In the final decade of the 20th century, political scientist Samuel P. Huntington proposed a theory that would reshape geopolitical discourse: the idea that the next major conflicts of the world would not arise from ideological or economic differences, but from deep-rooted civilizational fault lines. His essay, and later his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, warned that as the world became more interconnected, it would also become more fragmented—fragmented not along national borders, but across cultural and religious identities.
Huntington mapped out several broad civilizations—Western, Confucian, Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox, African, Latin American—and argued that as modernization eroded local identities and institutions, people would increasingly turn to religion and culture as their primary source of meaning. What Huntington pointed to was not just a political forecast, but a deeper crisis in human cohesion and civilizational trust. As empires dissolve and ideologies mutate, what survives is the question: What do we live for? And this is where the clash truly begins—not between civilizations, but within them, and often, within the human soul itself.
Related posts
The greatest civilizational ruptures are not merely geopolitical; they are moral. They ask not who should rule, but what kind of man deserves to. They do not just redraw maps—they reshape meanings.
While Huntington’s gaze was fixed on the future, history had already witnessed such a rupture, one so profound that it continues to echo across centuries and continents. It happened not between two religions, but within a single one—Islam. It did not involve massive armies or long wars, but a single day in a desert, when power and principle collided in a way that would alter the course of civilizations.
That day was the 10th of Muharram, 680 CE—known to Muslims as Ashura, and that desert was Karbala. It was not a large-scale battle between two competing civilizations, but a one-sided massacre in the desert town of Karbala—where the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, Hussain ibn Ali, stood against the most powerful regime of his time and uttered a word that shattered the very foundation of a political empire. That word was “No.”
To grasp the scale of this defiance, one must understand the symbolic importance of allegiance in political sociology. Throughout history, regimes—especially those emerging from fragile or contentious transitions—have relied not only on coercive power but on the social construction of legitimacy. As Max Weber outlined, power must be perceived as rightful to endure. And the allegiance of key moral or spiritual figures is central to that perception. This was precisely what Yazid ibn Muawiyah, the newly appointed caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, understood.
Yazid had inherited the caliphate not through consensus or merit, but through dynastic succession—a blatant departure from the egalitarian spirit of the early Islamic polity. He was not known for piety, scholarship, or justice. Instead, his rule marked the imperialization of religion, where political stability was to be secured through spectacle, suppression, and symbolic gestures. But none of these tools could give him what he needed most: the moral legitimacy of Hussain ibn Ali.
Hussain was no ordinary opposition. He was the living symbol of Prophethood, the grandson of Muhammad, nurtured in his lap, praised in his sermons, and trusted with his final words. His character, lineage, and reputation made him the ethical and spiritual conscience of the Muslim world. A single word from Hussain—a yes—would not have been a personal endorsement; it would have been seen as a divine signature, retroactively sanctifying Yazid’s rule and making his future actions not just politically binding but morally obligatory for generations.
This is why Yazid did not simply want silence or neutrality from Hussain—he demanded allegiance. He needed Hussain’s “yes” not to rule but to rule without question. With that, the entire machinery of injustice, corruption, and authoritarianism could operate behind the veil of prophetic endorsement. And this is where the magnitude of Hussain’s “No” becomes clear. In rejecting Yazid’s demand, he tore apart the psychological framework of political legitimacy. He refused to allow sacred authority to be used as a blank cheque by the profane. In doing so, he ensured that the Islamic moral imagination would forever be anchored in conscience over compliance.
From a social sciences perspective, this moment represents the rupture point in what might have been a total moral monopoly by the state. Had Hussain said yes, the ruler’s word—however tyrannical or godless—would have inherited a sacred aura. Future actions by the regime could be attributed to “Islam,” and resistance would be not just criminalized, but heretical. The state would control not just behaviour, but belief; not just law, but truth.
In modern terms, it would be akin to a regime capturing the epistemological infrastructure of a civilization: deciding what is right, what is divine, and what is beyond questioning. It would be the death of prophetic religion and the birth of religious absolutism in the hands of politics. Hussain knew this.
He understood the consequences of refusal—exile, abandonment, death. But he also understood the cost of acquiescence: a religion hollowed from within, truth sold for stability, and generations raised to believe that silence is virtue and obedience is piety. Karbala, then, was not a military miscalculation. It was a moral intervention. The Prophet’s grandson didn’t rise with the intention to win; he rose so that falsehood would be exposed even if it sat on the throne, and truth would survive even if it lay trampled in the desert.
This is not a sectarian legacy. It is civilizational. In every faith, culture, or ideology, there comes a moment when its adherents must decide: do we serve the form or the essence? Do we worship the symbols or honour the values they were meant to represent? Hussain’s stand was against the hijacking of faith by power, a phenomenon as relevant today as it was in 680 CE.
In the modern world, we are again witnessing the moral infrastructure of civilizations eroding under the weight of propaganda, surveillance, corporatized religion, and rising authoritarianism. Governments manufacture obedience, media curates consent, and institutions of faith often become subcontractors of political legitimacy. The battle is no longer for territory—it is for the human mind and moral compass. In such times, the story of Karbala ceases to be an Islamic anecdote—it becomes a universal parable. It teaches that resistance doesn’t always look like victory, and that sometimes, preserving the truth of an idea is more important than surviving to defend it. It affirms that civilizations are not remembered for their skylines or armies, but for the moments when someone stood alone and said: “This is wrong—even if the world says otherwise.”
The power of Hussain’s “No” shattered more than Yazid’s ambitions. It shattered the illusion that power defines truth. It was a rejection not only of a man, but of a political theology that equated obedience with righteousness. It restored the balance between authority and authenticity, between governance and guidance. In the long arc of human history, Karbala remains a point of reference—not because of who died, but because of why they refused to lie. And in that refusal lies the seed of every revolution of the spirit, every awakening of the oppressed, and every whisper of dignity in a world tempted by submission.
For any civilization, ancient or modern, that is the ultimate question: when the tyrant gives you a blank page and hands you the pen—do you sign, or do you bleed?
Author can be reached at ummulfaazil@gmail.com
