logo
The red sky of Muharram

The red sky of Muharram

Express Tribune08-07-2025
Listen to article
Each year, as the Islamic calendar turns to Muharram, a familiar question resurfaces: why does a 7th-century event in the deserts of Karbala continue to command such deep emotional, political and ethical resonance across the world?
In the blistering heat of Karbala, a man named Hussain stood without an army. Without food. Without water. Without the political alliances that make victories inevitable. He stood with only his name, his faith, and a commitment not to bow to tyranny. Before him lay Yazid's empire, an empire fattened on fear and allegiance. Behind him stood history, watching.
The events of Karbala, though set in 7th-century Arabia, belong as much to our present as they do to the past. The image of a small group, led by Hussain ibn Ali, resisting the overwhelming machinery of a state that sought legitimacy through fear, feels uncomfortably familiar. Their isolation was moral. Karbala is a case study in how societies often fail the very people who stand for them.
Across the world today, this dynamic repeats with alarming regularity. Wherever truth is seen as a threat, and power demands submission rather than accountability, we are living in the shadow of Karbala. Whether in occupied territories, silenced courtrooms, or the unseen margins where communities are stripped of dignity, the choice presented by Ashura remains: compliance or conscience.
We are taught that the tragedy of Karbala is mourned because of its brutality. But its true horror lies in how familiar it has become. Every generation thinks it would never be among the silent majority that allowed Hussain to walk alone. But every generation builds new palaces and sharpens new swords.
Muharram returns each year to strip away the illusions. To force a reckoning. It is a mirror, held up to every nation, every institution, every individual: Who are you when your comforts are threatened? Who are you when neutrality is the same as complicity?
We live in a world where compromise is lauded, where cleverness is rewarded over conviction, survival over struggle. It is a world in which principles are bartered in exchange for access, and where many of the gravest injustices are carried out not by monsters, but by administrators. It is here that the story of Hussain cuts through the noise. Karbala reminds us that some stands must be taken, even when they are doomed. Especially when they are doomed.
Societies often celebrate strength shaped by strategy, but Karbala offers another measure. Strength appears in the resolve to speak without hesitation, even when the audience turns away. Strength emerges through loss that refuses to bend into regret.
The world continues to raise structures built on silence. Files disappear. Witnesses vanish. Laws bend. Yet Karbala reminds us that ethical clarity requires neither majority nor institutional power. It asks only for a line to be drawn, quietly, firmly.
In this way, Hussain's stand lives beyond religion. It travels through every tradition that values conscience. It appears in the quiet defiance of a government official refusing to endorse an order that violates conscience, even as pressure mounts and consequences loom. It appears in the work of a lawyer who defends the disappeared. It breathes through the poem that slips past censors.
The tragedy of Karbala implicates not only the swords that struck, but the silence that enabled them. In that sense, Hussain's stand is meant to be understood as a universal ethic, an insistence that injustice must be challenged, even when the odds are insurmountable.
This is why Karbala has always spoken as much to the political imagination as to the spiritual. It presents a framework of resistance rooted in ethical clarity, rather than strategic gain. Hussain marched because not marching would have meant surrendering the very soul of the faith he inherited. This refusal to compromise remains one of the most powerful ideas in human history.
To mourn Karbala, then, is to interrogate what has been normalised. What does it mean to live in a society where injustice no longer shocks? Where moral clarity is dismissed as naïveté, and where the vocabulary of resistance is constantly diluted by the language of pragmatism?
In such a world, the annual return of Ashura becomes an ethical checkpoint. It asks each of us where we stand, and what we are willing to endure for the truth. Not in grand gestures, but in everyday choices, in the stories we amplify, the silences we keep, the comfort we guard, and the injustices we excuse.
Muharram begins with a silence that creeps through the soul. The kind that precedes heartbreak. The kind that asks: If you were there, would you have stood beside Hussain, or watched from the shadows?
Because Karbala was never about numbers. It was about one man's stand when everyone else chose to sit. It was about a moral line drawn in the soul.
And though centuries have passed, the battlefield has not changed.
It has only expanded.
Ashura endures through meaning rather than vengeance. It teaches that the measure of a people lies in what they refuse to accept, in the truths they choose to carry even when the weight becomes unbearable. The rituals of mourning, the black flags, the elegies, they do more than remember. They remind. They return us to that moment in Karbala when history watched as power demanded silence and a single voice answered otherwise.
That voice continues to echo.
It travels through corridors where compromise lingers, into homes where fear is taught as survival, across borders where resistance remains unwelcome. It carries no slogans. It makes no promises. But it speaks; firmly, quietly, to those willing to listen.
In every age, a Yazid rises. And in every age, someone chooses to rise against him.
Karbala lives in that choice.
And when the red sky of Muharram returns, it carries with it a question older than empires and louder than swords: who will you become, when the moment arrives?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pakistan: retrospect and prospect—II
Pakistan: retrospect and prospect—II

Business Recorder

time2 hours ago

  • Business Recorder

Pakistan: retrospect and prospect—II

Gen Ziaul Haq promised elections within 90 days; they actually exceeded 1000 days. He put Bhutto to the gallows on trumped charges of conspiracy to murder. In a split decision of the Supreme Court, 4-3 verdict, he was still hanged. Zia knew Bhutto alive would be a danger to him, little did he know, that the ghost of Bhutto would continue to prevail over the politics of Pakistan. Gen Zia irrevocably damaged Pakistan. Gen Zia moved quickly to install himself as President while still donning the uniform of COAS. The decade of 1978-88 can best be described as the 'dark ages'. He ruthlessly ruled for 11 long years, destroying every single state institution. Fate and destiny removed him in August, 1988. The air crash was fatal. The Soviets had earlier invaded Afghanistan in 1979. We chose to become a frontline state. The consequences we continue to face. The social fabric of Pakistan was badly affected. We saw the rise of drugs and gun culture. The decade of 1988-98 gave to Pakistan a taste of sham democracy. Elections held regularly were engineered and stage managed. For the first time a female in Pakistan and the Islamic countries became the prime minister. Benazir Bhutto was a promise, a hope and an assurance. She fell victim to palace intrigues. During the entire decade Article 58-2B was liberally used by the President to dismiss elected government. The president seemed to be playing Russian roulette. Benazir and Nawaz Sharif alternated as prime minister with as many caretakers. All governments were dismissed on unproven charges of corruption. Pakistan: retrospect and prospect—I In October, 1999, in a suicidal move, the COAS was dismissed, by the Prime minister, while he was airborne on a flight from Colombo. The armed forces on ground in reaction enforced a military takeover, without the declaration of martial law. The Constitution was held in abeyance. The decade until 2008 was largely ruled by the military in accompaniment with a civilian facade. President Musharraf, who started off as Chief Executive, was elected President by the assembly. This period was where our economy grew by almost 7 percent every single year. The tragic event of 9/11 happened and the USA launched a full scale attack on Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Pakistan again with little choice got embroiled in this war, that was to later become another Vietnam for the US. Just as in the period of Gen Zia, the reaction of the Jihadis targeted civilian areas of Pakistan. Suicide bombings was the order of the decade. Innocent lives were lost. President Musharraf opened up electronic media, more than 50 channels were launched. Freedom of press gained momentum. Privatisation took a spiral. Banks and other key industries were denationalised. After 3-4 years of economic stability, political turmoil set in through the lawyers' movement. President Musharraf was negotiating a political deal with popular Benazir Bhutto. The deal fell through. Elections were announced. In a public meeting at Rawalpindi, where earlier a serving prime minister was gunned down, she too fell victim to an assassin's bullet. A great tragedy had struck. She was a leader who was this time more mature than before to lead effectively. But nature had other designs. Her assassination led to postponement of elections, but once held, expectedly, PPP swept the elections. Pakistan remained on the see-saw of uncertainty but it gained political stability. The government completed its term. A lot of credit must go to President Zardari for his political sagacity and foresight in initiating the revocation and annulment of section 58-2B. The President's office was defanged. A triumph for parliamentary democracy. During 2008-2018, peaceful transitions happened inspite of all elections being declared as controversial by independent analysts. The Panama leaks led to the replacement of the prime minister. During this time, a third potent force emerged as threat to the two dominating political parties. The 2018 elections were an Imran Khan (IK) phenomenon. The elections yet again were found to be not fair and highly controversial. The government of Imran Khan was removed through political engineering; his government lost the vote of confidence. IK's government was marred by ineffective decision making. In fact all the ministers appeared to receiving on-the-job training. Leadership is not merely about personal excellence, it is more about the ability to put together a team of the competent and to give them a direction; a vision of shared goals and objectives. IK failed to do that in-spite of his best efforts and intentions. He paid a price for having mediocrity surrounding him from all directions. Pakistan wasn't prepared for a honest but incompetent leadership. Corruption and competence universally move in tandem, albeit regrettably. We are in the midst of the decade that started from 2018 and will last till 2028. The government installed following yet another controversial elections (of year 2024) has been beset with the task to improve the economy. We came to a near miss of getting to be classified as a nation on default. The economic policies now being pursued are aiming at long-term gains. Elected governments must not focus on next elections but must have a very long-term view and vision for the country. Our economy is fledgling. We are living on borrowed money. Borrowing can be dangerously intoxicating for individuals as well as nations. The quickly we realise to live within means the better. No country has become rich or self-sufficient based on borrowings, we will have to learn to earn revenue for ourselves before we start to spend. The deficit of all types keep gnawing at our future. The country needs to adopt a growth strategy that is housed in the growth of exports of goods and services. Inward remittances are holding us up but these aren't reliable and sustainable sources of funding. The Special Economic Zones must receive attention. We have to direct our energies by seeking investment from overseas. Aids and grants are not the answer. Foreign exchange must be earned to beef up FX reserves. Deposits from friends will make us all parasites. Entrepreneurs should be encouraged through policies for setting up industries for finding new business avenues, for exploring new markets, for introducing high speed technology into processes and systems. We have thus far ignored sub-Sahara markets. There is an imperative need to make inroads into unexplored markets. CPEC cannot remain a slave to slogans of being 'game changer', there is need to take action to make it profitable for us. Generally speaking, there should be greater empowerment for decision making alongside strict accountability standards. The process of accountability must remain above board and not be subjected to become a medium of political harassment. In these columns where the imagination has to restricted by the number of words, it is painfully difficult to present a full and comprehensive picture of how things are and how things should be. In a score plus two years, Insha Allah, Pakistan will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to be different than us. Of course only for better. Hope is a great elixir of life. Optimism is not an option but a necessity. As a tail-piece, my son who recently watched an old PTV program of Neelam Ghar on YouTube asked me how come the audience was able then to answers tough questions from Islamic history, Urdu and English literature; how come the audience seemed more disciplined, and how come they were 'happy' to receive a 'Water cooler' for the right answers? As against this he remarked, in some TV program of recent days he said, people are given scooters for correctly remembering the multiplication table of two, three and four? He was baffled, he said. I am speechless, is all I said, in response. Do we have an answer? Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Has Quaid's economic vision been ignored?
Has Quaid's economic vision been ignored?

Express Tribune

time2 days ago

  • Express Tribune

Has Quaid's economic vision been ignored?

On July 1, 1948, the Quaid-e-Azam articulated his vision for Pakistan's economic system. He strongly emphasised the need for a framework based on Islamic principles. He believed the Western economic model could not realise equality and happiness. He tasked the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to develop a system that ensured prosperity and fairness for all. In his words, "We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on the true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace, which alone can save and secure the welfare, happiness, and prosperity of mankind." Unfortunately, after the Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan lost its direction. The country adopted the liberal economic model without a comparative analysis. The liberal approach failed to deliver and created multiple problems. The country is now facing an economic, financial, and social crisis. Overemphasis on the private sector and private sector-led growth has triggered crises like the IPP-driven circular debt. This debt has crippled the economy. Growth remains under stress, and despite efforts, Pakistan is struggling to find a sustainable way to improve its growth rate. The social indicators are even more alarming. The World Bank estimates about 44.7% of the population lives below the poverty line. Of them, 16.5% are in extreme poverty, struggling to meet basic daily needs with no certainty about the future. Poverty is rising, despite government claims of investing in programmes like the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). Each year, billions of rupees are spent on BISP, but the results are disappointing. Poverty continues to increase, raising questions about the programme's effectiveness and sustainability. Food insecurity is another concern. A 2013 study estimated that 58.8% of Pakistanis were food insecure. Conditions have likely worsened due to poor economic performance. Devaluation of the PKR has eroded people's purchasing power, limiting access to healthy food. Mismanagement in the agricultural sector has also led to lower production and reduced availability of quality food. These problems stem from structural flaws in the liberal model. It promotes wealth accumulation in a few hands and lacks redistribution mechanisms. Therefore, the first step to revive the economy should be adopting a more effective system. A study of different models shows each offers something useful. Yet, the Islamic economic model stands out as one of the most comprehensive. Why? Because it was designed by the Creator of the universe and implemented by His Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Prophet established a distinctive system of economics and well-being for humanity. This is why the Quaid-e-Azam urged the State Bank to base Pakistan's model on Islamic principles. The Islamic system denounces individualism, promotes collective welfare, discourages accumulation, and glorifies sharing with the needy. To achieve this, Islam introduced two powerful instruments. The first is the ban on Riba (interest), considered the root cause of economic and social ills. Riba is strictly prohibited. No one is allowed to give, take, or facilitate it. Islam views it as an exploitative practice and act of injustice. It accrues benefits by exploiting others' difficulties. It also contradicts the principle of kindness and societal norms. Societies thrive on cooperation, helping people overcome hardships. But a Riba-based system enables some to profit from the misery of others. This creates divisions, weakens cohesion, and breeds class systems. Riba also discourages investment in productive sectors. It prompts people to de-invest, undermining production and job creation. Many prefer to keep money in banks and earn interest without effort. This de-investment starts at the individual level and extends nationally. Thus, instead of a Riba-based system, Islam promotes kindness and voluntary sharing. Islam encourages Riba-free loans that support individuals and communities. The second instrument is Zakat, a system for redistributing wealth. The beauty of Zakat lies in its mandatory nature, but it applies only to the wealthy. This contrasts with liberal systems where everyone pays taxes regardless of income. In Islam, wealthy individuals must share at least 2.5% of their wealth with the poor. Zakat is an annual obligation, and the wealthier one grows, the greater the contribution. No additional rules or regulations are needed. Zakat distribution is restricted solely to the poor. It targets the most disadvantaged, aiming to improve their lives and living standards. The process continues until prosperity is widespread, and those eligible for Zakat no longer exist. This mechanism reduces inequality and bridges social gaps. Although mandatory for Muslims, other economic systems can also learn from it as a valuable case study. Zakat has an important economic dimension too. It boosts domestic consumption, which businesses seek. The poor use Zakat resources to buy essential goods and services. This stimulates markets and creates new business opportunities. Such instruments are not found in other models. The Islamic system prioritises social development and welfare without discrimination based on religion or ethnicity. It respects the right to accumulate wealth but binds it to social norms and Islamic laws. It fosters a culture of care and discourages exploitation. This creates the foundation for peace and prosperity. Yet, despite offering the best solutions to humanity's challenges, these instruments are not fully applied anywhere. Even Muslim countries and individuals, for whom they are obligatory, neglect them. Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. Still, implementation remains weak. Interestingly, in the modern world, we find limited resemblance in socialism with Chinese characteristics. This system helped China tackle poverty and inequality. But Muslim countries remain far from practicing their own divinely guided model. In conclusion, Pakistan must return to the Quaid-e-Azam's vision and adopt Islamic principles to build its economic framework. If not, the crises will persist, and the country will remain trapped in cycles of poverty, inequality, and instability. THE WRITER IS A POLITICAL ECONOMIST AND A VISITING RESEARCH FELLOW AT HEBEI UNIVERSITY, CHINA

Why Pakistan did not become an Islamic state
Why Pakistan did not become an Islamic state

Express Tribune

time2 days ago

  • Express Tribune

Why Pakistan did not become an Islamic state

Of the fourscore or so countries that have majority Muslim populations at this time in their evolution, Pakistan occupies a unique position. It is the only one that was created out of a large geographic space – in its case the Indian British Colony – to accommodate the people of the Islamic faith. All other Muslim nations were either the product of the spread of Islam when the religion was founded by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or were the fragments of the large Ottoman Empire built by the Turkish rulers who brought under their control all of the present day Middle East and parts of Africa and southern Europe. All these were Muslim states that were to be governed by some aspects of the Islamic faith. That was not to be case with Pakistan, a state that was the outcome of a political movement that succeeded in pushing out from colonial India, long ruled by the British. As discussed below and was dealt with in the article in this space last week, of Pakistan's four immediate neighbours, three have chosen to be governed by whichever faith most of their citizens were following. Afghanistan and Iran have adopted extremist Islam as the governing philosophy – with the former opting for Sunni extremism, and the latter for extremist Shiism. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is building a Hindu nation by adopting what it calls Hindutva. It has also changed the name of the country to Bharat. Why did Pakistan not go in this direction? To answer this question, we need to go back into history and discuss the origins of Pakistan as a nation-state. The movement for the expulsion of Britain from the Indian sub-continent was led by a group of Indian leaders, Hindus and Muslims, who were educated in British institutions and mostly studied law. The most prominent of these was Mohandas Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Both belonged to small business communities in the Western part of British India. Gandhi was from the state of Gujarat and Jinnah form across the border In the Province of Sindh. Having studied law, they returned to India but did not join the legal profession. Jinnah worked for a while as a lawyer and built a successful practice in Bombay, now called Mumbai, for a while but then switched to politics. While Gandhi wanted Britain to leave the large colony over which they had ruled for centuries, Jinnah wanted to protect the rights and cultures of the large Muslim minority. Had Winston Churchill who had led Britain during the Second World War continued as his country's prime minister, he would not have accepted the Indian leadership's demand for independence. But he and the Tory Party that he led lost the elections in 1945, and Clement Attlee of the opposition Labour Party became the prime minister. From the time he took over as the country's leader, he declared his intention to quit India. To get Britain out of India, he appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten, a distinguished member of the British Royal Family, to become India's last Viceroy and plan to hand over the governance of the large colony to the Indian leadership. Mountbatten arrived in New Delhi with the mission to transfer the government to the Indian leadership but that turned out to be a more difficult task than he believed would be the case when he accepted the assignment. The Indian political system was divided into three large groups: the Indian National Congress, (INC), the All-India Muslim League (AIML) and the Akali Dal (AD). The INC was dominated by the leaders belonging to the large Hindu community which in the late 1940s was estimated to number 300 million or 75 per cent of the total; close to 25 per cent were Muslims; and a small number was made up of the Sikh community based almost entirely in the province of Punjab. The INC wanted monopoly of power once the British went home while the Muslim community wanted to protect its way of life in independent India which would be dominated by the more numerous community. Jinnah, the AIML leader, proposed sharing of power between Hindus and Muslims but the formula he proposed was not acceptable to the Hindu leadership. That led him to demand the establishment of a country that would serve the social, political and economic interests of the Muslim community. Were such a country to be founded it should be called Pakistan, suggested Rahmat Ali, a Muslim student enrolled in Cambridge University. Pakistan, of course meant the "land of the pure", but the political entity Jinnah wanted to found had nothing to do with the Islamic faith. That was the reason why Pakistan's creation was opposed by Jamaat-e-Islami, led by Maulana Maududi who wanted Pakistan to be the central state in what he wanted to establish as the "Muslim Ummah" made up of the countries with Muslim majorities. However, from the very beginning, Jinnah made it clear that he was seeking to establish a Muslim state, not an Islamic state. This he made clear in a speech he delivered on August, 11, 1947 at the Constituent Assembly which was to draft a constitution for the new country. He spoke of an inclusive and impartial government, religious freedom and equality for all. It was made clear that Jinnah had worked hard not to create a country with a state religion. In such a country, there cannot be serious departures from the practices made explicit by the state religion. Even in such a state, the government permits religious practices of other communities besides those who belong to the state religion. It does not persecute believers in other faiths or those who have no faith at all. Jinnah died soon after the creation of Pakistan. His successor, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951 while he was speaking at a public park. These two deaths left serious political space which eleven years after the creation on Pakistan was occupied by the military. In October 1958, General Ayub Khan assumed control of the country and imposed martial law. In 1962, he gave the country a constitution that did not give special status to religion in governance. In fact, the main feature of the constitution was considerable power given to local councils. They were part of a multi-tiered system in which the members of the lowest tier, called the Union Councils, were directly elected by the people. Ayub Khan had three military successors who together ruled the country for 33 years. All but General Zia Ul Haq were secular minded. But even Zia's attempt to bring religion into governance was weak and did not survive his death in a plane crash in 1988.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store