London Post

Prof. Masood Akhtar Hazarvi

The Middle East is no longer merely a geographical region; it has become a blazing circle surrounded by gunpowder, fire, and smoke. The heat of this turmoil, rising from Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, is scorching the hearts and minds of the entire Muslim world. The streets of Gaza are still filled with the ruins of shattered homes, burnt buildings, and the lingering smell of fresh blood. Thousands of families have grown weary of carrying the bodies of their loved ones, yet the bombardment shows no sign of stopping. The wounds of Lebanon had barely begun to heal when American and Israeli strikes on Iran pushed the entire region to the brink of a new and extremely dangerous war. This is a situation where even a single misstep could trigger a wider regional conflict and deepen the clouds of a global energy crisis.
This is not merely a conflict between two states; it is a fire that could engulf the entire Ummah through sectarian, ethnic, and national divisions—especially an Ummah that calls itself a “single community” in words, yet in practice remains divided into small camps shaped by state interests, sectarian preferences, and global pressures. Syria stands as perhaps the most painful example of this division and indifference. What began as political protests in 2011 quickly turned into a devastating civil war and international intervention that completely transformed the country. Hundreds of thousands were killed, and millions were forced to become internally displaced or refugees abroad. Historic cities such as Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama—once centers of knowledge, culture, and the glory of Islamic civilization—now stand as landscapes of broken minarets, empty libraries, and devastated neighborhoods, shaking our collective conscience.
This is not the first time the Ummah has paid the price of its internal weaknesses and mutual distrust in human blood. The Iran–Iraq war divided the region along sectarian lines to such an extent that brother turned suspicious of brother and neighbor of neighbor. Its effects reached the Indian subcontinent as well, manifesting in sectarian violence and bloodshed in cities such as Karachi, Quetta, Parachinar, and Gilgit. Today the situation is even more fragile because hatred is no longer confined to sermons or closed-room speeches. Through a single social media post, a short video clip, or a fabricated image, millions of minds can be influenced within moments, and falsehood can easily be presented as truth.
The real problem is not only external conspiracies; it is also our internal fragmentation, our suspicion of one another’s intentions, and our habit of treating our own opinions as the final word. Yemen offers a tragic example of this reality, where global and regional powers turned land, sea, and sky into battlefields for their proxy wars. Yet the real burden of bombing, hunger, and disease has been borne by ordinary Yemeni civilians. When sect, party, tribe, or political affiliation replaces justice as the standard, institutions weaken and the very foundations of society begin to crumble. For Pakistan, this entire regional landscape carries extraordinary sensitivity. On one side lies a long land border with Iran along with historical and commercial ties; on the other lies the uncertainty in Afghanistan, domestic political tensions, and an economy already under pressure. If tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, countries like Pakistan—whose economies depend heavily on imported oil—could face serious challenges in energy supply, currency stability, and rising inflation, directly affecting the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
At such a critical crossroads, both as an Ummah and as a nation, several fundamental principles must remain before us. First, injustice must be called injustice—no matter who commits it, even if it is done in the name of “our own.” Second, every piece of news or video circulating on social media should be verified before acceptance, so that we do not become part of false narratives or hate-driven propaganda. Third, national and collective unity must be consciously strengthened, because only a united nation can effectively face global pressures and diplomatic challenges. At the same time, Pakistan—as the only nuclear power in the Muslim world—should attempt to bridge divides within the Ummah through wise diplomacy and a role of reconciliation.
The devastated streets of Gaza, the fragile tents of Palestinian refugee camps, the broken minarets of Syria, and the starving children of Yemen remind us every day that the real cost of war is always paid by ordinary people—those who possess neither weapons nor diplomatic influence nor access to global media. All they desire is that their children sleep without the shadow of bombs, that their homes remain safe, and that they may witness the sunrise with hope rather than fear.
Today is not a time for negligence or fleeting emotions; it is a time for awareness, responsibility, and collective self-accountability. If we make justice our guiding principle, support the oppressed beyond sectarian boundaries, and prioritize unity at both national and communal levels, it is possible that future generations will not witness the horrifying scenes that our generation has seen—from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Syria to Yemen, and from Gaza to Iran. If we steady ourselves today, history may remember that even while surrounded by a blazing circle, we chose to pour water on the fire rather than fuel it.

Wajahat Ali Khan

The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and Saudi Arabia certainly have this complaint that, why is Iran firing missiles at them, but they do not understand why they all allowed the US to build military bases in their countries and now if missiles are raining down on Iran from these military bases, then which country should Iran fire missiles in response?
Today, when we witness the regular war between Iran, Israel and the United States and the instability in the Middle East, we realise that the Muslim world desperately needs a leader who is a politician like ZA Bhutto who is farsighted, courageous and believes in the welfare of the people. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a name that is much more than just a definition of a politician, is still alive in our consciousness like a symbol. Under his leadership, the priorities of public welfare and national interest were always higher than the flames of power. The secret of Bhutto’s politics was that he had the courage to raise the voice of the interests of Muslims at the global level and understand the public sentiments in domestic politics.
In the 1970s, Bhutto provided Pakistan with the basis for nuclear capability, strengthened popular democracy, and tried to promote relations between the countries of the Muslim world. His goal was not just to gain power, but to present a scenario where Muslim countries would unite to protect their interests and play an effective role at the global level. Of course, later as Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, despite all the pressure to emulate Bhutto, played his part in making Pakistan a nuclear power in 1998.
In 1974, the Islamic Summit Conference (OIC) was held in Lahore, a historic occasion for the unity of the Muslim Ummah. Muslim leaders from all over the world attended the conference and took important decisions such as the Palestine issue, economic cooperation and the recognition of Bangladesh. This Islamic Summit was the moment when politics overturned all the scales of hostility and friendship, and the world witnessed a scene that was previously unimaginable.
In 1974 when the Islamic Summit Conference was to be held in Lahore. At the same time, the Jamaat-e-Islami was raising slogans of “Bangladesh is unacceptable” and was openly criticising Bhutto. In such an environment, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman apologised for coming to Pakistan and announced that he would not come himself but would send his Foreign Minister. However, at the request and wish of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the matter took a new direction. Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Yasser Arafat reached Dhaka on a special plane and brought Sheikh Mujibur Rahman with them to attend the conference. Thus, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who had been considered an “enemy of Pakistan” in Pakistan for years, came to Lahore to attend the Islamic Summit Conference, the world witnessed a surprising scene. The same man called “traitor” shook hands with Bhutto and was seen laughing and smiling in pleasant conversations. Even the one who received Sheikh Mujib at the airport was the same General Tikka Khan whom Sheikh Mujib once called the “Butcher of Bengal” and later the founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was also called “Bangla Bandhu”, also gave a very emotional speech in the Punjab Assembly during the Lahore Summit.
In today’s world, we need a leader who can unite Muslim countries with economic, political and military acumen, a leader who can not only assure the people of solutions to local problems but also effectively defend Muslim interests at the global level. It is necessary to understand that a united Muslim world does not mean just gathering at ceremonies or shaking hands at international meetings. It means economic unity, common defence policies, and cooperation in the fields of education and technology. For example, if Islamic countries unite in energy, technology, and investment, not only will internal crises be reduced but their voices will also be heard at the global level. I think that the Muslim world still needs a new Bhutto, one who is also a politician, a friend of the people, and a voice of the Muslim world at the global level.
The recent war between the United States and Iran has once again put the Middle East in danger. This is not just a problem of two countries, but a warning for the peace, economy and political stability of the entire region. Are all Muslim countries not seeing that the ongoing crises in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and other Arab countries today is proof that when Islamic countries do not unite and prefer to be puppets in the hands of global powers, global powers make them easy targets in their games.
It is time for Islamic countries to put aside their internal politics and differences and take a united stand. Economic cooperation, joint defence, and a common position at the global level are the only ways that can protect the region from external pressure. This was the work of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which he laid the foundation for. Of course, he paid a heavy price for it by sacrificing his life, but his head still stands proudly in history.
If Bhutto were here today, perhaps the priorities of the Islamic world would have been decided in 1974 and the shape of the Islamic world would have been different. But Bhutto always said that Pakistan should adopt an independent foreign policy, free from the pressure of the big powers. Therefore, it is possible that he would not have stood completely with any one bloc but would have preferred Pakistan’s interests. Or he would have possibly taken the matter to the United Nations and increased global pressure for a ceasefire and negotiations.
In my opinion, analysing the Israel and American attacks on Iran and the situation that has followed it so far, is it not the right time for all Islamic countries, especially the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia, to immediately hold an “Islamic Summit” like the one in 1974, and if 57 Islamic countries participate in it and declare a joint military and economic agenda, then they can certainly live a more prosperous, independent and dignified life than today, and Pakistan can also take the initiative to hold this Islamic conference!!
Shouldn’t Muslim countries hold any joint meeting or conference, especially in such a case, can’t an emergency meeting of the organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) be called? This organisation consists of about 57 Muslim countries and its aim is to form a common position on the political, economic and diplomatic issues of the Muslim world.
If Bhutto were there, he would at least tweet about world politics all the time and would also send a “Bhutto-style remarks” to US President Trump every day.

Hamid Mir

Who is giving a religious colour to the US and Israel’s war against Iran? Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had declared the main goal of the war to be to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, but who organised a special prayer for victory in the war in the Oval Office with Christian pastors and religious leaders? The world media has published a picture of this special prayer in which several religious leaders, including Pastor Greg Laurie, are placing their hands on Trump’s shoulders and promising victory in the war against Iran. All these people have been preparing Americans for years for a big war before the appearance of the Antichrist, which is called (ہرمجدون) Armageddon. Several Western newspapers, including the British newspaper The Guardian, have revealed that the US Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has so far received more than 200 complaints, stating that US military commanders are telling their subordinates that Trump has been told by Jesus Christ to attack Iran because he is returning to earth and this is the same Armageddon (ہرمجدون) that has been mentioned in the Bible. A joint complaint sent by 15 US soldiers includes 11 Christians, one Muslim and one Jewish soldier. This complaint means that the religion card has divided the US military. This religion card played by Trump clearly shows that despite the martyrdom of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, there has been no major movement for regime change in Iran now, so Trump wants to achieve some other goals by giving this war a religious colour before mentioning these goals, it is important to mention that Trump is not the first US president to They are declaring the support of the Islamic State as their religious duty and are waiting for Jesus (peace be upon him) after (ہرمجدون) Armageddon. Armageddon is a combination of two Hebrew words. Har means mountain and Mejdud is the name of a valley in Palestine. Much has been written in the books of Muslims, Christians and Jews about the causes and consequences of this war. The article titled “Clash of Civilisations” that Professor Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard University wrote in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1993 revolved around the concept of Armageddon. Later, he turned this article into a book. Huntington also quoted a Saudi scholar, Dr Safar Al-Hawali Al-Ghamdi, in his article, who said that the next war would be between the West and Islam. In 1994, Huntington presented the theory of the clash of civilisations at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, and I was also there. I As a journalist, I interviewed the head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat, and the Israel Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, on the sidelines of this conference. I remember a meeting between Yasser Arafat and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in which the Palestinian leader requested the Pakistani Prime Minister not to recognize Israel or talk to them. Benazir Bhutto asked Yasser Arafat that you sat with the Israelis at the Madrid Conference and then you signed the Oslo Accords with them, so why are you stopping us from sitting with them? Yasser Arafat replied that we are doing all this at gunpoint. We have been pushed against the wall. In this weak position, we want to establish an independent Palestinian state with the help of countries like Pakistan, but Israel is deceiving us in the name of negotiations. Israel and the US together really betrayed Yasser Arafat in the name of negotiations, which resulted in Hamas replacing the PLO as the identity of the Palestinians. In 2009, I saw Israelis in the streets of Gaza. I had the opportunity to see scenes of tanks and Palestinian stone throwers fighting. One day, Israel bombed a church in Gaza. When I reached the ruins of the destroyed church, I had the opportunity to have a detailed conversation with the Christian priest there. He told me that we Palestinians have become prisoners of the misleading ideology of Zionist extremists and American Christian extremists, (ہرمجدون) Armageddon. This Palestinian priest said that there is no consensus among Jews on Armageddon. Many fundamentalist Jews do not accept Israel as a state. They believe that the work of gathering the scattered Jews around the world will happen after the return of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), while extremist Zionists say that after the establishment of Israel in 1948, we have to establish the Temple of Solomon in place of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and extend the borders of our state from the Nile to the Euphrates. This Palestinian priest said that we Christians also have differences on this issue and we do not agree with the position of American priests on (ہرمجدون) Armageddon. This Palestinian priest was a supporter of Hamas. In 2024 While covering the Lebanon-Israel war, I met many Christians in Beirut who supported Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no consensus between Jews and Christians about (ہر مجدون) Armageddon. The only point is that Donald Trump has declared the attack on Iran as the beginning of Armageddon, which, if it happens, will benefit anti-American extremists in Muslim countries. Dr Safar al-Hawali was arrested in 1994 after the lecture in which Huntington quoted Dr Safar al-Hawali said that the next war would be between the West and Islam. Safar al-Hawali based his argument on the Zionist position on Armageddon and the position of American clergymen that a major war was going to take place between the West and Muslims, so the Arab countries Do not allow the US to establish military bases on your soil. He was arrested again in 2018. Will what Trump is doing now not increase sympathy for Safar al-Hawali? Trump is not the first US president to play the religion card. Before him, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush I have also been saying similar things. All these US presidents were followers of Jerry Falwell, who founded Liberty University in the US. Jerry Falwell also used to define Israel’s borders from the Nile to the Euphrates, which includes Gaza, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait. Now, Britain and Europe are trying to distance themselves from the recent attack on Iran because if this war spreads, the global economy could be devastated. Now let’s come to the question: does Trump really want to destroy Iran from his heart and soul, considering it a religious duty? A large majority of Americans neither consider this war to be Armageddon (ہرمجدون) nor do they consider Trump to be a religious person. A large majority of Americans believe that Trump is trying to divert attention from the Epstein files. Israeli intelligence has evidence against him that he is abusing underage girls. Because of this evidence, he is being blackmailed and, under pressure from Netanyahu, he attacked Iran to divert media attention from the expected sex scandal against him. When Rahim could not be changed after this attack, he started playing the religion card. Trump’s religion card may or may not have worked for him, but it will definitely work for the school of thought in Muslim countries that agrees with Dr. Safar al-Hawali. Trump’s war is in the interest of extremists on both sides.