bedouin criminals. Hamas has clearly messaged that any such collaborationist regime imposed on Gaza will be treated as an arm of the Israeli enemy. Interestingly, Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani in an interview has put a new twist on Israel's plans for Gaza. He thinks the invasion of Gaza risks turning into a 'Vietnam' for Israeli soldiers. That is surely not a fate Israel's main unremitting supporter the US would wish to see replicated and visited on its beloved Zionist 'pet'. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
