Forgotten: Sir Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985)

Posted on February 12, 2007
Filed Under >Yasser Latif Hamdani, History, People, Politics, Religion
Total Views: 112095


By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Last week (February 6) marked the 114th Birthday of one of Pakistan’s greatest unsung heroes. Once again, there was no mention of commemoration of his remarkable like. No sense of gratitude from a nation for which he did so much. He has been wiped out of our memory because he was an Ahmadi, despite his glorious contributions to Pakistan and its cause (see related post on Dr. Abdul Salam).

Sir Zafrullah Khan’s services rendered to Muslims of India, Pakistan and the Third World are second only to that of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah. As a jurist, a diplomat and a patriot he stood head and shoulders above the lesser men who have made a mockery of our republic.

Born in 1893 in Sialkot in what was to become one of the earliest Ahmaddiya households, this small town boy rose to be one of the shrewdest legal minds of his time. His early education was in Sialkot, after which he proceeded to Lahore for his bachelors degree, under the tutelage of none other than the great Iqbal himself. He got his law degree from King’s College London in 1914, where he stood top of his class and was the first person from the Indian subcontinent to do so. He was, like most great figures of that time, called to bar at Lincoln’s Inn.

As a practicing lawyer, he soon proved his mettle and had many reported cases to his name. The first major politician to recognize Zafrullah’s talents was Sir Fazli Hussain, the founder of Unionist Party of Punjab. Starting his career in his early 30s as a member of the Punjab legislative Council, he rose to prominence as an indefatigable crusader for Muslims of Punjab. Later he represented the Muslims at round table conference and crossed swords with figures like Jinnah and Gandhi. In 1931, he became the Muslim League president and at the roundtable conference, he cornered no less a person than Churchill in a committee hearing who was forced to accept Zafrullah’s point of view.

Later he was offered a seat on Viceroy’s permanent Council, which he took to further his cause. He also served at varying times as the minister of Railways, Public works, labour and law under the Viceroy. For a brief period, he also became British India’s representative to the League of Nations, just before it was dissolved.

Your Ad Here

However his greatest contribution came when he drafted the famous Lahore Resolution, which till this day is the rallying point of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism. He had been tasked with finding a common point between the popular demand for “Pakistan” and Muslim League’s all India requirements. The Lahore resolution was a broad based solution which left the door virtually open for several solutions and negotiation on the issue of partition. In essence it envisaged 2 or 3 great republics for the Muslim peoples and it was this document which forms the basis not just of Pakistan but also of Bangladesh. For this he got a lot of slack. No less a person than Khan Abdul Wali Khan highlighted Zafrullah’s religious belief to play on the popular conspiracy theory that holds Ahmadis to be British touts.

Later from 1942 onwards, he served as a federal judge (equivalent of an Supreme court C judge) of India and finally took leave on the eve of Pakistan to serve the cause of Pakistan before the Radcliffe Commission, on Jinnah’s personal request. On 25th December 1947, Jinnah appointed him the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At the UN, Sir Zafrullah emerged as the most eloquent advocate of all third world and Islamic issues. It was Zafrullah whose efforts materialized into the UN Resolutions on Kashmir, which are the basis of the Pakistani case and grievance. Later he became the first Asian president of the International Court of Justice, a singular and unique honor for any Pakistani. He also served, briefly, as the President of the UN General Assembly. He passed away in September of 1983 in Lahore.

A prolific author on the history of Pakistan and Islam, his most famous book was titled “Agony of Pakistan” in which he makes plain the great betrayal which wrested the country from the hands of its patriots into the hands of those who were its greatest enemies. Ironically, today Jinnah’s most trusted lieutenant is not even remembered by the state which owes him so much, including its own founding document. It is the memory of people like Zafrullah Khan that will keep alive the original idea of Pakistan and there is no doubt that one day the posterity will reclaim its true destiny as a progressive and modern republic.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer in Lahore and a researcher of the history of the Pakistan Movement.

253 Comments on “Forgotten: Sir Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985)”

  1. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 1:07 am

    Ahmadi Civil Rights… Petition. Please endorse:

  2. Asma says:
    February 12th, 2007 1:27 am

    Isnt it supposed to be 114th Birthday???
    Coz he died at teh age of 90 and its been 24 years since…!

    Rest Laters today :>

  3. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 1:31 am

    Yes you are right. Me and my math skills…

  4. Asma says:
    February 12th, 2007 1:45 am

    Wikipedia on him and it says he died in 1985 on September 1 … that just now I remember is true tooo …. was born on Feb 6 1893.

  5. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 1:47 am

    You are right again. Silly me. I even attended his funeral in Cantt Lahore as a 5 year old.

  6. Eidee Man says:
    February 12th, 2007 3:59 am

    This whole govt approach to Ahmadis is stupid; no one but God Himself has the authority to decide a person’s ‘Muslimness.’

  7. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:11 am

    A colleague of mine has pointed out that the word “slack” has been inappropriately used.

    It should be … got a lot of flak.

  8. Moiz says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:12 am

    I think it is because we are kept so much in dark about all this. If only information could flow from the other end it would be so much easier. I mean i would love to know more about the ahmadi faith and what it really stands for or is. And i suppose most of the people on this forum would appreciate any such effort made to educate the general reader of this blog towards educating us and informing us about the faith, its history and its present.
    Asma or Yasir Latif Hamdani or anyone else coud please make an introductory post and maybe the owners of this blog let it be up on the forum it will be really nice… what say you all…
    yay! i already hear hear hear!

  9. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:17 am

    The Ahmadi faith – as far as I can tell- is the exact mirror of Hanafi Sunni Islam with one major difference… they believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the greatest of all prophets and the last prophet with a shariat… however, lesser prophets can continue to after Prophet Muhammad… one of which is the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect, the famed Islamic Preacher, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian.

  10. Raza Rumi says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:48 am

    This is a great post. Unfortunatley, the spread of bigotry in Pakistan has deluded our national sense of history and tainted our ability to recognize the services of people like Sir Zafrullah. Dr Salam is the only scientist from the Islamic world (as I write these lines I am cognizant of the blaspehmy laws, not sure if calling him a Muslim would merit my arrest warrant) and look how we treated him. That was the worst metaphor for our respect for learning, innovation and achievement. Little wonder, the good muslims here in the Universities keep on plagirizing in the name of research and their students hellbent on editing Shakespeare to eliminate ‘fahaashi”

    We have to recognize that faith is an individual matter between man and God. This is what Mr Jinnah, our great leader stated quite emphatically in his August 11, 1947 address (there is a good ATP post from August 2006 on this subject). Thus a Pakistani citizen’s citizenship precedes his or her faith/sect/caste/background. Unfortunately we are light years away from the goal set by the Quaid; and the increasing talibanisation of Pakistan’s north-west and particularistic “Islamization” of its middle classes courtesy Al-Huda type movements are confounding our future development path. We are all Muslims but we do not want another Saudi or Taliban golden rule imposed here.

    At the same time, the state-written curricula and the official ideology continues to breed half-truths and distortion/destruction of history.

    Good that YLH and ATP are keeping these issues alive in the relatively freer web-space!

  11. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:49 am

    On a slightly separate note, in the header picture, I was told that the woman in burqa was also an Ahmadi. Can someone please confirm or deny that? Thanks.

  12. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:54 am

    Moiz, there is plenty of information available on the internet both for- and against, just search on the appropriate words. Danger of starting this on this forum is that instead of looking at everything from the point of view of benefit for Pakistan and its people (of course remaining fair to everyone at the same time) we will be dragged into sectarian discussions…ATP is doing a great job at trying to remain focused on Pakistaniat, I would hate to loose that. :)

  13. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 6:23 am

    MU that is Begum Maulana Muhammad Ali…

  14. king_faisal says:
    February 12th, 2007 7:21 am

    this article is filled with hyperbole and makes a completely untenable claim that zafarullah khan made greater contribution to pakistan movement than liaquat ali khan did. jinnah himself appointed liaquat to two key positions which were higher than any position held by zafarullah khan. before independence, liaquat was chosen by jinnah as the secretary general of muslim league and after independence, jinnah appointed liaquat as the first prime miniter of pakistan. moreover zafarullah khan did not have the sort of standing in the awam that liaquat did.

    also zafarullah khan’s sectarian background has nothing to do with contribution of ahmedis to the pakistan movement. leaders at the forefront of the movement were not acting on behalf of sectarian groups and even today leaders are supported based on their perceived contribution to pakistan rather on the basis of sectarian identification. people trying to spread sectarian or for that matter ethnic hatred are playing a very dangerous game and are deserving of complete contempt.

  15. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 7:22 am

    From Vali Khan’s book;

    Writes the Viceroy:

    “I may do what I like it, including sending a copy to you; thirdly, the copies have been passed to Jinnah and I think to Hydari (Sir Akbar Hydari, then Prime Minister of the Nizam of Hyderabad), and, fourthly, while he, Zafrullah, cannot of course admit its authorship, his document has been prepared for adoption by the Muslim League with a view to be given the fullest publicity.”

    The Viceroy explains that although the scheme had been drawn up at his instance, since Zafrullah was Qadiani, the Muslims’ knowing that it was his handiwork would make it suspect in their eyes from the very start. Consider the dates. This letter was written on April 12, 1940. The plan had been sent earlier. A copy of it had also gone to Mr. Jinnah, and also to Sir Hydari (for the financing of it). Obviously it was much the same scheme that was adopted as the Pakistan Resolution just at that time, on March 23, 1940.

  16. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 7:46 am

    King faisal,

    With all due respect the only hyperbole here is what you have written. Zafrullah Khan was not a Muslim Leaguer or a career politician… he was a judge. Hence he could not hold office…

    However, Jinnah papers are full of references to Sir Zafrullah Khan’s high calibre and it was for this reason that Jinnah forced Nawab of Bhopal to release Zafrullah Khan from his services and give him to Pakistan… And most important of all, Jinnah chose Zafrullah Khan as the lawyer to appear before the Radcliffe Commission. Why- may I ask- did Jinnah not appoint Liaqat Ali Khan to do the needful.

    Jamaat Ahmaddiya’s contributions to Pakistan Movement were much greater than any Mullahs that you seem to praise and any Mullahs who have the nerve to abuse Quaid-e-Azam today… it was the orders of the top leadership that made Ahmadis vote enmasse for the League… even though, they must have known the fate that awaited them at the hands of the intolerant bigots that we turned out to be… so accept that other than the communists, the only other body in India to actually support Muslim League as an organisation was the Jamat Ahmaddiya. These are undeniable facts of history… you may try again and again, but educated people will need only to go through the 5 volumes of Jinnah Papers from that era to see the truth.

    Here are some links you might want to read to expand the narrow annals of your mind:

    “Spate started his paper with a revelation: “I was employed as a technical advisor by a Muslim group, the Ahmadiyya community of Qadian in Gurdaspur District; to them I owe an invaluable professional experience and much personal kindness. It is a sign of their efficiency and intelligence that, of those connected with the affair, they alone showed any appreciation of the fact that a geographer might have something of value to say. I found myself acting in effect as an unofficial adviser to the Muslim League and considered myself…perhaps on an inadequate ground…as an expert witness…once given Pakistan (an important qualification), the Muslim case seemed to me entirely legitimate

    Lecture to Royal Geographical society




    Read and weep…

  17. Daktar says:
    February 12th, 2007 9:42 am

    From the facts given here, I too find the notion that Sir Zafarullah’s contribution was second only to the Quaid’s to be a little exagerated. But this is a matter of opinion. However, whether second or not, anyone who drafts the Lahore Declaration is a MAJOR figure and we have been guilty of ignoring him simply because of his faith. He is not the only one we have done this to and that is our shame. His achievements, as recounted here, are great and he deserves our respect irrespective of his beliefs which should have nothing to do with his work.

  18. Daktar says:
    February 12th, 2007 9:45 am

    By the way, I do think he is mntioned in the text books etc. as the first forien minister of Pakistan. I also think I remember a stamp issued about him as part of the freedom leader series many years ago.

  19. ahmed says:
    February 12th, 2007 9:55 am

    Here is a small extract from the summary record of Zafrulla Khan’s statement during the General Debate of the UN General Assembly sometime in October/November 1948â€

  20. Mubashir says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:28 am

    We may differ with his religious beliefs but Sir Zafrullah Khan’s contribution in the Pakistan movements and Kasmir cuase can not be ignored.
    However on an entirely differnt note, I would like to quote Mrs. Albright, the “Madam Secretary”.
    In her book The Mighty and The Almighty, publisher Harper Collins, Chapter 8: Learning About Islam, pages 110-111 Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state writes:

    “When I was ten, my father had served as chairman of a UN commission on India and Pakistan charged with resolving the status of Kashmir……….There were not many Muslims in Denver, where i spent my teenage years. My father had made contacts while at the UN, however, and some of his acquaintances came to visit. One I remember particularly was Sir Zafrullah Khan, a former foreign minister of Pakistan. I liked him because he was dignified,, erudite, and charming. When he took me to breakfast one day, my envious classmates jokingly pointed out that he could choose a second wife while keeping his first. What impressed me in talking to him about Kasmir, however, was how complicated life could be when a dispute is fueled by both religion and nationalism and each side is convinced that it has sole possession of the truth.

    Sitting in the State Department many years later, I thought of Zafrullah Khan and how out of place he had seemed in Denver…..”


  21. king_faisal says:
    February 12th, 2007 12:02 pm

    seems like ylh is seeing jinns because no where in my last post have i mentioned the word mullah much less offer any praise for them.

    pakistan was created because muslim league led by jinnah was able to convince a large proportion of muslims of south asia that muslim interest, aspirations, culture etc would be best protected by an entity where muslims would be in control of their own affairs. achievements of muslim league leadership was nothing short of a miracle given the opposition mounted by hindus and goras and by certain sections of muslim population. muslim league’s task was further complicated because of the division that existed in muslim ranks. to argue that a lawyer, who had no standing with the awam, played a greater role in creating pakistan than the second most important leader of muslim league is my opinion, a deliberate distortion of history. its also illogical logical to argue that negotiator of radcliff award had more power than the prime minister of pakistan. among other reasons if there was no pakistan, there would have been no radcliff awards in the first place.

    bottomline, ylh like the mullahs he despises is presenting a distorted version of history to make an ideological viewpoint. this is not to minimise the contribution of zafarullah khan in fighting for pakistan’s interest. however his role was not as significant as it is being made out to be.

  22. Bundagi says:
    February 12th, 2007 2:23 pm

    Pakistan was not created by one man alone. Pakistan is the result of the dreams, struggle and beliefs of men and women who wanted to see a country that is free of opression and where everyone could be what they wanted to be.

    I believe that every person who contributed no matter how little or how much should be remembered and honoured and unfortunately it is our loss that we do not do that.

    I did not know so much about Sir Zafarrullah Khan and this article was very enlightening. I also think it is sad that our television and film industry has never thought of showing the life stories of these giants that we should certainly be very proud of. These are men who were able to look beyond religions and believed in humanity and justice.

    How will my children remember all the sacrifices and names of these, if i an not taught those so well.

    Seriously, do you guys think it is possible to have some sort of a quality play organized.I know it sounds tedious but why not? Although i am here in the States but it still could be done. We would need a lot of research ot begin with and then a concerted volunteer effort to bring it to life… Oh Well, i’m day dreaming again.
    But thank you for this wonderful article and i hope you will keep writing about our different historical figures.

  23. Farrukh says:
    February 12th, 2007 2:31 pm

    The question of religion aside, it is really really sad how little we know about MOST people who were involved in the freedom movement. We know a little about the Quaid but mostly it is government constructed and that is it. I think thsi site and articles like this are doing a service in educating us about people we do not know about. I consider my self well read but did not know that Sir Zafarullah had been on the International Court of Justice. That is a bog honor for a new country. I think we need to learn more about more of these leaders so that we can have a more deep understanding of our own roots.

  24. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 3:07 pm

    [quote comment="33776"]MU that is Begum Maulana Muhammad Ali…[/quote]

    Names from past mingle together. Is it Maulana Muhammad Ali ‘Jauhar’?

  25. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 12th, 2007 3:31 pm

    Mr.Yasser Latif Hamdani,
    Thank you for this essay on the life and work of Sir Zafarullah Khan. We need more articles like this to know about our own history and to high light the lives of great Pakistanis. As a child I remember my parents and uncles talking about the hatred spewed against Ahmadiyya sect and particularly against the subject of your article. In Pakistan it is a shame how quickly we slip to the lower level and start calling each other infidel or bad Muslim. Once I had engaged a Qari Sahab to teach Quran to my young nephew. With one eye on my father’s name plate at the front gate the Qari Sahab kept asking me what my ‘religion’ was. Knowing very well what he was after I told him it was Islam. Qari Sahab was not satisfied with my answer because what he really wanted to know was that which sect of Islam my family belonged to. To let him stew in his own juices I never gave him the answer he was looking for.
    And to my friend Faisal: It does not matter who was no. one or no. two. They were all great men of much higher caliber than most of us.

  26. Asma says:
    February 12th, 2007 3:34 pm

    First Set of pictures:

    (from L-R clockwise)
    Pic 1: Sir zafarullah Khan giving address to professors and scholars in Harvard University.
    Pic 4: Sir zafarullah Kha, senior Judge of Federal Court of India, from september 0941 to 10th june 1947
    Pic 5: Pakistan’s first foreign minister
    Pic 6: Sir zafarullah Khan became teh Chief Justice of Internatiol court of justice, hague on 10th February, 1970.

    Second Set of pictures:

    (from L-R clockwise)
    Pic 1: Liaquat Ali Khan addressing to the first constitutional assembly’s session – Sir zafarullah Khan can be seen in back listening intently.
    Pic 2: In egypt, Sir Zafarullah Khan’s having a chat with Jamal President Abdul nasir of egypt.
    Pic 3: With Saudi Arabia’s King Fahad
    Pic 4: With Jordan’s Shah Hussain (after Sir zafarullah Khan received their highest civil award)

    Few things I wana share:

    1) Not to forget, In UN’s security council he gave a speech on Kashmir and Palestine situation for 7 LONG HOURS.

    2) Further, if anyone gets hold on a book by him on his mother, MERI WAALDA, please have a read of it. No doubt he was born to such a great lady who remained affirm in her belief on Allah and His prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w.

    3) Sir Zafarullah khan had great knowledge ofUrdu, English, arabic and Persian – HE ALSO TRANSLATED QURAN IN 1970 IN ENGLISH.

    4) He was also involved in delivering various lectures on Islam – The TRUE RELIGION (haqaniat), Islama- Its meaning for modern man in occassions such as World Congress of Faiths Association, Holland, America, and around the world.

    5) His book “Tehdees e Nemat”‘s also worth reading – a pure delight. Interestingly, he bought tickets for TITANIC too and just few hours before due to some urgency he had to miss the cruise.

    Great Post YLH.


    [quote comment="33806"]
    Names from past mingle together. Is it Maulana Muhammad Ali ‘Jauhar’?[/quote]

    I guess so …!

  27. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 12th, 2007 3:49 pm

    Asma: I am sure you meant King Faisal and not King Fahad.

  28. February 12th, 2007 4:43 pm

    It is sad that instead of talking about Sir Zafarrullah Khan’s achievements, we are discussing Ahmediyya movemnet’s achievements. Let’s stay focus on the topic and don’t try to talk about religious beliefs. If we didn’t stop, readers will start labeling this site as Ahmediyya sect’s site.
    Despite Sir Zafarullah Khan’s lot of contributions, is anybody know that he was CIA’s paid agent? Just few days ago, a columnist in Jang newspaper said that he was CIA’s agent and he was responsible for Kashmir’s cease fire when Pakistan had chance to liberate the Kashmir right after independence. Please verify this claim.

  29. Poor Hungry Doc says:
    February 12th, 2007 4:57 pm

    How can we fix this? What can we do to promote a view where Pakistanis are seen and valued for thier achievements and NOT whether they are Shia Kafirs, Sunni Kafirs, Ahmedi Kafirs or Jedi Kafirs? Surely it cannot be impossible as most of the opinions here are of the progressive persuasion, but how to bell the cat? I think it is riduculous that an Ahmedi cannot say Assalam o aliekum, but how do we even begin to effect these changes? We cannot wait for the rest of Pakistan to learn how to read first, but how do we bypass the bullying of the extremists (for starters) and bring a more tolerant outlook to bear on soceity so that our great figures are not overlooked?

  30. February 12th, 2007 4:57 pm
  31. Poor Hungry Doc says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:21 pm

    [quote comment="33814"]It is sad that instead of talking about Sir Zafarrullah Khan’s achievements, we are discussing Ahmediyya movemnet’s achievements. Let’s stay focus on the topic and don’t try to talk about religious beliefs. If we didn’t stop, readers will start labeling this site as Ahmediyya sect’s site.
    Despite Sir Zafarullah Khan’s lot of contributions, is anybody know that he was CIA’s paid agent? Just few days ago, a columnist in Jang newspaper said that he was CIA’s agent and he was responsible for Kashmir’s cease fire when Pakistan had chance to liberate the Kashmir right after independence. Please verify this claim.[/quote]

    MP wasn’t it Jang that claimed that Shaukat Aziz had a white Jewish wife?

  32. Farrukh says:
    February 12th, 2007 5:58 pm

    [quote comment="33814"]
    Despite Sir Zafarullah Khan’s lot of contributions, is anybody know that he was CIA’s paid agent? Just few days ago, a columnist in Jang newspaper said that he was CIA’s agent and he was responsible for Kashmir’s cease fire when Pakistan had chance to liberate the Kashmir right after independence. Please verify this claim.[/quote]

    Dear Mera Pakistan, I guess your Pakistan is NOT my Pakistan. Why don’t YOU verify this claim before spreading a malicious rumor like this only to spread fasad without any proof. In most places making an unsubstantiated claim like this would be liable to legal measures. Shouldn’t YOU
    verify such a serious charge before you spread rumors like this?

  33. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 12th, 2007 7:14 pm

    I think they fevered pakistan becouse they thought they can hijake pakistan ofter freedom for there own religion benifits and beliefs.the government of pakistan have been declare Ahmadis as non-muslims in 1973,since there “HAZOOR” living in london.According islamic beliefs prophet MUHAMMAD(PBUH) is the last massanger(rasool)of ALLAH,but mirza ghulam ahmad claims that he is also rassol,nabi,mujaddid,the imam mahdi,and also second coming ESA(PBUH),(he was all in one)which is not acceptable to any muslim who believe that MUHAMMAD(PBUH)is the last rasool,and there is no rasool ofter him.
    First Question come in my mind is this is sir Zafrullah khan was muslim?if the Answer is NO,then please dont put him in muslim leaders.
    sister asma if you know Ahmadi beliefs about kashmir then its more easy to understand why?many things you noted here it was his personal achievements.
    “with out religion you can not see any matter in good prospective,so its importent”
    Brother Eidee man GOD has decided who is muslim,dont worry.
    I respect every single person who was and is the fever of pakistan including sir zafrullah khan,May ALLAH forgive him.We should not forget those who lost there lifes in the way of pakistan.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  34. bhitai says:
    February 12th, 2007 8:10 pm

    [quote post="568"]He has been wiped out of our memory because he was an Ahmadi, [/quote]

    Apart from jinnah/liaqat ali and iqbal, there are a very few characters from ML/Pakistan leadership that are actually honored and remembered by an average pakistan. In short, there’s no concept of ‘founding fathers’ in Pakistan (just check out their various currency denominations). Call him autocratic or a giant among dwarfs, but the fact remains that ML leadership in general could never grow out of Jinnah’s towering shadow. Even liaqat ali has remained a one dimensional figure. Compare this pathetic state with what the indians got, they seem to have no dearth of 1st and 2nd tier leaders that they celebrate: Abul kalam, Ambidkar, Bose etc. apart from the more familiar names.. Is it a coincidence that Pakistan has shown an almost natural affinity toward dictatorships and india toward the opposite?

  35. Moeen Bhatti says:
    February 12th, 2007 8:29 pm

    I didn’t know much about Sir Zafarullah Khan & this article was pretty infornative. I also see that the discussion has diverted towards ahmadiya movement.I don’t have any problem with ahmadies, some of my best friends are ahmadies. We are ofcourse very intolorant society when it comes to the religion; I think an athiest pakistani should have the same rights what an other ordinary muslim can have. Having said this, this is what I tell my friends, you can have any faith you want to have, you have all the freedom; but don’t produce a small sect and say that we are Muslims. Be proud of your faith; don’t jumble is with the Islam that came 1500 years ago.

  36. February 12th, 2007 9:00 pm

    [quote post="568"]This whole govt approach to Ahmadis is stupid; [/quote]


    This approach is not different than current govt approach against ‘Mullahs’ and if things go on then after few decades,someone would be cursing/whining current govt for their actions against Islam and would be appealing for signing petition like YLH has been desprately doing these days. There were extreemist in past, there are extreemist in present govt.

  37. Owais Mughal says:
    February 12th, 2007 9:58 pm

    Yasser. thanks for this informative article. I must admit my ignorance that I didn’t know he drafted the Lahore resolution.

  38. February 12th, 2007 10:00 pm

    It has proved that this site is promoting Ahmadiat under the label of Pakistaniat and it is totally unfair. Please if Pakistantiat management is Ahmadi (non-Muslim) then please announce openly. Most of the comments for this post are contributed to Ahmadiat and not to Sir Zafarullah Khan.
    There is no doubt that Ahmadis are not Muslims. That’s why I agree with Rai T U Khan that Sir Zafarullah Khan was not a Muslim leader.

  39. Moeen Bhatti says:
    February 12th, 2007 10:58 pm

    Mera Pakistan: He was a leader of Pakistanies…who cares about his beliefs…

  40. The Pakistanian says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:12 pm

    Dear Mr Hamdani

    Thanks for a very informative and enlightening post. I had never heard of Sir Zafarullah Khan and his contributions during the creation of Pakistan. I have a rather different question and it has nothing to do with your post. I also read another article you wrote about Mr. Jinnah’s career, I couldn’t help but notice you always spell his name as “Mahomed”, even in the petition you have posted (for Ahmedis’ Civil Rights) you have spelled it as “Mahomed”. I have seen many variations of the spelling like Muhammad, Mohammed, Muhamad etc but never “Mahomed” which sort of distorts the pronounciation of the name (IMHO). Well you are the researcher, perhaps Quaid-e-Azam himself spelled it like this, I am just curious. Thanks

  41. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:13 pm

    [quote]Way back in 1953, the Jamaat-e-Islami under Abul A’la Maudoodi created mayhem in Lahore, so much so that blood flowed along the streets of the city. And it would not stop until General Azam Khan came along. In those days of Jamaat initiation into the politics of violence, the targets were men of unimpeachable integrity like Sir Zafrullah Khan. No, no one wanted to have his tongue cut out or have his body turned into mincemeat. But he had to be pushed out of Islam because he swore by the Ahmadiyya version of faith.

    In the years since then, Maudoodi’s followers have come a long way. Some of the best moments of their lives came in 1971 when Golam Azam swiftly made it a point, per courtesy of the Pakistani genocide, to offer assistance to Tikka Khan in the matter of doing away with the miscreants out to destroy Islam and Pakistan in these parts. The miscreants, of course, were seventy-five million Bengalis whose very simple wish was to assert themselves in the politics of their own land.[/quote]

  42. Moeen Bhatti says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:16 pm

    Mera Pakistan: you have not provided any evidence that this site is promoting Ahmadiayt??

  43. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:26 pm

    [Quote]1952: UN Called Unprincipled

    International Herald Tribune

    Wednesday, March 6, 2002

    LAHORE: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Sir Zafrullah Khan, told a Rotary Club dinner that the United Nations “is fast becoming a contradiction on which political proposals of major importance are carried or rejected not according to their merits, but according to the influence exercisable by the powers making them. The very principles for which the organization had been set up â€

  44. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:29 pm

    Mian King Faisal,

    Saying something is not enough. What I have written is historically true… so you are logically upset, because if what I am saying becomes in vogue and accepted, your dukan is shuttered down forever. It is an irony, but I will not sit around and see my country go to the dogs.

  45. MU says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:39 pm

    Pointing to the way England had evolved, how there were now no Roman Catholics or Protestants in that country, only equal citizens of Great Britain, “all members of the Nation”, Jinnah told the Assembly,

    “Now I think we should keep in front of us our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State…”

    Liaquat Ali, the country’s first Prime Minister, was equally emphatic in repudiating the suggestion that non-Muslims would be in any way less equal than Muslims. He told the Constituent Assembly that a non-Muslim could well be the head of the administration of an Islamic State, that non-Muslims would be welcomed into the administrative services of the country. He said that the guarantees which were being provided for non-Muslims in the Pakistan Constitution were much more comprehensive than were being provided for Muslims in the Indian Constitution. Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, the country’s Foreign Minister and an Ahmediya by faith, had this to say,

    “It is a matter of great sorrow that, mainly through mistaken notions of zeal, the Muslims have during the period of decline earned for themselves an unenviable reputation for intolerance. But that is not the fault of Islam. Islam has from the beginning proclaimed and inculcated the widest tolerance. For instance, so far as freedom of conscience is concerned the Quran says “There shall be no compulsion” of faith…”

    When the Assembly passed its Objectives Resolution, the General Assembly of the All Pakistan Christian League hailed it, and in April 1949 declared, “In our opinion the Objectives Resolution should set at rest the doubts which often assailed the non-Muslims of Pakistan with regard to the connotation of the term ‘Islamic State’, which it was feared would be a theocratic State at variance with the democratic ideas of modern times.” We shall soon see what has happened to the Christians since, to the Ahmediyas of whom Sir Zafrullah was such a devoted member, to say nothing of the Hindus.[/Quote]

  46. YLH says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:42 pm

    PS: The claim that Liaqat Ali Khan was the PM and Zafrullah Khan wasn’t … is somehow evidence that Zafrullah Khan had no contribution is a laughable claim so I won’t respond to it.


    I spelt Jinnah’s full name as Mahomed Ali Jinnah because all evidence I have suggests that Quaid-e-Azam himself spelt it like this. For more on this see Adil Najam’s post on Ashura … where he posts a link to Jinnah’s souvenir… as well as his Lincoln’s Inn records… the main difference there being “Mahomedali” instead of “Mahomed Ali” which he later adopted.

    Rai tu Khan and “Mera Hindustan”,

    Dear friends your comments are so bogus and baseless that forgive for not responding to you.

    Pervaiz Alvi, Asma, Ahmed, MU, Moeen, Daktar, poor hungry doc,

    Thank you for the encouragement…

    By the way, today is another giant’s birthday… Faiz Ahmed Faiz, the first editor of Pakistan Times, the leftist mouthpiece started by Jinnah and Iftikharuddin… and there too Pakistanis have been economical with the truth by wiping out the patriotism of the great Faiz… because he was – according to many- a “dahria”.

  47. Asma says:
    February 12th, 2007 11:51 pm

    [quote comment="33812"]Asma: I am sure you meant King Faisal and not King Fahad.[/quote]

    Yah sorry King Faisal it is not king fahad.

    And I agree that the thread should be dedicated to Sir zafarullah Khan and his efforts in Pakistan’s way instead of his faiths.

    But for this you should refrain yourself from expressing your opinions on his faith … !

  48. Poor Hungry Doc says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:09 am

    YLH you’re most welcome–I was simply writing down my opinions.

    Whoever stated that this site is promoting Ahmediat, I can state with Allah as my witness that I am not Ahmedi, but I simply don’t understand why we need to be afraid of Ahmedis (or of them being considered Muslims) in order to affrim (or even “protect”) our own faith.

  49. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:20 am

    Thank you Bundagi for your encouragement and post. I will continue to harp on these topics and more.

  50. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:23 am

    Poor Hungry doc,

    Thankyou for being the voice of reason. I am not an Ahmadi either… nor do I ascribe/agree with many of their beliefs, as I don’t with Shias, Sunnis etc either … but this hits very close to home… Pakistan cannot go on perpetrating such travesty.

    Pakistan and Pakistanis cannot be at ease untill and unless this grave injustice is undone and we have established an egalitarian society where a person is free to live according to his or her own lights.

  51. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:43 am

    This article seems interesting and mentions both Zafarullah and Salam;

    Its a long article and I have not had time to read it in entirety so my agreement is not essential. :)

    Here are two quotes though;

    The Punjab elections of 1951 had, no doubt, brought Mian Mumtaz Daultana into power, but that didn’t solve his endemic problem. One of his deferred dreams had been to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This could happen only if somehow he could manage to bring down the Federal Government. Ch. Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmedi, in the Federal Cabinet thus was chosen as a perfect Achilles’ heel. Mian Sahib dexterously used his provincial secret service, already in link with the Islamist groups, and succeeded in creating an atmosphere of popular agitation, calling for a legislation declaring the Ahmedis as non-Muslims , just for legal purposes.

    and, with reference to salam;

    Is Pakistan a fit place for burial only, and not good enough for living? Is this country no better than a cemetery? The streets of Jhang that Dr. Salam once paved later fell to the lot of Sipai-Sahaba, what a replacement.

  52. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 13th, 2007 2:20 am

    I hate those who put themself in islam but dont follow the real education of islam,they are enemy with in faith.who are with all,time to time,we call those “treators”,and pakistan is full of them.pakistan is islamic country and the law of ALLAH will be acceptable in YLH clean your mind and decide what you are?you can not be all at the same time.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  53. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 2:30 am

    Dear Rai,

    May Allah Protect Pakistan, Islam, Pakistanis and Muslims from people like you. Amen.

  54. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 2:34 am

    Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan (whether you think it is Islamic or secular or both is up to you):

    1. Equality of all citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.

    2. Impartiality of the state towards all faiths and groups.

    3. Faith the personal matter between man and god.

    4. Sovereignty resting unconditionally with the people of Pakistan.

    This is what he said again and again.

    Now one may disagree with this vision but there is no point denying this simply because Jinnah referred to the Islamic ideals (which he qualified as “of equality, fraternity and justice”)… Islam is not opposed to reason. Jinnah knew this. Most Muslims don’t.

  55. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 3:14 am

    [quote comment="33886"]I hate those who put themself in islam but dont follow the real education of islam.[/quote]

    Hey don’t hate yourself man. Now run along, don’t you have churches to burn or something?

  56. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 13th, 2007 3:23 am

    Why you get angry brother?I just said who is every where is no want secularism in pakistan?

  57. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:06 am

    I want equal rights for all and freedom of religion for all Pakistanis… this is what Jinnah wanted… this is what Pakistan is based on.

    If this is secularism, then I want secularism… if this is Islam, then I want Islam.

  58. KHS says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:29 am

    Our low & limited mentality always exposed when we called a very respectable but minute & also very influencial portion of our society ‘Mullah’.

    People blame them as a source of all evils because they don’t agree with them, & in my view “Disagreement” is not an issue. It is the right of every individual but calling them with any bad or biased name bacause u r not agree with them is also very bad.

    It is the historic evident that Zafarullah Khan happens to be the same person who refused to say the Janaza prayer of Quaid-e-Azam as M A Jinnah was considered non muslim even though he was present at his janaza.

    Just as Mir Jafar pushed India into the abyss of slavery by betraying Siraj ud Daulah, in the same manner, three treacherous Qadianis have been successful in undoing Pakistan to a great extent. First was Zafarullah Khan who as Pakistan’s advocate before the Radcliffe Boundary Commission lost the link to Kashmir, viz., Gurdaspur, Pathankot, to India, (simultaneously his co-religionist Qadianis were presenting a separate memorandum to the Commission as a separate entity from Muslims) and later as the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan lost the Kashmir case in spite of his tiring and hardly intelligible orations at the United Nations.

  59. February 13th, 2007 4:34 am

    [quote post="568"]Why you get angry brother?[/quote]

    it’s a kind of secular extreemism :-),if you don’t agree them,you are not required.

  60. February 13th, 2007 4:42 am

    [quote post="568"]It is the historic evident that Zafarullah Khan happens to be the same person who refused to say the Janaza prayer of Quaid-e-Azam as M A Jinnah was considered non muslim even though he was present at his janaza.[/quote]

    Really? Damn! I bet Sir zafarullah must be a Mullah rather than a qadyani because only Mullahs had right to declare kafir others otherwise cabals like seculars,qadyanis are “educated”,”enlighted” and “true muslims”.
    I wonder How come our inhouse Pakistani/Jinnah History expert YLH skipped this portion while writing a delated post about Zafarullah Khan?

  61. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:43 am

    we are all agree with QUAID-A-AZAM’s vision,and people are living with full freedom of religion in pakistan.its also tru faith is parsonal matter with GOD,we ar we are talking about those who claim they are muslims but they are not,this is problem.they use name of islam,this is the resion of my anger.if today AHAMDIS declare that this is not islam but some other faith,I will the first man who will welcome to them in pakistan,but enemy with in islam is not acceptable.I hope my brothers don’t take it parsonaly,and whould understand my views.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  62. Daktar says:
    February 13th, 2007 4:49 am

    [quote comment="33909"]It is the historic evident that Zafarullah Khan happens to be the same person who refused to say the Janaza prayer of Quaid-e-Azam as M A Jinnah was considered non muslim even though he was present at his janaza.[/quote]

    Can you provide any evidence at all of either of the rumors you are spreading here. Real evidence. Or is this just tuhmaatbaazi you are indulging in. Throughout this thread come these people to just throw in unsubstantiated lies and rumors without any shread of evidence. What is the Hadd against spreading lies?

  63. KHS says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:07 am

    Dear Daktar !

    Please read the “hard core evidences”

    But before reading this I want to say u one thing Mr. Zafar not as much as important as it is presented in above article.It is sole selfmade myths of Mr. YLH

    Now Cheers

    “As such. following the beliefs of his religion, Choudhry Zafarullah Khan, then Foreign Minister), did not participate in the funeral prayer of the Quaid-i-Azam. When he was asked to account for this before the Munir Inquiry Tribunal, he replied:

    “Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the leader of the funeral prayer, has declared that the Ahmadis are Kafirs and liable to be executed. So, I could not decide to join a prayer which was being conducted under the Imamat of the Maulana”. (Report of the Inquiry Tribunal, Punjab, P. 212).
    When he was asked outside the Tribunal:

    “Why did you not join the Quaid-i-Azam’s funeral prayer?” He replied, “You may take me to be the Musalman Minister of an infidel Government or the infidel employee of a Muslim Government”. (Zamindar, Lahore, dated 8th February, 1950).
    When the Press published reports about this adamant attitude of Choudhry Zafarullah Khan, then the Rabwah Association of the Ahmadis issued the following reply to this:

    “An objection is being raised against Choudhry Zafarullah Khan as to why he did not join the funeral prayer of the Quaid-i-Azam. The entire world knows that the Quaid-i-Azam was not an Ahmadi. As such, there is nothing objectionable, if any member of the Ahmadia Jamaat did not join his funeral prayer”. (Tract 22, Ahrari Ulama ki rastgoi ka number, Publishers, Manager Publication and Propaganda, Anjuman Ahmadia, Rabwah, District Jhang.)
    Likewise, the Qadiani newspaper Al-Fazl gave the following reply:

    “Is it not a fact that like the Quaid-i-Azam, Abu Talib also was a great well-wisher of the Muslims, yet neither the Prophet of Allah nor the Muslims offered funeral prayer for him?” (Al-Fazl, Rabwah, dated 28th October, 1952).

    OK,, now u r clear. Hope its the Great read material

  64. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:12 am

    Adnan Siddiqui,

    You abuse me day in and day out and I am the extremist. Brilliant logic. Your knowledge of the English language matches your knowledge of Jinnah, Islam and other things.

    Rai, KHS

    Zafrullah Khan did not attend Jinnah’s funeral because Shabir Ahmed Usmani did not consider Zafrullah khan a Muslim… But liars and mythmakers from the Islamic fanatics will make any number of stories…

  65. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:14 am

    PS: People here think that quoting anonymous website is “hard core” sources by the way.

    Proceed logically and stop distorting history for god’s sake!

  66. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:18 am

    PS: It is well known that Jinnah had two funerals… one public and one private. Zafrullah Khan did pray in the private shiite funeral, because Khoja Shias, like Jinnah himself, did not consider Ahmadis non-Muslims.

    The problem was with Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, who said the Public Namaz-e-Janaza, who said that Zafrullah Khan was not a Muslim… and no sane and reasonable man would then stand behind Shabbir Ahmed Usmani after that insult.

  67. KHS says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:19 am

    I will be grateful & humbly requested to all “those” who are ” of Lovers of Jinnah” that majority of Pakistani wants to see Him in written as “Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah”.

  68. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 5:26 am

    YES it is Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah (that is how he spelt his name) and I have no objection to calling my Quaid-e-Azam Quaid-e-Azam… he was a great leader and he certainly needs no defence from liars who lie like there is no tomorrow… it is those people from the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam who refuse to call him Quaid-e-Azam.So what do you think of the abuse and insult your MMA is levelling against Quaid-e-Azam?

  69. Farrukh says:
    February 14th, 2007 10:26 am

    Whether ahmedis are muslims or not is a question that is totally irrelevant to this post and yet people seem to gravitate to it again and again (maybe we are all Mulahs on the inside!). Lets please leave that question to God to decide.

    The question is only whether ones faith (whether it is muslim or not) should impact whetehr we respect them or not. I do not agree with ahmedi beliefs, but does that mean I should disrespect and abuse all ahmedis. I hope not. Some people here seem to be doing exactly that.
    The author of this article has also not helped his cause by exagerations, hyperbole and jumping in again and again to personalize a needly fight. All in all, what should have been a serious and educational discussion on our history has now been turned into a joke!

  70. OLD TIMER says:
    February 14th, 2007 10:16 am


    I have been a long time and great fan of your work and your site.

    The reality of Pakistan is depicted on this site not by your posts but by these guys you find to comment on them. They demonstrate our utter lack respect for anyone else. They speak in a confrontational language that even offends those who agree with them. They are so self-absorbed that they write long messages even longer than the original posts and waste peoples time repeating themselves again and again. They bring in religion into everything unnecessarily. A post into whether someones religion should effect how we remember him has been turned by this circus in who is or is not a Muslim. They cut and paste long passsages that mean nothing. It is just getting too much.

    You really need to either moderate this thing more seriously from these childish time-wasters who obviously have nothing else to do, or those of us who come here for the substance will just leave and you can have all teh fun you want with messers YLH, Adnan Siddiqui, MU, Rai T. Khan and others. Would’nt that be terrific!

  71. TAQI says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:12 am






  72. Farrukh says:
    February 14th, 2007 2:04 pm

    On the last few comments, I do not see where this site is promoting ‘qadianiat’. I do not see a single comment here or elsewhere that is telling people they should become ahmedis or evangelizing ahmedi beliefs. I do see a LOT of other comments every that keep doing tableegh and turning the rest of us into ‘better Muslims’ of their own dou-eenth-ki-masjid variety. There are many people here trying to get their sects spread and trying to shut up others.

    Finally, I think these couple of comments questioning Adil’s religion or the intentions of this site are really really dispicable and in extremely bad taste. Anyone who has visited this long enough knows that this site is nothing but fair and incorporates ALL aspects of Pakistan (not just the ones that suit our maslaq). Whether it is Jinnah, or Edhi, or Salam or mosques, or bridges, or churches, or mandirs, or gurdwaras, or Eid or Muharram, or whatever. It is only those whose Pakistaniat is defined by their own narrow firqa who can raise such a petty and pathetic personal attack on someone who spends so much of his time on giving us an honest forum for debate. Even suggesting such allegations is shameful!

  73. Pervaiz Munir Alvi says:
    February 13th, 2007 8:08 am

    Good thing we are not sitting in the same room as otherwise chairs and paper weights will be flying all over. Indeed we are passionate people. And intolerant. As I said, it does not take much for us to slip down to the lower level. God (Allah in Arabic) help us.

  74. February 13th, 2007 8:08 am

    dear ylh,

    [quote post="568"]However just like you go around throwing the term “leftistâ€

  75. Saddened says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:12 pm

    Ahsan, I agree that this post which should have been uplifting has degenerated into yet another mud slinging match that has no bearing on either the original post or on any substance but seems to be some petty rivalry. Unfortunately, some people here (including in this case the author) seem to have too confrontational a style and cannot disagree politely. Maybe its a larger Pakistani issue.

    To me, however, pointing out that Sir Zafarullah is forgotten because he is of Ahmedi faith is very relevant. But the point of that is that no one should be condemned or forgotten simply because of their faith. How this turned into whether Ahmedis are Muslims or not is what I cannot understand. Some people here who seem to believe they are not also seem to be suggesting that because they are not Muslims therefore they are also not good enough Pakistanis. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I do not know whether they are or not. I leave that decsision to Allah. I do not think that any website nor any parliament has the right to decide things that only Allah can know. So, let us leave aside discussions of who si and is not a good Muslim. The real question is that should someone who has obviously contributed so much to the country be smeared in innuendo and lies simply because of whatever his beliefs are. To me, the clear answer is NO. I wish we had focussed just on that aspect rather than trying to decide things that only Allah should rightly decide on.

  76. February 13th, 2007 8:17 am

    Now people have involved in personal disputes and I think we should stop this nonsense and lets move on to next topic.

  77. Indscribe says:
    February 13th, 2007 8:50 am

    Zafarullah Khan was a brilliant man, no doubt. Yes, he spoke well on Kashmir issue for Pakistan.
    YLH has written a timely and good post. But, he seems slightly more elogising, which occasionally happens in such articles. All this is fine.

    However, there is no need to connect that with the role of Ahmadiyya jamaat. Ahmadiyyas should have the right to live a dignified life but there is no need to glorify their role. They overwhelmingly voted for creation of Pakistan! Mercifully, the figure of tens of millions was not quoted here. The article was nice but YMH went overboad later and in the comments section. Why the need to generalise and make fun of the word ‘Mulla’. The gravity of the article is affected as a result.

  78. YLH says:
    February 13th, 2007 9:14 am


    What is amazing is that this fellow calls me an extremist even though he abuses every one under the sky on this website day in day out. According to him my suggestion that all Pakistanis should have equal rights makes me an “secular extremist” apparently.


    I did not go overboard. You should see some of the comments here. I am still not sure where I made fun of the term “Mullah” here.

    Adnan Siddiqui,

    I am afraid there is no balance and moderation in what you say. If by standing for equal rights of all Pakistanis and Jinnah’s tolerant and progressive Pakistan makes me an extremist, then by opposing the same you must become a religious extremist. No point trying to play the double game. You stand against everyone and anyone who tries to argue for a just and egalitarian Pakistan because your Islam gets threatened every time one talks simple logic.

  79. Daktar says:
    February 13th, 2007 11:09 am

    [quote comment="33922"]Please read the “hard core evidences”…
    OK,, now u r clear. Hope its the Great read material[/quote]

    Dear KHS, I have never followed this issue, but thanks to your messages, I did just follow up the referecnes you provided. A simplegoogle search shows that actually what you have is not references but direct plagiarised extracts from activist websites. By the standard rules of referencing, these are not substaniated references at all. Moreover, what you site is not what Zafarullah Khan said but the debate between propagandists of different sects.

    Since one of your referencesis to the Zamindar, and since teh Berkely library here, I think, has a microfische of the newspaper, I will check out the original source.

    For now, however, the so-called evidence you provide is not evidence at all but is libelous and rumor mongering – actually hate mongering.

  80. ahsan says:
    February 13th, 2007 11:23 am

    While talking of “A”, a person or a group of perons, we talk of “B”, any subject matter, only if there is some sort of necessary connection, between the two, for the discussion. Here we are talking of a forgotten personality Sir Zafrullah Khan. His personal achievements and his servises in the creation and after defending Pakistan are brought to light. All this, he did as an individual and his religion has nothing to do with his status of one of the heros of the freedom movement or with the confidence that Mr. Jinnah had in him. The discussion has taken a wrong toute.

    I think that the seed of confrontation was cleverly planted in:

    “He has been wiped out of our memory because he was an Ahmadi”

    There are many others (perhaps at a lesser degree!) involved in the Pakistan Movement that the nation of Pakistan does not remember.

    There is no doubt that Sir Zafrullah Khan was a brillian lawyer and orator but to make him a Second Jinnah is simply a Hero Worship attitude of the writer of the post.

    This hero worship is clearly stated in his statement:

    [quote comment="33784"] These are undeniable facts of history… you may try again and again, but educated people will need only to go through the 5 volumes of Jinnah Papers from that era to see the truth.[/quote]

    Any statement by any person may be true or false according the reasoning and logic. Why any statemnt of Mr. Jinnah will be only TRUE? Why the five volumes will not contain some erroneous statements? After all he was a human being. According to the Islamic Faith there is only one VOLUME which contains nothing but the TRUTH and the five volumes of Jinnah are certainly not in that catagory.

    So, in my opinion the above statement in quotes is certainly wrong and I will refrain to give any back-up statement


  81. Bundagi says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:35 pm

    Reading all these comments i think it is really sad that we are unable to just appreciate a person for what he achieved. we are more bogged down by what religion he followed or whether he attended the funeral of the Quaid or notetc… Just goes to show how far we are from being a nation.It is sad…why is it so difficult to accept that yes perhaps among all the people who struggled to create Pakistan he was also one of them. No one is trying to usurp anybody else’s position or image. Just appreciate good where you see good.

  82. MQ says:
    February 13th, 2007 12:43 pm


    Great post. I learnt several things about Zafarullah Khan that I didn’t know before. like, he was born in Sialkot and that he wrote the Lahore Resolution. Incidentally, What is it about Sialkot that makes it produce so many bright people? Iqbal, Faiz, Zafarullah and, I am sure, there must be many more.

  83. Omar R Quraishi says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:30 pm

    Thanks Yasser — though since my post has been censored it doesnt make sense what you have written – I think this is the last time I interact here because in the name of freedom of speech the owner of this site allows people like adnan siddiqi too much leeway tho people who call him the troll that he is get their posts deleted


  84. February 13th, 2007 1:35 pm

    We must focus on what the person achieved and did in the cause of the nation. I am not sure if there is a road here named after Sir Zafarullah Khan but there is one in Tunis. Three other Pakistanis are also remembered in the same way there (I am not sure who). That shows what vision our founders had and what sphere of influence they wanted to create. It is not common knowledge that Tunisian leaders used to travel on Pakistani passports when struggling for their independence, hence the honout to Sif Zafarullah and others. We helped them get independence and then forgot; most Tunisans have forgotten too but their elders and officials still remember that and acknowledge it.

  85. truefacts says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:47 pm

    I find acute lack of patience & tolerance here. We can work togather with the “agreement of disagreement”. We should laern to respect each other views. Disagreemnt doesn’t mean ‘Jazbatiet’ (sentimental approach). We should behave like friends not as enemy.

  86. Kashif says:
    February 13th, 2007 1:53 pm

    [quote comment="33768"]The Ahmadi faith – as far as I can tell- is the exact mirror of Hanafi Sunni Islam with one major difference… they believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the greatest of all prophets and the last prophet with a shariat… however, lesser prophets can continue to after Prophet Muhammad… one of which is the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect, the famed Islamic Preacher, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian.[/quote]

    As far as you can tell? What are you? A Religious Scholar? All muslims, whether they belong to one school of thought or other, had faith that Muhammad (saw) was the last prophet of Allah and NO prophet will come after him. Period! Therefore, Ahamdies are not a sect of islam. They belong to a different religion.

  87. Bhindigosht says:
    February 13th, 2007 2:11 pm

    [quote post="568"]pakistan is islamic country and the law of ALLAH will be acceptable in YLH clean your mind and decide what you are?you can not be all at the same time.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you. [/quote]
    Rai, you finish each mail with a prayer. My prayer is that may khuda protect Pakistan, and all of us from the likes of you. Sorry pal, We are also Pakistanis, and I hope and pray that your interpretation of an “Islamic Pakistan” never comes to pass.
    A guarded optimist for a secular Pakistan.

  88. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 13th, 2007 9:05 pm

    I feel at this point that some people even dont know the meaning so call “seculrism”.I will just say that this word is against the word you should decide you want islam or seculrism,both ideas can not be at same place. Brother i pray always becouse i believe ALLAH may listen the prayer’s.For your kind information the word khuda is not mention in holy QURAN,this word came from another laguage,not from QURAN laguage.I think being optimist is not just enough also faith.i believe one and only one ALLAH listen prayers.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  89. bhindigosht says:
    February 13th, 2007 9:19 pm

    [quote post="568"][quote post="568"]I feel at this point that some people even dont know the meaning so call “seculrismâ€

  90. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 9:53 pm

    Below were the suggestions presented by the UN committee whose chairman was Zafarullah. From the looks of it, it appears Zafarulla wanted the Jews out of the Palestine.

    [quote] The subcommittee included representatives of Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen under the chairmanship of Sir Muhammed Zafrullah Khan of Pakistan with its final report drafted by Khan and Fares Bey al-Khoury of Syria. …… It succinctly expressed and summarized the long-held views of the Arabs on Jewish immigration, including the migration of refugees. The subcommittee report proposed a Draft Resolution specifically on Jewish Refugees and Displaced Persons to read in part: Considering that Palestine, despite its very small area and limited resources, has absorbed a disproportionately large number of Jewish immigrants and cannot take any more without serious injury to the economy of the country and the rights and position of the indigenous population; Considering that many other countries with much greater area and larger resources have not taken their due share of Jewish refugees and displaced persons,

    1. The countries of origin should be requested to take back the Jewish refugees and displaced persons belonging to them, and to render them all possible assistance to resettle in life;

    2. That those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who cannot be repatriated should be absorbed in the territories of Members of the United Nations in proportion to their area, economic resources, per capita income, population and other relevant factors;



  91. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 10:03 pm

    Like other Indian Muslims, Sir Zafarullah Khan was acutely aware of the Jewish question developing in Palestine ever since the Ottoman Empire weakened. His role as the most eloquent opponent of Palestine’s partition was perfectly compatible with his meeting Chaim Weizman in September 1945 and January 1948 i.e. before the UN decision. When Israel’s urbane ambassador to UN, Abba Eban (later its foreign minister), called on him on January 14, 1953 at the United Nations, Sir Zafarullah, though excessively committed to the West, explained to him why Pakistan could not recognise his country. [/quote]

    Tanvir Ahmad Khan — former foreign secretary

  92. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 10:33 pm

    In 1948, during a drafting session of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, representatives from Saudi Arabia clashed with Pakistan over Articles 19: freedom to change one’s religion. The furious Saudi delegate had to listen to Zafrullah Khan describe the Article as consistent with Islam’s denunciation of compulsion in religion. This Saudi anger (and possibly money) soon found its way into Pakistan’s domestic politics. One year after Zafrullah Khan’s clash with the Saudis at the UN, a new group called Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam issued a demand that Khan be removed from the cabinet, and all Ahmadiyyas be declared non-Muslim. These agitations peaked in 1952 with riots in Punjab, and on May 18 Khan resigned from the Basic Principles Committee. The campaign was then intensified by Maulana Maududi’s Jama’at-i-Islami, which launched a project to declare Ahmadiyyas non-Muslim……

  93. MU says:
    February 13th, 2007 11:42 pm

    The U.S. has employed every form of undue pressure and every amount of duress to drive the U.N. into the hazards of the partition of Palestine. Now, after the catastrophe, the U.S. cannot simply wash its hands from the mess. The donations of the U.S. are only a partial indemnity for the damage done to the people of Palestine. It is no use complaining of the consequences, when the consequences are the direct result of the policy adopted. This is the price of lack of statesmanship in handling the Palestine question. You did not heed our warnings nor the warnings of great friends of yours. In 1947, when the U.N. was discussing the partition of Palestine, Sir Zafarullah Khan, then foreign minister of Pakistan, a man of great talent and foresight has appealed to you in the General Assembly in these historic and moving words “I beg of you not to ruin and blast your credit in the Middle East”. This appeal you have rejected and most of your credit in our lands has been ruined. What remains is on the way to ruin, should you continue the same policy.

    Statements made during the 15th Session of The United Nations General Assembly By His Excellency Mr. Ahmad Shkairy Minister of State for United Nations Affairs Saudi Arabia
    Prepared by the Saudi Arabian Mission to the United Nations New York 1961

  94. February 14th, 2007 12:04 am

    According to peace theory of secularists, christians,jews,hindus blah blah blah all are muslims ,after all “who the hell are we to judge?”.

    [quote post="568"]as far as I can tell- is the exact mirror of Hanafi Sunni Islam with one major difference[/quote]

    so according to our dearest vetran inhouse scholar YLH, Hanfiat preaches:

    -Rejection of Mohammad[saw] as Last prophet.
    -rejection of return of Jesus[AS](which is mentioned in QURAN).
    -rejection of every other messenger like ADam(AS),Abraham(AS) etc

    and lots of other crap.

    If this is hanfiat then i ask Yasser to comeup with reference to prove his point otherwise trolling can’t hide his ignorance.

    There is a difference between a Qadyani and Qadyaniat, Muslman and Islam. Offcourse no one can read someone’s mind and not anyone can guess what someone belives inside. A qadyani shouldn’t be cursed because nobody knows he might be hiding his orignal faith. Mohammad Yousuf didn’t reveal his new religion till 2005 though he had converted in 2001,for others he was a christian,for GOd,he was a muslim. It’s not wrong to criticize an ideology or faith otherwise Allah hadn’t cancelled all previous shariyahs[judaism,christianity] and declared Islam His favorite religion.

    This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.(Quran 5:3)

    So does Allah appear extreemist here by cancelling previous faiths? Offcourse God never preached in Quran to hate other sects or faith followers. So it’s better you guys learn to make difference between a belief and believer. No Muslim can accept Judaism as a Islamic faith,similarly Qadyaniat which even attack on previous abrahamic faith can’t be accept as Islam due to their teachings. It;s not hard to read books by Mirza Ghulam. Don’t make fruitless efforts. Is it our fault that Mirza declared himself a prophet and rejected things? Don’t curse other for someone else sins, it just shows you guys are throwing up your frustration.

    I could consider this post credible if YLH had made it to discuss the achivement of Sir.Zafar as a fighter for seprate Pakistan but he just made this post because Zafar was a qadyani. I bet ylh was not going to make this post if he was not a qadyani. I hope Ylh wouldn’t disagree that.

    I kinda agree that this site does promote controversial things in different posts. Promoting Qadyanism at one and banning anti-Qadyani websites by govt on different levels is nothing but sigh of hypocrisy. But if facts can be covered by such lame tactics then Islam could be removed from face of earth long time back.

  95. A.H. says:
    February 14th, 2007 4:52 pm

    Dear Adil Najam, I do not want to get into a discussion with anyone because people here quickly become abusive. But I am writing for first time just to say that there are lots of us here who are also offended at the personal accusation on your personal integrity and religion that are being hurled at you here. I admire your patience despite all the abuse and rumours people are trying to dirty your name with. I think you are doing a great service to all of us through this website and through its fair and honest depictions of all topics of Pakistan, good and bad. I am writing just to say that please do not be disheartened by these tactics of a few people. They do not represent the feelings of most of us.

  96. Mohammed says:
    February 16th, 2007 12:12 am

    [quote]search terms like mullah,ahmadi,secularism etc and appears on either end of the first or 2nd page of google.[/quote]

    Thank you Adnan. The google check is an interesting measure.

    I just went and checked on google (both and the three terms you mention: mullah, ahmedi and secularism.

    It turns out that on my check does NOT appear on either first or second page for ANY of these terms. I guess, if people keep flooding the comment section here with useless comments like yours it may eventually do so. But right now it is not there.

    By the way, could you please give us a quote from the Quran and lying and liars.

  97. MQ says:
    February 14th, 2007 1:53 am

    I notice that the words “secularism” and “liberalism” are thrown in this discussion and others on this blog generously and recklessly without even knowing what they mean. I would recommend to those who are obsessed with these words to read two books available in the market:

    “Secularism for dummies” and “Liberalism for real dummies”.

  98. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 1:56 am

    MQ, lol.

  99. mama says:
    February 14th, 2007 2:05 am

    YLH i think you over played the role and did some over zealous posting.
    My respects to Sir Zafarullah Khan the leader and human being. That is enough for me.
    Now can someone realy start enlightening us as to the informative aspects of the personality. Let us make this a learning experience. And those who want to fight over the fact that ahmadis are muslim or non muslim can find a forum other than this.
    let us keep this forum for learning that is not challanged.
    Let us learn to respect and acknowledge point of views. But at the same time let us not mistake Point of views for solidfacts.
    And certainly let us not make point of views seem like facts.
    both YLH and others side have been guilty of trying to present their point of views as solid facts.
    I would take strong exception to the statement made by YLH when he tried to compare ahmaddis with hanaffis. a simple reading on wikipedia tels us that he is grossly mistaken. but even then i would not try and judge him and accuse him of being a bigot. his mistake but acceptable.
    similarly the guy making claims and then referencing clips from propoganda sites has tried in his innocence to quote statements grossly misinterpreted.

  100. mama says:
    February 14th, 2007 2:10 am

    Blog moderator i think we should try and start a series of posts that wouldhelp teach the readers of this blog as to the intricacies of critical thinking and writing.
    As for example a tutorial in finding, reading, referencing and grading the level of information available to us on different media nd forums should be the first thing. so that atleast people can know that in developed world hearsay carries no meaning if quoted as a reference.
    similarly ettiquettes of discussing topics.
    also critical analysisi of statements.
    actually i think people have to be taught to read and write before thaey can be expected to make posts and read them and then comment on them in a constructive manner.

  101. February 14th, 2007 2:23 am

    MQ,nice joke. pathans ka bhe sense of humor hota hey ya aaj pata chala :-)

  102. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 14th, 2007 3:32 am

    What a shame for the man who dont want call himself with original name but “Bhindigosht”……
    we are not at “THABA” brother.ya who said i want equal rights and freedom for all,ya brother YLH,see brother even Bhindigosht have right and freebom of speech in pakistan,this you will not find even in u.s.a May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  103. KHS says:
    February 14th, 2007 4:24 am

    Adnan !

    U r right, we have to examine why the closed chapters are reopening? What is the agenda behind this effort?

  104. February 14th, 2007 4:33 am

    [quote post="568"]What is the agenda behind this effort?[/quote]

    we all know. Everything is crystal clear but to long story short, Pakistan is not Turkey and even liberal Musharraf knows it much better than so called champions.

    BTW, thanks for telling me the real faces behind I am also subscribed with that site and now I know why one of my entry was removed from “Journals”. I would soon make a post about the real motive behind and have forwarded to few others to take care of this website.

  105. Omar R. Quraishi says:
    February 14th, 2007 4:42 am

    “to take care of this website”

    ADNAN STOP MAKING VEILED THREATS — I hope the moderator of this thread is reading what Adnan Siddiqi here is writing

    BTW Adil, one other thing — tell me do you allow prosletyzing and sermonising as well, in the guise, of course, of free speech

    Kashif you should stop judging whether other people are of your faith or not, worry about yourself

  106. February 14th, 2007 4:57 am

    omar,chanda stop being a cynical kid. where am I threatening? If exposing about certain agenda /site on my blog and other forum is a threat then I have no reason for not doing this. Kindly don’t seek attention by reacting like a kid.

  107. Sohaib says:
    February 14th, 2007 6:13 am

    This has sadly turned into a debate fuelled by religious undertones. It is very close to being a propaganda war.

  108. Aqil Sajjad says:
    February 14th, 2007 7:41 am

    It seems that a lot of the exchanges here get overly heated and degenerate into personal attacks.
    Why can’t people stick to discussing Zafrullah Khan’s role in partition and as foreign minister?

    Words like secularism, liberalism, religious extremism, fundamentalism etc are often misused. These have become buz words for people with all kinds of opinions to use without being precise about what they exactly mean. It’s no longer even a matter of looking up the meaning in a dictionary or things like ‘secularism for dummies’ (as someone above said, because the use of such politically charged language is not restricted to literal meanings anymore in common discourse, if such precise and undisputable meanings can be found at all!

  109. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 8:26 am

    Why did Zafrullah Khan support Pakistan and give his lifeblood for it? His position was reflective of the position that his community had taken. He was later sidelined and made a mockery of by those like Qudratullah Shahab etc because of his faith.why Jinnah’s view on Ahmadi contribution to Pakistan would matter (as opposed to say Maudoodi’s? or Deobandis etc?) … Maudoodi, Deobandis and other anti-Ahmadi forces in Pakistan were also historically anti-Muslim League, anti-Jinnah and anti-Pakistan. Ahmadi issue became their ladder to popularity.

    Then you say “Islamic faith has only a single volumeâ€

  110. Zeshan says:
    February 14th, 2007 8:30 am

    This is just Sick, the way “some ppl” are using some leaders not coz they are concerned that we forgot them, but jus coz they were ahmadi , there are many other great leaders who are not alive in our minds, but obviously they were not “qadiani” so they are unable to make a cut on pakistaniat :p …

    I dun understand one thing, why this forum is goin towards war of Religions. I respect ahmadiyyat jus like i respect Hinduism, Christianity and other religions coz i dun have right to speak against dem, we are all livin in free world, where attacking on sumone’s religion is not acceptable for me. BUT when some ppl wants to divide this forum, and they wanna discuss ahmadiyyat here, jus coz they think ppl here are very tolerant, and they can use this fact to gain sympathies, i must say nice try, but i dun think Muslims here are so dead that they accept such things.

    If this forum is under “qadiani” management, we want this to be mentioned openly, it’s really been a long time since qadiani are hiding under religion “Islam”. No one got right to call someone “Non Muslim”, but when “ahmadiyyat” question comes, every Muslim has got issues with their beliefs, Not jus Pakistan but many Muslim countries declare dem “Non Muslim” jus because of their contradictive beliefs with Islam.

    It seems like they’ve all rights to start blaming MUSLIMS, i dun know why they forget that their leader Mirza Nasir was invited in national assembly to defend their faith, he was unable to do it, 14 days discussion and den all the Scholars declare that qadiani beliefs are contradictive wid Islam. I am against abusing any qadiani or qadiani belief but who gave qadianis and mirza ghulam the right to use cover of Islam for his new religion named “Ahmadiyyatâ€

  111. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 8:44 am


    It is true that I wrote this article because Sir Zafrullah Khan was an Ahmadi… the reason being to underscore the grave injustice against the Ahmadi community.

    From a simple principle of ethics, what has happened to Ahmadis is nothing but a breach of contract by the Pakistani state… Ahmadis voted for Pakistan out of love for their Muslim brethren and because they were assured that they would not be discriminated against.

    We have breached the promise to them and we have let down Quaid-e-Azam. There is nothing more important in Islam than Eifai-e-Ahad or the importance of keeping your promise… much more than the petty anti-Ahmadi rhetoric that emerges from the majority today. It is rather sad that I am being accused of having ulterior motives or trying to divide Muslims and Pakistanis along religious lines… I was not even born in 1974 when Mullahs and erstwhile enemies of Pakistan forced the then parliament to turn out an entire community from the pale of Islam. It is they who divided Muslims… it is they who divided Pakistanis.

    Ahmadi issue is a very serious one. It is a travesty of justice… the reason why this issue must be visited again and again is because the anti-Ahmadi activities are actually anti-Pakistaniat activities.

  112. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 8:49 am

    “dun u ppl think it hurts when sumone call himself “Prophetâ€

  113. ahsan says:
    February 14th, 2007 9:02 am

    [quote comment="34017"]For your kind information the word khuda is not mention in holy QURAN,this word came from another laguage,not from QURAN laguage.[/quote]

    You are right this word is not Arab but Persian and it is not used in he Holy Book. So, do you mean that this word is alien to Islam because it is not used by Allaah in His Book?

    For your kind information the word jamhooriyat (democracy) is of Arabic origin and Allaah has never pronounced this word in His Book. Thus, in your personal religious interpretation, is jamhooriyat (democracy) alien to Islam? I will be obliged if you do not add me in the list of your brothers.


  114. Zeshan says:
    February 14th, 2007 9:27 am

    I’m sure you can read, can’t you? Where, oh tell me me, WHERE did I discriminate against Ahmadis? On the contrary, I talked about how much I respect other religions, even.

    It is YOU people who have been trying to glorify historical figues in the most insane and discriminatory way! Couldn’t you have just said that one fails to understand why Zafarullah Khan is not remembered the way other people of the past are? But NOOOO, you just had to bring out the sympathy card of Ahmadiat so that people go Awww, poor misunderstood little things!

    The very sad SAD part is that none, yes I repeat, NONE of you Ahmadis know anything about your faith, hence you end up contradicting your words again and again almost as much as your spiritual leaders!

    “It is our duty, not to take non-Ahmadis as Muslims, nor should we say prayers with them, because they deny one of the God’s Apostles”

    (Anwaar e Khilafat P. 99)

    YOU people call US non-Muslims, but when WE do, you scream!

    “All those Muslims who haven’t taken the oath of allegiance to the Promised Christ (Mirza Qadiyani), even though they have never heard of Mirza Qadiyani, are infidels & have nothing to do with Islam.”

    (Ainae Sadaqat: P: 35. By Mirza Mehmood)

    YOU keep on saying that WE don’t have the right to call you Kafir. What gives YOU that right then?

    “Our observation is that the Promised Christ (Mirza Qadiyani) treated the non-Ahmadis as the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) treated the Christians. He made our prayers separate from those of non-Ahmadis. He prohibited us from having marital relations with them & participating in their funerals. So, in all respects we have broken our ties with them. There are two types of relations: religious & worldly or temporal. The greater source of religious relation is the common rituals of worship, while the greater source of worldly relation is the matrimonial alliance. And we have been prohibited from having both types of relations.”

    (Kalmatul Fasal: P: 169. By Mirza Basher Ahmed)

    I tried my BEST to avoid these kinds of discussions but since you people can never rest in piece without poking other bad where it hurts them, don’t forget, what goes around comes around. If this is the way you want to talk, based on PURE facts WITH refences, then SURE, I’m all ready. HAVE FUN!

  115. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:20 am


    Well said.


    Quite clearly you are not very clear on what the issue. The issue is not whether you consider Ahmadis Kafir or whether Ahmadis consider you Kafir…

    The issue is whether a majority has the right to dictate to the minority what the minority should call itself. It is your right to call yourself Muslim and it is the right of Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims… kapeesh? So you may go on considering Ahmadis Kafir and Ahmadis may go on considering you kafir but neither you nor Ahmadis should have the right to legislate in a state structure that the other is a Non-muslim.

    Old timer,

    I am surprised that you add me to that list. All I have said is that the injustice against Ahmadis- the denial of their religious freedoms, their human rights etc- is WRONG.
    Is that really that upsetting? I ask not as a Muslim or as anything else… but simply as a Pakistani who believes in Jinnah’s Pakistan.

  116. YLH says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:24 am

    Somebody here said “over posting”. Please give me a break. Responding to points is not over posting. The essential issue is one of human rights for fellow Pakistanis and I will fight for it till there is even a single drop of blood left in my body.

  117. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:45 am

    YLH, you *really* must learn to start ignoring idiots. Attention only encourages them.

  118. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 11:52 am

    I would ask the moderators to delete all inappropriate comments so we can start afresh, hopefully slightly better this time.

  119. Zeshan says:
    February 14th, 2007 12:08 pm

    That’s the issue, YLH. You don’t understand the point. WHY on earth are you bringing RELIGION in this forum by linking the crux of your article with Ahmadiat!! There are SO MANY other forgotten heroes, scientists and politicians of a calibre same as Zafarullah Khan and Dr.Abdus Samad,if not better, and to make your excuses worse for you, they are/were NOT Ahmadis. If you still don’t understand, you probably don’t want to break free from your fanatic shell.

  120. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 12:29 pm

    [quote comment="34160"]There are SO MANY other forgotten heroes, scientists and politicians of a calibre same as Zafarullah Khan and Dr.Abdus Samad,if not better.[/quote]

    This is exactly what ATP is trying to do here ie bring these forgotten heroes out so we can all know about them. Credit to YLH that he made one such post. Perhaps you do one too?

  121. Just Muslim says:
    February 14th, 2007 12:38 pm

    Whats wrong with this forum? why people are creating the topics and then divert them into another discussion? Sir Zafar Ullah Khan was one of many heros we forgot, Why we are talking about ONLY Sir ZafarUllah? or Dr. Abdul Salam? is it Ahmadi Forum? if it is plz announce it publically.

    Am agree with Zeeshan that we shud not start abusing someone’s religion here, the reason why i like this forum is coz people here are mature enough and mostly talk on point, but from last some weeks am noticing jamaat e ahmadiyya is trying to gain sympathies by using great personalities.

    Plz dun make this forum a religious war forum. Ahmadi ppl here need to understand that its not important to link every thing with ahmadiyyat. We respect ahmadiyyat, most of Muslim members are are not extremist, they treat ahmadies like any other human, Yea i dont and cant possibly agree with ahmadi beliefs, but ahmadies are Human, and we dont have right to abuse them and treat them badly. And for this its important that we dont talk abt ahmadiyyar Vs Islam.

    I request all members to stop talking about ahmadiyyat, i request all ahmadis to please dont try to initiate discussions on ahmadiyyat, dont link everything with religion. First try to b good human, care for each other.

    I want moderator to take notice of this, and next time if someone try to divert the discussion by saying that “coz he/she was ahmadi thats y he/she never gets wat he/she deserves” etc plz understand this is way to start a religious discussion, this is a ugly way to initiate a fight between two religions. This is getting really ugly. I request all Muslim brothers and Sisters to not reply in any thread initiated by any ahmadi where he/she is trying to use someone to prove something else.

    And again i request ahmadi brothers and sisters to plz stop this attitude of being most innocent ppl in this world, spread love between ur religion and our religion, talk abt Unity. If Hindus and Muslims can be frnds, why not u and us? Remember whenever u try to talk abt religion “ahmadiyyat” ppl ll talk and ask lots of questions, and then i dont think its good for u or Sir ZafarUllah or Dr Abdul Salam or this forum.

    Stay Peaceful.

  122. February 14th, 2007 1:36 pm

    I think it would be good for Adil Najam, the owner and very respectable for me and others to clarify that whether he’s allowing to promote qadyaniat or pakistaniat. Qadiyaniat is not Pakistaniat and if the theme of this forum has turned to promote qadyaniat under the umbrella of pakistaniat then I feel sorry for the owner’s project.

    Adil has been writing about minorities of Pakistan for long time and I have often read him but nowhere Adil tried to offend other religions/sects of Pakistan and I am dead sure adil had no intention to offend majority of Pakistan by imposing miniroty sect in pathetic fashion but the irony is tht his website has become the hub of religion offenders.
    I respect Ylh’s statment that he honestly admitted that brought sir zafar’s case just because he was a qadyani, no issue, Yasser has right to discuss things of his own choice but then yasser or like minded has no right to start complaining for different opinions. If you can’t tolerate oponents then admit openly ,you will be respected more.

    @oldtimer: yes I mess and unlike Ylh, I wouldnt disagree with you but if you re genuine old timer then you should be honest enough about the mindset of this blog.who started things against Islam or anti-Mullahism? Read the very early posts of this blog which dragged me in when pakistanis start offending Islam indirectly by promoting their views. If you want to hear one sided story then sorry it’s not possible. Prolly i quit but then someone else would come to refute these people. This is the real world which you and others have to face. Same message for Ylh like people who cry like a baby and complain adil to ban their oponents. This is sign of lack of tolerence which they always associte with mullahs or any religious celebrity.

  123. February 14th, 2007 1:55 pm

    I agree with Adnan Siddiqui that this forum is becoming more discussing anti-islam thoughts and offending the majority of Muslims. Please focus on the issue and be courageous to absorb others opinions.
    It is management’s responsibility to jump in and clear the mess which has been created by narrowminded people. As I said earlier, please close this topic here and lets move on.

  124. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 14th, 2007 3:17 pm

    YHL answer to brother Zeshan’s Questions,
    (1)Is this forum under quidiani management?
    (2)Are you qudiani?
    Khs,Zeshan,Adnan siddiqi,Kashif,king-Faisal and others brothers we are just wasting our time and talking with those who even don’t have wisdom to understand the issue here,when it is have been declared that Ahmedis are non-muslims,and this religion nothing to do with Islaam then why we even talk about it?
    YHL those call us kafir let them say,when we feel this is danger for our faith islam,we will do “JIHAD” against them.this is teachings of Islam.
    Ofter all has been said in this forum,you don’t understand anything then you are only the stupid man in this forum.
    Brother Ahsan first its not my personl religious interpretation,i said only this word(khuda)not mention in QURAN.(Its all to call him with his beautiful name from many,as we do also in our lifes to call our children)2end jomhuriyat is also not mention in holy QURAN,remember brother islam is not about words but teachings,if you think democracy is according teachings of islam,then its ok if not then not acceptable.if we do then it will mean to share with law of ALLAH,whitch call as “CHERAK”(sharing with ALLAH or with ALLAH’s law)and this is the bigest sin in islam and not forgivable by ALLAH.i tryed explain in short i hope you have got it.May ALLAH propect pakistan and all of you.

  125. February 14th, 2007 3:27 pm

    Dear Farrukh, promoting Qadyanis as Mazloom and majority as Zalim Baap of a daughter is not something healthy and appreciable and if you are neutral then you would agree upon that.

    As far as asking adil bhai, I think it’s not a sin to ask him after all he’s the main person behind the blog. It’s pretty unfair that you are accusing me that I am blaming him, if I had to blame him then I wouldn’t have wasted words as well as time to write second para. Adil bhai knows pretty well that I don’t pretend and discuss things straight regardless of he likes it or not.

    If you can’t see what people are trying to preach here then it’s not my fault, after all it’s not my duty to uncover your eyes. It is because you don’t want to see. If you are an old visitor then I am not less older visitor than you and I can comeup with several posts/comments which has NO relation with Pakistan and were delibrately created to highlight Ahmedi community or other minorities like seulars etc by offending muslims of this state.

    This is why I or anyone who visits this blog has right to ask concerned people that whether definition of Pakistaniat is changed or what. It’s a fair question and no attempt to attack on Adil’s personality. Offcourse being an admin He and other team members have freedom to ban me or any other but if shuting mouth of others could really help to give justice to “mazloom” minorities then I must support them.

  126. Baber says:
    February 14th, 2007 4:39 pm

    [quote comment="34190"]Dear Farrukh, promoting Qadyanis as Mazloom and majority as Zalim Baap of a daughter is not something healthy and appreciable and if you are neutral then you would agree upon that.[/quote]

    Its a fact that Qadyanies have been mistreated in Pakistan. It hurts your faith when we talk about Qadyanies. What makes you think you are neutral? i think you are the most biased, and your statements are biased.
    [quote comment="34190"]
    As far as asking adil bhai, I think it’s not a sin to ask him after all he’s the main person behind the blog. It’s pretty unfair that you are accusing me that I am blaming him, if I had to blame him then I wouldn’t have wasted words as well as time to write second para. Adil bhai knows pretty well that I don’t pretend and discuss things straight regardless of he likes it or not.[/quote]
    You are not asking you are dictating and trying to prove your point that this site is being used to promote qadyaniat. Nobody except you and some narrow minded religious freaks think its a movement for ahmedies.
    [quote comment="34190"]
    If you can’t see what people are trying to preach here then it’s not my fault, after all it’s not my duty to uncover your eyes. It is because you don’t want to see. If you are an old visitor then I am not less older visitor than you and I can comeup with several posts/comments which has NO relation with Pakistan and were delibrately created to highlight Ahmedi community or other minorities like seulars etc by offending muslims of this state.[/quote]
    Very pretentious again. What makes you think that your eyes are open? and we all are blind. You din’t know untill this form that our founding founders were not even good muslims(according to your standard of muslims).

    [quote comment="34190"]
    This is why I or anyone who visits this blog has right to ask concerned people that whether definition of Pakistaniat is changed or what. It’s a fair question and no attempt to attack on Adil’s personality. Offcourse being an admin He and other team members have freedom to ban me or any other but if shuting mouth of others could really help to give justice to “mazloom” minorities then I must support them.[/quote]

    Ahmedies are a part of Pakistan because they are pakistani, may be minority, some of our heroes are ahmedies. This is only the second post were this topic came up. Nothing wrong with that, there are more then 100 post here.
    I am not ahmedi before you label me, muslim but not a bigot

  127. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 9:01 pm

    From Washington Post of Oct 17 1951;

    [quote]Pakistan’s Prime Minister and guiding light, Liaquat All Khan, was assassinated last night during an address at Rawalpindi. His slayer, Sher Akhtar, was described as an advocate of a ”holy war” against India. The incensed crowd attacked the assassin and “tore him to pieces,”[/quote]

    quote]At United Nations, NY, Pakistan Foreign Minister Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan warned that, the assassination will bring “great calamity and suffering”. He was leaving for Karachi by air today.[/quote]

    He was not wrong there. After Liaquat Ali it was all downhill.

  128. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 9:29 pm

    This is from JOHN CLARK’S Book H U N Z A, Lost Kingdom of the Himalayas.

    Next day I received a telephoned invitation to tea with the Foreign Minister, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan. He was also Acting Prime Minister during Liaquat Ali Khan’s absence. My project was certainly receiving top-level attention. His butler (a Hunza man, I noticed with interest) ushered me into a cool, airy living room, and in a few minutes Sir Zafrullah came in. We sat down, and as he rested his long body in a cane armchair we chatted affably for some time. Suddenly his alert face with its grizzled beard turned to me. “Dr. Clark, I’m surprised you have so low an opinion of us!” he snapped. “Wh-at?” I was completely confused.

    “Surely you must know we see Life magazine,”* he said. “Last January some American correspondents published a statement that the people of Hunza wanted to join the United States.” He looked straight at me. “The people of Hunza never heard of the United States until you came. Therefore, you must be working for your country to win our northern frontier away from us. Explain these accusations that I have put to you!” * January 30th, 1950. “Sir,” I said, a little dazed, “when I first came to Pakistan, I explained that I would tell your people America was a great country and Pakistan’s friend. This I have done and no more. Talk of joining America is silly, and I’m sure you know I know it! Can you control the stories your own journalists print about us? I have even less control over American journalists.” “That is true,” he admitted, “but geologic knowledge is strategic knowledge. How do we know how much you’ll tell your Government?” “I am after all an Americanâ€

  129. Zahra M. says:
    February 16th, 2007 9:34 am

    Once you ignore all the stupid shouting and slogans, this post and discussion has been quite educational for me. I had actually never even heard of this person and I don’t care what is religion was. But the discussion has brought up many new facts which make me respect his contributions to Pakistan. Specially these:
    1. That he was head of International Court of Justice.

    2. He was President of UN General Assembly.

    3. Quaid-i-Azam trusted him so much that he selected him to represent us before Radcliffe and also made him first Foreign Minister.

    4. He took up so many Muslim causes in the UN including the most important Kashmir resolution ever (no other resolution on Kashmir since then has been this strongly in support of Kashmir cause).

    5. Most of all, it looks like he was well ahead of his time. For example, he could see that Israel was a reality well before others did (later Egypt did, even Arafat did, now Pakistan is ready to accept and even Saudi Arabia accepts that). Also, I am grateful that someone raised the point that he saw the importance of India-Pakistan trade, something that so many people now realize is important for both countries. He was clearly someone ahead of his times.

  130. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 10:13 pm

    Old news but still valid.

    Musharraf Flags Flexibility on Kashmir

    Some excerpts;

    When it comes to the Kashmir dispute and the Kashmiris determining their future, President Parvez Musharraf has always been a “man in hurry.â€

  131. MU says:
    February 14th, 2007 10:28 pm

    A few quotes from the past.

    Commenting on Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan’s vigorous advocacy of the Muslim League case before Radcliff Commision, the Urdu daily Nawa- i-Waqt, Lahore, dated August 1, 1947, writes:

    [quote]For four days on end Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan argued the Muslim case in most forceful, most brilliant and most reasonable manner. Success is in the hands of Providence, but the excellence and the ability with which Zafarullah Khan advocated the Muslims case has given satisfaction to the Muslims inasmuch as they feel that their just and righteous cause has been represented before the powers that be in the best possible manner. We are confident that all Muslims of the Punjab, whatever their religious beliefs, would acknowledge and be grateful for this service.[/quote]

    Iftikhar Husain Khan, Nawab of Mamdot, the President of Punjab Muslim League, in his letter dated August 8, 1947, to Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, who argued Pakistan’s case before Radcliff Commission, under instructions from Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, writes:

    [quote]Now that the Boundary Commission has concluded its hearings, I wish to express deep sense of gratitude which I and all other Mussalmans of the Punjab feel towards you. Your unremitting toil in the collection of material, your brilliant presentation of our case and your profound interpretation of law and history have won universal admiration. In this most critical hour of our history, you have rendered an inestimable service to the Millat and created a lasting place in the hearts of all Mussalmans. We can never forget how willingly you agreed to interrupt your important discussions in London, return and fulfil this patriotic mission. The knowledge that your zeal was inspired solely by your love for Islam fills our hearts with pride and gratitude.[/quote]

    Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, who in June 1947 was appointed as a member of the Steering Committee of the Partition Council for India and Pakistan, was Secretary General, Government of Pakistan, after the establishment of the new State, became Finance Minister in 1951 and Prime Minister in 1955, while referring to the debate on Kashmir in the Security Council and Pakistan’s reply on January 15, 1948 to India’s complaint, in his monumental book “The Emergence of Pakistan” states that:

    [quote]Zafarullah Khan’s masterly exposition of the case convinced the Security Council that the problem was not simply one of expelling so called raiders from Kashmir, as the Indian representative would have them believe, but of placing Indo-Pakistan relations on a just and peaceful basis and solving the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the will of the people of the State.[/quote]

    The Canada Stary Weekly, Toronto, in its issue of May 28, 1949, says:

    [quote]The man who more than any other single person has put Pakistan on the international map as a force to be reckoned with is Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan.[/quote]

  132. YLH says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:31 am

    If Ahmadis of Pakistan today stand at a threshold of a persecution similar to that of the Jews in Germany circa 1933-1945… should I not talk about it?

    This is a very a relevant topic to Pakistaniat. Pakistaniat as envisaged by Quaid-e-Azam speaks of equality, tolerance and rule of law for everyone without discrimination… especially those who contributed so much for this country.

    We see shamelessness of the worst kind. People are accusing this website of promoting “Qadianiat” because Adil Najam is a man of integrity who has dared to stand up for true Pakistaniat .. and dared to question the status quo that has made us the laughing stock of the world.

    So you can go on doing your propaganda … but we will keep on fighting for Jinnah’s Pakistan.

  133. YLH says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:33 am

    And yes I am promoting personally “Quaidaniat”… the teachings of Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah

  134. Mohammed says:
    February 17th, 2007 1:01 am

    [quote]There are many other minority groups[regardless of their belief] who have been doing a lot for Pakistan and pakistanis… Same thing goes for Agha khani community now who have contributed a lot in the building of Pakistan.[/quote]

    So, now you are saying that Agha Khanis are also not Muslism!!!!

    By the way, on that google thing (your and my earlier comments here), you never did tell us what the Quran says about lying and liars.

  135. February 15th, 2007 12:44 am

    there is no propaganda but fact and as I said yo have 100% right to promote qadyaniat but in its true colors rather hiding under the labels of Islam and Jinnah.

  136. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 1:03 am

    Let’s not create a Frankenstein

    it was in Pakistan that a call was made in 1953 by Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder President of Jamaat-e-Islami, to declare them as non-Muslims. The call emanated more from political expediency than religious fervour. The Ahmadis, although small in number, had a strong position in Pakistan; Lahore had been their stronghold. The foreign minister of Pakistan at the time was Sir Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi. So were many top brasses in the bureaucracy and military. Although they were 5% of the population, 20% of the total literate persons were Ahmadi. Maulana Maududi, a refugee from India, had no constituency in Pakistan so he had to create one. The campaign to declare the Ahmadis as ‘non-Muslim’ gave him his chance. Anti-Ahmadiyya riot swept across Pakistani Punjab. Pakistan, created in the name of Islam, was besmirched within six years of its creation with Muslim blood shed by fellow Muslims. Rioting was particularly severe in Lahore that resulted in the imposition of Martial Law in the city. That was also the beginning of the inroad of military in Pakistan politics.

  137. February 15th, 2007 1:23 am

    We are EXTREMELY concerned about the blatant disregard of our comment policy by most commenters here.

    We do not have the time or the interest in babysitting every comment and dealing with repeated infringements is sapping too much time and energy – inappropriate language, personal attacks, excessively long comments, repitition, off-topic comments, childish personal rivalries, trying to sneak in inappropriate language through ‘creative’ spelling errors, petty bickering, whining and other childish tricks are NOT welcome here and are wasting too much of our time in monitoring and is beginning to turn away serious readers.

    We assume we are dealing with reasonable and intelligent adults and would again request EVERYONE to behave as such. If you cannot, then please find some other place to go to.

  138. Farrukh says:
    February 15th, 2007 9:41 am

    Thank you Administrator. Sorry, I did not see this before my last comment on JUI post. I can imagine how much of your time this must be wasting, but please try to just ban the people who repeatedly break the rules.

  139. truefacts says:
    February 15th, 2007 1:57 am

    Lets see what Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, like to see Pakistan

    [quote post="568"]1[quote post="568"]) “Come forward as servants of Islam, organise the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody.â€

  140. Farrukh says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:56 pm

    ATP, I certainly hope that you will NOT be scared away from controversy. Please continue to write about what you consider important. Just make sure that a few zealots do not highjack the discussion. Certanly, please, do not let e few cyber-thugs scare you away from what you consider important (their behavior is no different from the ‘enforcers’ who come with dandas and sottis to scare people away in Universities in Pakistan and on New Years Parties). I am confident that ATP will not be scared away by them. Just shoo away this kind of ‘jiyallas’ and ‘terrors’.

  141. Sir Taj says:
    February 15th, 2007 2:59 am

    [quote comment="33890"]Dear Rai,

    May Allah Protect Pakistan, Islam, Pakistanis and Muslims from people like you. Amen.[/quote]

    “Summa Ameen”

  142. ahsan says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:51 am

    [quote comment="34187"]Ahsan first its not my personl religious interpretation,i said only this word(khuda)not mention in QURAN.(Its all to call him with his beautiful name from many,as we do also in our lifes to call our children)2end jomhuriyat is also not mention in holy QURAN,remember brother islam is not about words but teachings,if you think democracy is according teachings of islam,then its ok if not then not acceptable.if we do then it will mean to share with law of ALLAH,whitch call as “CHERAK”(sharing with ALLAH or with ALLAH’s law)and this is the bigest sin in islam and not forgivable by ALLAH.i tryed explain in short i hope you have got it.May ALLAH propect pakistan and all of you.[/quote]

    Wheenever we talk of democracy, it is demos/kratia which stands for State (of, by and for) the people. People stands for all citizens of the state. Also, in a democracy, for the sate affair the people is sovereign. This is the definition which has been accepted by the major part of the states and countries in the world. If the word jamhooriyat is equal to democracy, then this jamhooriyat is not mentioned in the Holy Book.
    The democracy as defined above is alien to Islam and it will be a great SIN to mix this democracy with Islam as you explained.

    If you change the definition of democracy to some kind of Islamic Democracy with a ‘one man rule’ and applying Quranic laws then the system of the government will be Islamic and not democratic. Should we call it laa-jamhooriyat?


  143. Baber says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:53 am

    You missed one, Jew loving.

  144. RAI.T.U.KHAN says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:38 pm

    I welcome the statement of ATP Administrator,and the same time i will request and hope that they will not give the space to such topics which create conterversy among people of pakistan,and also allow people to promote religion activities.
    Brother Ahsan i already wrote if you think this democracy is according the teachings of islam then its ok,think and decide.May ALLAH protect pakistan and all of you.

  145. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:46 pm

    A brief life sketch
    PART I – Pre-Independence

    • Born on February 6, 1893, in Sialkot.
    • Acquired primary education at the American Mission School, Sialkot.
    • Graduated from the Government College, Lahore, in 1911.
    • Went to England in August, 1911 and remained there uptil November, 1914. During this period he studied at Kings’ College, London, and was called to the Bar having studied at Lincoln’s Inn. During this period Chaudhry Sahib also had the occasion to visit various places in England, Switzerland and Germany.
    • Practised as a lawyer in Sialkot, during the period January 1915 to July 1916.
    • Practised in Lahore during the period August 1916 to 1935.
    • Served as a lecturer in the Law College, Lahore, during the period 1919 to 1924.
    • Was elected a member of the Punjab Legislative Council in 1926.
    • In 1927, acted successfully as representative counsel for the Muslims of the Punjab in the contempt of court case against the ‘Muslim Outlook’.
    • Presided at the Delhi Meeting of the All India Muslim League in 1931 and advocated the cause of the Indian Muslims through his presidential address.
    • Participated in the Round Table Conferences (Gol Maiz Conferences) held in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932.
    • Visited Chicago for the first time and participated in the World Faith Congress held in the year 1933.
    • Remained a member of the Executive Council of the Viceroy of India, during the years 1935 to 1941.
    • Became the Minister of Railways in May, 1935.
    • On May 16, 1938, the mother of Sir Zafarullah Khan died.
    • Wrote a book ‘Meri Walda’ (My Mother) in the year 1938.
    • In 1939, represented India in the League of Nations.
    • In 1941, delivered a speech on the topic “Foundation for a New World” which was broadcasted on All India Radio.
    • Was appointed Judge of the Federal Court of India in September 1941, which post he held until June 1947.
    • Was appointed the Agent General of India in China in the year 1942.
    • In 1945, represented India as the Indian Government’s nominee in the Commonwealth Relations Conference, where courageously spoke for the cause of India’s freedom.
    • At the request of the Quaid-e-Azam, represented the Muslim League in July 1947 before Radcliffe Boundary Commission and presented the case of the Muslims in highly commendable manner.
    • Was the Advisor on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to H.H. the Nawab of Bhopal, from June to December 1947.

  146. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 12:50 pm

    A brief life sketch
    PART II – Post-Independence

    • In December 1947, represented Pakistan in United Nations’ General Assembly as the head of the Pakistan delegation and advocated the stand of the Muslim world on the Palestinian issue.
    • Was appointed by the Quaid-e-Azam as Pakistan’s (first) Foreign Minister which post he held from December 25, 1947 till 1954.
    • During 1948 to 1954, represented Pakistan at the Security Council (UN) and admirably advocated the case of liberation of the occupied Kashmir, Libya, North Ireland, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Indonesia.
    • Presented to the US president English Translation of the Holy Quran, in January 1951.
    • Met with a major railway accident at Jhimper, in January 1953, from which he was miraculously saved from even the slightest injury.
    • Represented Pakistan at the CENTO Conference held in Manila, in September 1954.
    • In 1954, became Judge of the International Court of Justice, The Hague, which post he held till 1961.
    • In March, 1958, performed Umra and visited the shrine of the Holy Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Medina to pay homage; also met Sultan Abdul Aziz Ibne Saud and stayed in the royal palace as the Sultan’s personal guest.
    • Became the Vice President of the International Court of Justice, the Hague, in the year 1958, which post he held till 1961.
    • In 1960, at the request of an organisation of the US, wrote a book called: “Islam – its Meaning for Modern Man”.
    • From 1961 to 1964, remained Pakistan’s Permanent Representative at the UN.
    • In 1962, met President Kennedy and discussed the Kashmir issue with him.
    • From 1962 to 1963, was President of the UN General Assembly.
    • In 1963, visited USSR and met its leaders as well as some notable Russian Muslims.
    • In November 1965, visited the Fiji Islan and delivered a lecture.
    • Performed Hajj in the year 1967.
    • Translated the Holy Quran in English in the year 1970.
    • In 1970, was elected President of the International Court of Justice, The Hague, which post he held uptil 1973.
    • Stayed in England during the period 1973 to 1983.
    • Came back to Pakistan in 1983 till his death in Lahore, on September 1, 1985, after a protracted illness.

  147. truefacts says:
    February 15th, 2007 2:32 pm

    [quote post="568"]Just make sure that a few zealots do not highjack the discussion.

    please, do not let e few cyber-thugs scare you [/quote]

    Now, we are aware with new kind of extremists, the “Secular Extremists” who believed that they are correct & all other who are not agreed with them are “Cyber Thugs”. Its amazining & so much radiculous that “Thugs’ themselves are calling others as “Thugs”. Yes, very few “Zeolists” are trying to hijack the discussion.

    Why MU is not telling the people that

    1)He didn’t attained the funeral of Quaid-e- Azam, even he was present at time
    2) Why he failed to fight Kashmir issue in Redcluff Mission
    3) Why Gawadaspur was not become the part of Pakistan
    4) Why he insisted on accepting Israel & considered it as reality
    5) Why he was so interested in start trade amongst India & Pakistan even Kasmiri Muslims were facing the problems from Indians
    6) Why he falsely claimed in UN that Pak army is not involved in Kasmir, & when UN mission inspected Pakistan was proven as lier.

    Pls dare to tell the whole truth.

  148. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 10:39 pm

    His Majesty King Faisal-al-Saud, who in his capacity as Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia headed the Saudi Arabian delegation to the United Nations, in a letter, dated May 5, 1948, to Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, thanked him [quote]for your close co-operation and the noble stand which your Excellency has taken, not only during the meeting but since the question of Palestine has been put before the United Nations. Allow me to state that your high principles have created a desire on the part of all righteous persons to identify themselves with the efforts of your Excellency, not only on behalf of the Arabs, but Moslems all over the world as well[/quote], the letter adds.

  149. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 10:41 pm

    Former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sent a message of appreciation to Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan on his retirement from the President ship of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. His message read:
    [quote]I wish to convey to you our deep appreciation for the services you have so selflessly rendered over several decades to the people of Pakistan as well as to the international community. As a leading member of the political movement, which led to the achievement of a homeland of the Muslims in the sub-continent and earlier as President of the All India Muslim League in 1931, you played a very significant role in the creation of Pakistan. As Foreign Minister of Pakistan for the first seven years after the birth of the country, you helped in establishing Pakistan as a state which commanded respect abroad and whose voice carried weight in international forms. Your services to Pakistan, however, did not end there. As President of the UN General Assembly and as a judge of the International Court of Justice you not only served the international community as a whole, but in doing so enhanced the prestige of Pakistan. I can say with full confidence that all of us shared the pride that one naturally felt at the respect you commanded in the international community and the United Nations in your various capacities.[/quote]

  150. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 10:44 pm

    Syed Amin Husseini, Grand Mufti of Palestine, in a telegram dated, Cairo, March 1, 1950, says:

    [quote]Wish reassure your Excellency our deep appreciation your invaluable efforts for just causes of Islam. May God guard you crowning your efforts with success.[/quote]

  151. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 10:51 pm

    Mr. Abdul Rahman Azzam, the Secretary General of the Arab League, in his letter, dated November 15, 1951, observes:

    [quote]Reading in my bed your speech in the Assembly, I prayed to God to save you and preserve your health for long years in the service of Islam. My congratulations on your clear, human and Islamic statement from the world rostrum.[/quote]

  152. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:25 pm

    The Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan, Mr Justice Muhammad Munir, who was also a member of the Boundary Commission, in his report, commonly known as Munir Report on 1953 civil disturbances, says:

    [quote]The President of this Court (court inquiring into the 1953 disturbances) who was a member of the Commission considers it his duty to record the gratitude to Ch Zafrulla Khan for valiant fight he put up for Gurdaspur. This is apparent from the record of the boundary Commission. For the selfless services rendered by him to the Muslim community, it is shameless ingratitude for anyone to refer to Ch Zafrulla Khan in a manner in which he has been referred by certain parties before this court.[/quote]

    (Munir report 197)

  153. MU says:
    February 15th, 2007 11:34 pm

    Treacherous Ulema

    How the Ulema helped the Kashmir cause, one has to quote only the “Great” Moulana Moudoodi, the great Amir of Jamat Islami as quoted by Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book ‘The Nation that lost it soul’:

    [quote]I conveyed the message of Quaid Azem to him [Maudoodi ed.] requesting him to pray as well as support Pakistan’s cause. Moulana replied: “How could he pray for “NA – PAKISTANâ€

  154. February 15th, 2007 11:45 pm

    search terms like mullah,ahmadi,secularism etc and appears on either end of the first or 2nd page of google. If this was all about then congrats, they got succeeded ,if not then I am afraid that sooner or later this site would be recognized as a forum of preaching such things. Those who claim otherwise and reject the idea that majority of the content[including comments] is not promoting anti-religion things are actually living in Alice’s Wonderland.

  155. Abdullah says:
    February 16th, 2007 12:16 am

    Although MU, u didn’t responded any question asked by Truefact but he started misquaoting the lies here. Mr. MU here it is high need to correct the historic record,

    Certain quarters try to make an impression that Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi and Jama‘at-e-Islami had opposed the creation of Pakistan. Though it is a lie and, therefore, not worh-talking, it is necessary to present facts for setting the record straight.

    Sayyid Maududi was primarily a thinker, a scholar and a social reformer. He was not a “politician” in the currently understood sense. Maulana Maududi was not involved in active politics in the pre-independence era. During that period his contribution was in the field of reconstruction of Islamic thought, analysis of the malaise that plagued the Muslim Ummah and spelling out a strategy for their revival through an Islamic revolutionary movement.

    Second, it may also be stated as a matter of fact that Maulana Maududi neither opposed Pakistan Movement nor did he practically participate in it. He had his differences with the way the Muslim League had organized the movement.

    In support of this thesis we may quote the late Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, a leading historian and a leader of the Muslim League (He served in the federal cabinet formed by the founding fathers of Pakistan). Dr. Qureshi in his book Ulema in Politics (Karachi: Ma‘arif Ltd., 2nd edition, 1974) says: “Maulana Abul A’la Maududi’s writings played an important role in molding the opinions of religious minded sections” (p. 330).

  156. Abdullah says:
    February 16th, 2007 12:25 am

    Part II,

    Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada was Secretary to Quaid-e-Azam and has compiled major documents about the freedom movement. In his book Evolution of Pakistan (Lahore: All Pakistan Legal Decisions, 1963), he says about Maulana Maududi:

    “In a series of articles in the Tarjumanul Qur’an, in 1938 and 1939, Maududi unmasked the Congress and warned the Muslims. He related the history of the Muslims of the Sub-continent, debunked Congress secularism and showed the unsuitability of India for democratic rule as there would be only one Muslim vote against four Hindu votes. He condemned the national imperialism of the Hindus and opined that separate electorates, weighage in Assembly seats and reservation of proportion in services could not solve the political problems of the Muslim nation. His proposals embodied three alternatives:

  157. Abdullah says:
    February 16th, 2007 12:27 am

    Part III,

    A statement of Maulana Maududi about the referendum in the NWFP makes his position crystal clear:

    [quote post="568"]“Referendum is cardinally different from ordinary voting in elections to legislative assemblies (under Islamic rule). Referendum is about which of the two countries — India or Pakistan — this area is to be a part. Voting in such a referendum is not repugnant to Shari’ah. As such wherever referendum is being held the members of the Jama‘at are free to vote in this referendum. Members are free to vote according to their own conscience. However, I can say in my personal capacity that if I were a resident of the NWFP province my vote in the referendum would have been in favor of PAKISTAN. As the division of the country is taking place on the basis of Hindu and Muslim nationalism, all these areas where Muslims are in a majority should go with the country which symbolizes Muslim nationalism” (Kausar, 5th July, 1947, Tahrik-e Azadi aur Musalman, vol. II, pp. 287-288)[/quote]

    Please see the following note he wrote on Quaid’s death in Tarjumanul Qur’an by Maulana Maududi:

    [quote post="568"]After him, there is none among us, neither as an individual nor even as a group, who could draw people’s love and command their respect, whose sincerity, wisdom, courage and fortitude could be banked upon and whose charisma could have pulled together the disparate elements of our national fabric. Whatever image and name Pakistan had inside and outside owed to his tested statesmanship. For the world, his death may be the passing of a great man and a leader. But for us, it is a national calamity, for in his death our fledging state has suffered beyond redemption, which only Allah the Most Merciful can compensate.”[/quote]

  158. Kashif says:
    February 16th, 2007 1:03 am

    [quote comment="34098"]
    BTW, thanks for telling me the real faces behind I am also subscribed with that site and now I know why one of my entry was removed from “Journals”. I would soon make a post about the real motive behind and have forwarded to few others to take care of this website.[/quote]

    I would like to know more. Can you share this with me personally?

  159. MU says:
    February 16th, 2007 3:23 am

    Al-Syed Ahmad Asim, Sajada Nashin Dargah Hazrat Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani, Baghdad, a cousin of Al-Syed Abdul Qadir Al-Gilani, former Ambassador of Iraq to Pakistan, in his letter in Urdu dated July 5, 1948, addressed to Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, writes:

    [quote]I avail of this opportunity to thank you from the core of my heart, on my behalf as well as on behalf of the family of Hazrat Gous-ul-Azam, for the great Jihad you waged in a purely Islamic spirit in support of the Holy Land of Palestine before the United Nations. I earnestly pray that Almighty Allah may grant you full recompense for your services and enable you to further serve the cause of Islam.[/quote]

  160. MU says:
    February 16th, 2007 3:29 am

    The Statesman, Delhi, dated October 8, 1947, editorially observes:

    [quote]For the first time the voice of Pakistan was heard in the counsels of the United Nations on a burning topic of world-wide significance when leader of this country’s delegation, Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan, addressed the United Nations Palestine Committee at Lake Success on Tuesday. It was a telling speech which tore into shreds the specious pleas put forward by the advocates of the partition of Palestine [ie creation of Israel ed.]. Chaudhry Zafarullah did not merely indulge in rhetoric when he described the partition plan as `physically and geographically a monstrosity’, he proceeded to prove this by unassailable arguments. Answering the contention that the migration of more Jews into Palestine should be permitted because the Jewish displaced persons desired to go to that country, Pakistan’s spokesman asked whether the Americans would consent to relax or abrogate their own immigration laws if displaced persons of various other nationalities desired to enter the United States and settle there? Would America, he further asked, agree to take in the five million displaced persons of the Punjab if they desired to leave the scene of their suffering and cross over to the United States. We have little doubt that the Arabs will rejoice to find the voice of Pakistan so powerfully raised in the United Nations in defence of their cause. The addition of the independent sovereign state of Pakistan to the community of free Muslim peoples of the World is already beginning to have its effect on international affairs.[/quote]

  161. Zeshan says:
    February 16th, 2007 9:27 am

    As Mr/Miss MU is so busy in copy pasting stuff that he/she thinks ll help her BIGGER CAUSE, lemme help him in answering one of “Truefacts”‘s question;

    1)He didn’t attained the funeral of Quaid-e- Azam, even he was present at time

    Answer: Reason is very simple, Ahmadis are not allowed to attend funeral of any Muslim, u know :P they are spreading love thats why. Lemme give u reference.

    “Our observation is that the Promised Christ (Mirza Qadiyani) treated the non-Ahmadis as the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) treated the Christians. He made our prayers separate from those of non-Ahmadis. He prohibited us from having marital relations with them & participating in their funerals. So, in all respects we have broken our ties with them. There are two types of relations: religious & worldly or temporal. The greater source of religious relation is the common rituals of worship, while the greater source of worldly relation is the matrimonial alliance. And we have been prohibited from having both types of relations.â€

  162. Roshan Malik says:
    February 16th, 2007 11:45 am

    I completely agree with your point of view. However I have personally learnt another lesson from this post:

    Faaltoo Aqal Mujh MaiN Thee hee naheeN
    Mazhabee Behas MaiN naiN kee hee naheeN

    Roughly translated as
    I did not have the extra intellect
    To get indulge into religious arguments

  163. Aqil Sajjad says:
    February 16th, 2007 2:25 pm

    Zahra, though I agree with most of your sentiments, but I can’t agree with your point about the examples of Israel and trade with India to say that he was ahead of his time.

    The context in which trade with India is being talked about today is very different from the situation in those early days after partition, so lets not confuse them with each other.

    At the time of partition, Pakistan’s biggest trading partner was India. Pakistan had inherited no industry, so we were totally dependent on India even for basic consumer goods and this dependence was likely to continue for the foreseable future. Breaking off these trade links was certainly not on the minds of our founding fathers. On the other hand, continuing with the trade was a very obvious thing to do and no saine Pakistani would have wanted to do otherwise in those days. There was nothing that extra-ordinary or ‘ahead of times’ about it.

    Now, how did the free trade with India get disrupted and who was responsible for it? How many of us know?

  164. Indscribe says:
    February 16th, 2007 5:33 pm

    Just read this article in Delhi’s popular Urdu daily Hindustan Express about Ahmadiyya community and its ‘special’ links with British and similar things discussed here already. The article ‘Qadiani angrezon ke wafadar’ shows that the issue is equally hot in India.

  165. TNT says:
    February 16th, 2007 8:17 pm

    Dats wat Quaid Said:

    “…make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who of whatever creed are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan.”
    “In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

    and what was done after quaid makes them all ghadar

    nuf said:salam:

  166. MU says:
    February 16th, 2007 9:05 pm

    As if the discussion wasn’t already lively enough :), here are Zafrullah Khan’s views on punishment of apostasy;

    Apostasy means a plain and clear repudiation of Islam of a professing Muslim …. Simple apostasy, which is not aggravated by rebellion, treason or grave disorderliness, is not punishable in any manner in this life….

    Muhammed Zafrullah Khan, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 59

  167. February 17th, 2007 12:30 am

    There are many other minority groups[regardless of their belief] who have been doing a lot for Pakistan and pakistanis. Karachiites should be thankful of Parsi community who have been involved in building of karachi since beginning. Same thing goes for Agha khani community now who have contributed a lot in the building of Pakistan. Qadyanis want special treatment from the state due to their belief, this is why they keep crying of their so called “innocence” and they keep trying to present themseles as the REAL servant of Pakistan which is entirely wrong.

  168. February 17th, 2007 12:34 am

    O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will God produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of God, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of God, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And God encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things(Quran 5:54)

  169. MZ Khan says:
    July 18th, 2007 3:02 pm

    Remembering Zafrulla Khan – by Khalid Hasan

    Professor K.K. Aziz, the only true historian produced by Pakistan, said of Zafrulla that all his life he served his country with single-minded devotion and in an upright and principled way. He served the movement that led to the establishment of Pakistan. And while we, the Pakistani Muslims, excommunicated him from our religion, we should not excommunicate him from our memory too because nations which forget their great men ultimately stop producing them.

  170. MZ Khan says:
    July 18th, 2007 9:04 pm

    From Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations – by P. R. Kumaraswamy

    Pakistan was represented by its able and articulate Foreign Minister Sir Zafrulla Khan (1893-1985). Capitalizing on his legal background, he vehemently argued that the UN had no legal or juridical authority to partition Palestine. He led the group of Islamic countries that opposed the partitioning of Palestine, and when this attempt failed, he sought to limit the size of the proposed Jewish state. On the eve of the General Assembly vote, he suggested, “the Arab state should be almost entirely Arab-owned and the Jewish state should be almost entirely Jewish owned.

  171. MZ Khan says:
    July 19th, 2007 3:49 am

    Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada:

    “From Sialkot to the Security Council, from Round Table Conferences to international conferences, from the Join Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, from the Viceroy’s Executive Council to the Pakistan Cabinet, from the Indian Assembly to the General Assembly of the United Nations and from the Federal Court of the sub-continent to the International Court of Justice, Chaudhry Zafarullah’s contribution is clean and consistent, creditable and commendable.”

    Dawn, Karachi, March 3, 1964

  172. MZ Khan says:
    July 19th, 2007 11:28 pm

    A three-member delegation of Libya, including the Secretary General of Libya’s Liberation Council, called on Pakistan Ambassador in Cairo, Haji Abdus Sattar Seth, on June 20, 1950 and expressed their country’s gratitude to Pakistan for the services rendered by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan in connection with the independence of Libya. The delegation said

    Pakistan’s Foreign Minister had presented the feelings of the people of Libya before the United Nations in a remarkable manner. It is through his efforts that Libya is now on the threshold of independence [Libya achieved independence on January 1, 1951]. Libya can never forget the services rendered by Pakistan and its respected Foreign Minister and for this is sincerely grateful to Pakistan.

    (News was carried by papers dated June 21, 1950).

  173. MZ Khan says:
    July 22nd, 2007 10:22 am

    Al-Ayyam newspaper on his visit to Damascus:

    Zafarullah Khan will be given a tremendous welcome in the Syrian capital. He raised his voice in defence of humanity, justice and righteousness at every political gathering and at every international forum. Zafarullah in the person who bent all his energies in representing the causes of the Arab countries and as such his name will ever be written in gold in the history of the Arabs. His conscience is saturated with faith; his conversation is marked with reason and logic. He always keeps in view true and unalloyed good of humanity. In welcoming Muhammad Zafarullah Khan today we are welcoming a person of faith, belief and humaneness who wants to see the establishment of a pure, clean and exemplary society in the world, who desires to bring about an environment of brotherhood and camaraderie in which human life could flourish unimpeded and no human being could usurp the rights of another fellow human being.

  174. MZ Khan says:
    July 23rd, 2007 9:15 am

    An interesting article by Hussain Haqani on the rise of religious militancy in Pakistan. Very pertinent in the current environment. Sections relevant to Zafrulla Kahn quoted.

    “Weeding Out the Heretics”: Sectarianism in Pakistan
    by Husain Haqqani

    As Pakistan’s character as an Islamic state became more established, sectarian groups resorted to a variation on the “Islam in danger

  175. MZ Khan says:
    July 23rd, 2007 9:17 am

    Here is the link:

    “Weeding Out the Heretics”: Sectarianism in Pakistan
    by Husain Haqqani

  176. mazhar butt says:
    July 23rd, 2007 2:55 pm

    Two wrongs will not make one right. Hussain Haqqani is not an authority on Islam or Islamic History. We are living witness to the black and white. Ahmadies have created lesser prophets to follow the last prophet. They declare all other muslims as Kafirs
    Much has already been debated about this issue and I think the Ahmadies should not use this forum to clarify their ”innocence’ or ”bona fide” to stir sentiments of muslims.

  177. July 23rd, 2007 3:55 pm

    We have had to stop comments on this post once. We do not wish to do so again. Please, keep your comments on the topic of the post which is the life and achievements of Sir Zafarullah Khan. This is NOT the place to discuss or resolve grand theological issues, one way or the other. Please spare us and others these discussions. There are, we are sure, other better places for those conversations. Comments on the life, achievements and person of Zafarullah Khan are greatly welcomed.

  178. mazhar butt says:
    July 23rd, 2007 5:39 pm

    I think you better stop comments on this post as it is more directed toward establishing Qadianism rather than the life and works of Sir Zafarullah. I regret to point out that some of the commenters are using this forum to argue and clarify their own position as ‘dissenters” of Islam and thus lodge arguments with a view to dragging discussion away from the issue under discussion. This is not a healthy sign and must not be allowed under any circumstances.

  179. MZ Khan says:
    July 24th, 2007 6:25 am

    Muzaffar Hussain explains the reasons for Zafrulla Khan’s dismissal in “Women in Pakistan politics from Fatima Jinnah to Kulsoom Nawaz”:

    In Pakistan politicians had always been taking help of Islam and their rigid customs to remove their political obstacles. For instance, to remove Zafarulla Khan from the political scene his community Ahmadiya was made as an issue. It was propagated that Ahmadiya is a non-Muslim community and Zafarulla Khan could not become the Prime Minister. After that, from General Zia to Parvez Musharraf Islam is being used as a sheild to protect their military rule. To check Rane Liyaqat’s movements she was sent out of Pakistan, first to Canada, and then to France, as Ambassador of the country.

  180. mazhar butt says:
    July 24th, 2007 12:34 pm

    According to the Constitution ,a person has to be a Muslim to qualify for the post. If someone is not, as evident from his conduct , he’s disqualified. This happens once in a million and cannot be regarded as ‘taking help of Islam and their rigid customs to remove their political obstacles”. When in Rome do as the Romans do, goes the saying. Both Zafarullah Khan and Rana Liaqat lacked merits for the higher status they aspired for and there is no justification in blaming Islam or Muslims for their lackings.

  181. Adnan Ahmad says:
    July 24th, 2007 1:49 pm

    A petition was just turned down by Pakistan Supreme Court to remove Justice Bhagwandas, submitted on the same premise that you wrote in your first sentence. Pakistan was created for muslims and not for Islam. This does not mean Pakistani Hindus, Christians and other minorities would be treated any less just because they do not follow mainstream religion. I have close shia friends who occasionally with a broken heart discuss the injustices happened to their elders because of their religious background when it came to top level job postings in the Pakistani government. For how long can this continue? Is it good for Pakistan? I have tried to stay away from this silly thread all along but all I say is please read Justice Javed Iqbal’s autobiography and the part where he talks about Sir Zafrullah Khan. Can Pakistan afford to lose more sons like Zafrullah Khan? If we are to get out of these dark ages we must start where Jinnah left and move above these prejudiced hostilities and injustices, and act like humans.

  182. mazhar butt says:
    July 24th, 2007 5:01 pm

    Adnan Ahmad
    I seriously disagree with you. You are merely trying to play pun with words. As a muslim I fail to understand the difference you allude to between Islam and Muslim. Are not the followers of Islam, in word and spirit, Muslims?

    I think minorities in Pakistan are doing better than most muslims here. The new generations of these minorities (with exceptions of some well to do minorities) have forsaken their forefathers profession and are enjoying good social status in Pakistan. They eat and drink in the same plates we muslims do. People like Ardsher Cowasjee are lucky enough to be living in Pakistan to bluntly comment on its and its people’s shortcomings . This all goes to prove that your outlook in this regard is completely wrong.

    As for Shiites, there is no discrimination. I have more shia friends than others and I havnt seen them complaining of the sort you mention.

    Yes, but there are certain restrictions laid down by the Constitution as to filling of higher posts. That’s the law of the country and if you talk against it you would be talking against Pakistan. Try to change the law if you can but don’t blame the formulators of the said laws or constitutional bindings. This is neither in your hands nor mine. Then why do you forget that Pakistan is an ”ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN” ,,,,,,there is thus no justification for minorities to shape the future of the majority.

    As for Sir Zafarullah Khan,,,,,he’s a past and dead case. I dont want to read anymore about him.I already stated what I flet about him in previous posts.
    As for Javed Iqbal,,,,,,,,haha! youwant me read him who doesnt pay due reverence to his own father?

  183. MQ says:
    July 24th, 2007 5:31 pm

    [quote] … They eat and drink in the same plates we muslims do. People like Ardsher Cowasjee are lucky enough to be living in Pakistan to bluntly comment on its and its people’s shortcomings . [/quote]

    This is the most racist and bigoted comment I have come across on this blog. I do not hold a brief for Cowasji’s but it is widely known that his family was lucky enough to own most of Karachi even before Pakistan. As a citizen, he has as much right to comment on or criticize Pakistan as any Bugti, Bhutto, Bhurgari, Bhinder, Bangash — or Butt.

  184. July 25th, 2007 4:03 am

    As for Javed Iqbal,,,,,,,,haha! youwant me read him who doesnt pay due reverence to his own father?

    Butt sb,you mean the mohwara “Wali k ghar shaitan” was said for Jawed Iqbal? ;)

  185. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 6:32 am

    Oh, how much I wish I was from Karachi too so my irrelevant to the post comments could stay here too…oh one can only wish…

  186. mazhar butt says:
    July 25th, 2007 8:16 am

    MQ,,,I don’t mind Cowasjee’s commenting. I only wished to tell the forum that minorities are enjoying equal rights with the local Muslims here in Pakistan (except h/ever for Constitutional limitations which are mandatory)

  187. mazhar butt says:
    July 25th, 2007 8:36 am

    here again,,,,,,,,,


    Not a sound reason to judge the personality of a person. There are thousands in Pakistan who still brag about their “”nana’s having podeeney ke baag in India”,,,,,,,MQ, I didn’t expect such a shallow personality evaluation from you..

    I respect Cowasjee not for his ”riches” or ”rich background” but for his individuality as an honest, bold and straightforward person.

    Read Iqbal’s ‘shikwa’ and ”jawab-e’shikwa” for more enlightenment on what we are and what our ”aslaaf”were and why it’ s wrong to brag about our ancestors !


  188. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 1:45 pm

    Khawaja Hassan Nizami in his Urdu letter of March 6, 1948:

    The fact of the matter is that Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan has done a job for which 80 crore Muslims of the World owe him a debt of gratitude. I never hesitate to mention this fact to all, the intelligentsia and the common people alike. Even in my speeches at big public gatherings. I freely express this view.

  189. July 25th, 2007 2:03 pm


    Wah wah!

    Kahin yeh wohi Masti tu nahi jis k ‘Mastanay Hazaroun hain’ ? :-)

  190. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 2:07 pm

    The Process and Impact of Ideologization of Islam in Pakistan – Maleeha Aslam

    Unsure about what was an “Islamic State

  191. mazhar butt says:
    July 25th, 2007 2:21 pm

    I already stated there is no question about the capabilities of Zafarullah Khan. The only argument about him is that he was a renegade of the general muslim Ummah. After Ahmedis being termed non-muslims by the State there should now be no argument about it unless the Ahmadis or the State are subjected to change !

  192. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 6:11 pm

    From: Who is a Muslim? —Ishtiaq Ahmed

    The most ironical part of the Pakistan story is that the sects which played an important role in popularising the idea of Pakistan are being persecuted today. The advent of the Muslim separatist movement begins with the 1906 address by the Aga Khan on behalf of notable Muslims to Viceroy Lord Minto, requesting separate electorates. The Aga Khan enjoyed the patronage of British colonial power that helped him obtain several concessions for the Muslim community including separate electorates. The connection of the Ahmadiyya community with the idea of Pakistan dates from the time of Viceroy Lord Linlithgow, who a few days before the March 23, 1940 Lahore resolution, used the good offices of Sir Zafrulla Khan to inform the Muslim League that the British government would consider it appropriate if it were to demand a separate Muslim state(s).

    The Viceroy wanted to pressure the Congress Party which refused to cooperate in the war effort. Thereafter the Ahmadiyya were not involved in Muslim League politics. They became wary of the idea of Pakistan when the Muslim League mobilised mainstream ulema to propagate the idea of an Islamic state during the 1945-46 provincial election campaign. However, Quaid-e-Azam won over Sir Zafrulla to the cause of Pakistan by assuring him that such a state would be non-sectarian. Thenceforth the Ahmadiyya sect invested all its effort in supporting the demand for Pakistan.

    Any serious study of the proceedings of the Punjab Boundary Commission would show that of all the briefs presented before the Commission — including those prepared by the Indian National Congress, the All-India Muslim League, the Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadis and others — the one that Sir Zafrulla put forth on behalf of the Muslim League was the most powerful. So much so that the counsel for the Indian National Congress, Mr Setalvad, complimented Sir Zafrulla for preparing such a strong case for Pakistan.

  193. mazhar butt says:
    July 25th, 2007 6:41 pm

    There was no reason for Ahmedis to get ” wary of the idea of Pakistan when the Muslim League mobilised mainstream ulema to propagate the idea of an Islamic state during the 1945-46 provincial election campaign.” unless they were guilty conscious of their adulterated faith. (They are wary even now obviously for the reason that they have deviated from the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.

  194. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 7:23 pm


    After the 1951 Punjab elections, Punjab’s chief minister, a member of the Muslim League, used the links his provincial secret service had with Islamist groups to foment popular agitation calling for legislation that would declare the Ahmadis non-Muslims for legal purposes.

    The plan was that violent street protesters would call for the resignation of Pakistan’s first foreign minister, Sir Zafarulla Khan, who was an Ahmadi, and bring down the federal government. The Punjab chief minister Mumtaz Daulatana, hoped to benefit from the fall of the central government and expected to become prime minister. The riots could not be calibrated, however, and law and order collapsed and the army was called in to control the situation through a declaration of martial law in Lahore, the capital of Punjab.

    The events of that year highlighted three interlinked problems that have dogged Pakistan’s internal politics over the past fifty years: part of the state apparatus used religion and religious groups for a political purpose. The extent of the religious groups’ influence and the sentiment unleashed by them could not be controlled. And the military stepped in to deal with the symptoms of the chaos generated by religious-political agitation, without any effort to deal with its causes.

  195. mazhar butt says:
    July 25th, 2007 8:03 pm

    you seem to have a complete library at your disposal. I don’t think you are doing any fairness to this forum by printing out your hand-picked long and repeated abstracts and excerpts fro m books and other printed stuff. You will appreciate that there also exists a mountain load of literature AGAINST what you are trying to stress and I dont want to bore the readers by printing all that here as it would be inappropriate and out of place. I do not wish to emphasise the truth of my faith in a manner you are trying to propagate under the cover of a man who was duly paid for his services and who is now a past and closed case.

  196. MZ Khan says:
    July 25th, 2007 8:36 pm

    Egyptian leader Al-Sayed Mustafa Momin, in an interview to A.P.P (published in Pakistan dailies dated May 24, and 25, 1952):

    Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan holds an enviable position in the world of Islam. He is looked upon as a topmost statesman, in the Middle East in general and in Egypt and other Arab countries, in particular. By his forceful support of Tunisia, Morocco, Iran and Egypt at the United Nations, he has served the cause of Islam in a way no other leader has been able to do.

  197. speedy says:
    July 26th, 2007 12:54 am

    apart from all this stuff as a pakistani he really did a lot for the establishment of pakistan that should be appreciated and shud give him respect for that

  198. July 26th, 2007 1:13 am

    Really appreciate what ATP has been doing in promoting the truth.Sir Zafarullah Khan and Dr.Abdus Salam are two of our greatest heroes and it is about time we should start giving them there due credit.

  199. Adonis says:
    July 26th, 2007 1:21 am

    mazhar butt says “MQ,,,I don’t mind Cowasjee’s commenting. I only wished to tell the forum that minorities are enjoying equal rights with the local Muslims here in Pakistan …..”

    Actually you are wrong, non-muslims are enjoying more rights than muslims. Muslims have only one vote, non-muslims have two, one for the general seat candidate and one for candidates on seats reserved for minorities. Simlarly, non-muslims compete on merit for jobs and places in educational institutions as well as have seats reserved for them.

  200. July 26th, 2007 1:41 am

    khaan saab, zara break lagalo warna tumhari W-II karachi sey Dubai chali jaye gi!!

  201. mazhar butt says:
    July 26th, 2007 4:25 am

    A Page from History,,,the other side of the story

    Report on Punjab Disturbances of 1953

    At Lyallpur the khatm-i-nubuwwat conference was held under the auspices of the All Muslim Parties Convention on 26th and 27th September 1952 and another public meeting under the same auspices at Samundri on 28th September 1952. Among the speakers at Lyallpur were Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Taj Muhammad of Lyallpur, Muzaffar Ali Shamsi and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi. In the course of his speech Sahibzada Faiz-ul-Hasan was reported to have remarked that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a man of cheap morals and deserved to be prosecuted under the Goonda Act for having attacked the modesty of Hazrat Bibi Fatima. He also described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as a goonda. He further said that Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad, who was an Ahmadi and a son-in-law of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad could not be appointed as Finance Secretary to Government, Punjab. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as khabis and stated that there were few chances of Pakistan’s betterment so long as he was the Foreign Minister. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari said something about Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth which had better be left unmentioned. He attributed the air crash near the Lahore Cantonment and the Jangshahi air crash which resulted in the death of Generals Iftikhar Khan and Sher Khan to Mirzais. The speakers at the Samundri conference were Sayyad Muzaffar Ali Shamsi, Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Ghulam Nabi Janbaz and Ghazi Muhammad Hussain of Chak No. 423, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari in his speech alleged that Hakim Ghulam Murtaza, the father of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, had contributed fifty horsemen to Sardar Nau Nihal Singh to fight against the Muslim King, Bahadur Shah, in the battle of Bala Kot.

    While commenting on these speeches Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., remarked on 28th October 1952 that the reference to Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth was objectionable, that the allegation that the Mirzais had anything to do with the Jangshahi or the Lahore Cantonment air crash was false because one of the persons killed in the former, General Sher Khan, was himself a Mirzai, that the speeches of the Ahrar leaders were not only venomous but indecent and offensive, that there was no decrease in the number of conferences and hatred continued to be preached and that he did not see why for such mischievous speeches some kind of ban should not be imposed on Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. He added that the intelligentsia were getting tired of such speeches which were corrupting the whole nation. The Home Secretary on 29th October expressed the view that time had come when Government should review the whole position because the tone and tenor of the speeches delivered by the Ahrar leaders was marked by their mischievous and highly objectionable nature. He recommended that the Chief Minister should call a meeting of officers when he was free from the forthcoming Muslim League Conference at Lyallpur and that till then no action should be taken. On 31st November, the Secretary to the Chief Minister noted on the file that the Chief Minister desired that this case should be put up to him after his return from Lyallpur.

    The public meeting at Rawalpindi under the auspices of the All Muslim Parties Convention was held from 14th to 16th November 1952, the prominent speakers being Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari, Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Muhammad Ali Jullundri.

    Master Taj-ud-Din Ansari in his speech accused Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan of anti-State and anti-Islam activities and alleged that he would have to face a trial in Court on these charges. He said that Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was a British agent and a murtadd, that he was not sincere to Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din and that Mirzais should be socially and economically boycotted. Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi described the movement as a struggle between wafadars and ghaddars and between sadaqat and kufr and gave expression to the view that violence could be used for protection of Islam though not for its propagation. Hafiz Muhammad Said said that Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din was a hato (derisive term for a Kashmiri) like him and owed his position to pro-British activities and that he was responsible for the lives of 2½ lac victims of famine in Bengal. He also described Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan as a kafir. He further alleged that drinking, dishonesty, immorality and corruption were on the increase in Pakistan and that Ministers were travelling without ticket. He warned the authorities that if the unanimous demands of the Musalmans were not accepted they shall have to accompany Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on the Doomsday as surely as pharaoh shall have to ride a pig. Sheikh Husam-ud-Din alleged that the Mirzais had helped the British during the 1857 Mutiny with arms and horsemen and that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s forefathers had joined the Sikh forces against Shah Ismail Shahid at Bala Kot. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari said that the Mirzais intended to re-unite India and Pakistan. Muhammad Ali Jullundri alleged that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and all his followers were zindiqs about whom the Holy Prophet had ordained that if any one killed them he was equal to 100 martyrs in spirituality. He suggested that the epithet kazzab should be used with the name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and alleged that 722 Muslims had become Mirzais in the Railway Department when Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan was Railway Member to the Government of India and that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, Import and Export Officer, Karachi, and Mr. Farooqi, Chief Secretary, Sind Government, were propagating Mirzaeeat in the course of their official duties.

    When the case came up to Mr. Nazir Ahmad, S. P. (B), he, on 24th November 1952, wrote that a case against Muhammad Ali Jullundri had been pending investigation under section 21 of the Punjab Public Safety Act for the Speech made by him in the district of Montgomery and that he was inquiring from S. P., Montgomery, what had happened to that case because it did not help the administration to register a case against a bad political speaker and not to send it to Court for a long time. He also remarked that it was time that Muhammad Ali Jullundri, who was one of the worst speakers among the Ahrar, were prosecuted or detained under the Punjab Public Safety Act. On 25th November 1952, Mr. Anwar Ali, D. I. G., C. I. D., submitted the case to Government for information and noted that the Chief Minister had directed that on his return from Karachi he would discuss how to deal with militant sectarian speakers.

    The Khatm-i-Nubuwwat conference at Shujabad in the district of Multan was held on 19th and 20th November 1952, the important speakers on that occasion being Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri, Mirza Ghulam Nabi Janbaz, Sheikh Husam-ud-Din, Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus Sarhaddi, Qazi Ehsan Ahmad Shujabadi and Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari. Maulvi Ghulam Ghaus in his speech remarked that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad used to get his legs kneaded by women one of whom was named Bhano, that he was fond of looking at naked women and that his son (Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad) had admitted that he used to take liquor. Maulvi Muhammad Ali Jullundri described Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as ‘ullu ka patha’ and said that the mother of Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din could consider herself to be fortunate in having her son as the Prime Minister but the country was unfortunate because the Prime Minister could not understand things. Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari again made some reference to Queen Victoria.

    The case came up to Mr. Anwar Ali who recorded the following note on it on 8th December 1952:—

    “I brought to Government’s notice, once before, a speech which Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari made at Lyallpur in which he made indecent and rude remarks against Queen Victoria. At Shujabad, once again, he has made foul and obscene references to Queen Victoria.

    2. Muhammad Ali Jullundri went to the extent of describing the founder of the Ahmadiya faith as ‘ullu ka patha’. Can we blame the Ahmadis if they resent such remarks and flare up ? If they take offence and do anything, the Ahrar will further intensify Ahmadiya baiting. One incident will lead to more bitterness and the vicious cycle will never end.

    3. Government may agree to warnings being issued once again to the Ahrar leaders particularly Sayyad Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari and Muhammad Ali Jullundri. Government should not tolerate such vile speeches, for the public is being corrupted. The proper course should be to prosecute both these leaders but as the Central Government declines to define its attitude towards the Ahrar and the Punjab Government cannot act unilaterally, I suggest that a warning by H. S. or C. S. should be administered.

    4. I am becoming more and more convinced that the Ahrar are not working to help Pakistan and Islam. Their object is to prepare the ground for the next elections when they will emerge as an anti-League party or as a distinctive group within the League.

  202. MZ Khan says:
    July 26th, 2007 9:02 am

    Mufti of Egypt has just released this edict;

    The act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgment. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting one’s faith, then there is no worldly punishment

    Gomaa [Mufti] said that

    if the conversions undermine the “foundations of society” then it must be dealt with by the judicial system

    without elaborating.

    Zafarulla Khan decades earlier had this to say regarding apostasy;

    Apostasy means a plain and clear repudiation of Islam of a professing Muslim …. Simple apostasy, which is not aggravated by rebellion, treason or grave disorderliness, is not punishable in any manner in this life….

    Muhammed Zafrullah Khan, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 59

    Guess you don’t have to be a Mufti to figure that one out. :)

  203. MZ Khan says:
    July 26th, 2007 11:06 am


    Muslims have only one vote, non-muslims have two, one for the general seat candidate and one for candidates

    Double votes are there to keep the concept of “achoots

  204. Ibrahim says:
    July 26th, 2007 1:07 pm


    Unfortunately, the level of responsibility and scholarship coming out of al-Azhar is not the same as it used to be. Shaykh Ali Gomaa (Jumaa) is the same person who has allowed interest-based dealings in non-Muslims countries using a very weak Hanafi opinion (that Hanafis, like Doebandis, themselves reject) while Shaykh Jumaa is Shafi’ himself. Also, other scholars of al-Azhar have refuted Shaykh Jumaa such as Salah as-Sawi. I’m sure other scholars must have refuted this opinion of Shaykh Jumaa as well, but I don’t know for sure.

    And, of course there are other odd opinions of both Shaykh Jumaa and the mufti of al-Azhar Shaykh at-Tantawi, may Allah preserve them and enter them in jannah. So, MZ Khan, your argument based on the mufti’s quote has no weight. Both, and Allah knows best, Shaykh Jumaa and Zafarullah Khan are wrong on this issue. Note that this opinion about apostasy was that of Shaykh Jumaa alone and not approved and stamped by Egypt/al-Azhar’s Dar al-Ifta.

    It is ok if you keep posting facts about Zafarullah Khan and indeed we shouldn’t belittle his contribution. But, don’t derive or imply judgements about Islamic laws from his accomplishments and sayings because afterall he was a non-Muslim. We have enough authentic sources/people to take our guidance from instead of turning to Zafarullah Khan’s sayings to tell us what Islam is all about!

  205. mazhar butt says:
    July 26th, 2007 2:22 pm

    A great post by Ibrahim,,,my salutes to him !

  206. MZ Khan says:
    July 26th, 2007 5:20 pm

    Sir M. Zafrullah Khan, former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, has asked the US to drop its “often patronising, sometimes arrogant” attitude towards the nations of the East. Sir Zafrullah, now a member of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, made his plea before the final session of the fifth conference of the US National Commission for the UNESCO at Cincinnati on November 5. The Western world’s attitude was too often patronising when it looked at the East, he said, and urged the Americans to live up to their anti-colonial history. He said the East expected the US to lead in the crusade for freedom for all men in all nations. The East asked for freedom and it was prepared to enjoy that freedom in mutual interdependence. The degree of interdependence should be determined in collaboration with the West rather than by imposition by the West.

  207. MZ Khan says:
    July 26th, 2007 5:43 pm

    During the debate [on Objectives Resolution], our foreign minister, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, spoke up:

    “The point to stress in this connection is that while the Resolution requires that under the Pakistan constitution Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam, it lays no such compulsion, burden or obligation upon non-Muslims. In their view the spheres of politics and religion are distinct and apart, and can remain so. The constitution shall make adequate provision for them in the very words of the Resolution: “freely to profess and practice their religion and develop their cultures.” Their legitimate interests shall be safeguarded and they shall in common with all the citizens of Pakistan be guaranteed all fundamental human rights, ‘including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality.’ They will also, along with other citizens of Pakistan, be entitled to enjoy the benefits of a constitution ‘wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.’ What more could any minority or any section of the people of Pakistan desire?

    “There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith.” An alternative rendering can also be: ‘There can be no compulsion in matters of faith’, inasmuch as faith is a matter of conscience, and conscience cannot be compelled; it also signifies there need be no compulsion in matters of faith. ‘Guidance has been made manifest from error; let him therefore who wills believe and let him who wills deny.’

    “There are other injunctions contained in the Quran from which the same conclusion may be drawn, but I shall go on to mention one incident from the life of the Holy Prophet as illustrating the actual practice of tolerance in these matters. A Christian deputation was waiting on the Holy Prophet and had carried on exchange of views with him for some days. One day they intimated that they would have to absent themselves the next day. The Prophet enquired the reason for this and they explained that the following day was their sabbath and that they must withdraw some distance from Madina to perform their worship in their own fashion.

    “The Prophet told them that there was no need for them to withdraw from Madina for that purpose. They were welcome to perform their worship in his mosque. I might explain that the Prophet used to carry on all his public activities in the mosque. In that simple structure he received emissaries, he received deputations, he instructed his followers, he led the services and prayers, and all his public activities were performed there. It is recorded that the following day when the time came, the Christians took out their crosses and images and placing them in front of them in the Prophet’s mosque performed their worship in their own fashion.

  208. shahrukh says:
    July 31st, 2007 2:44 pm

    i can not comment on why in pakistan many pakistani forgett or dont want to give the credit of his work, but this forum is evidence of itself that the only reason ppl don,t want to give him credit on the forum is becouse he was ahamdi..and yes some other freedom fighter missing but that make no sence to say that “it matters not coz all are missing”,,,thanx for sharing that sir z choudry not only a hero of pakistan but he was hero for the the whole world espesially palastine and tunesia

  209. mazhar butt says:
    July 31st, 2007 2:58 pm

    There is no sense in compelling people to give credit to someone whom they they have rejected for one or another reason, including desecration of their faith. Moreover, whatever Zafarullah did he was paid for it. His proponents are merely trying to paint him as a ”hero” not because he was a Pakistani but just because he belonged to their cult !

  210. Humaira says:
    August 2nd, 2007 2:58 am

    Whatever his beliefs, let us just honor him for his services to Pakistan. This is not the place to propagate his beliefs or to discuss whether they are right or wrong. That is his business but let us at least celebrate the servcies of someone without turning everyone into controversial for one reason or not. Please

  211. Asma says:
    August 2nd, 2007 6:47 am

    If anyone can change the Post’s title – He died in 1985 and not in 1983!!

  212. Adonis says:
    August 22nd, 2007 6:56 am

    If we can live in peace, that would be the biggest achievement.

    You have mentioned so many countries in the proposed union, but the fact is that people in none of these countries have ever expressed any interest in any such union. So its more like a pipe dream as is the union of all countries of the world.

  213. a.mahmood says:
    August 31st, 2007 12:18 pm


  214. DEWAANA says:
    August 31st, 2007 12:25 pm



  215. Deewana Aik says:
    September 11th, 2007 10:20 am

    Another chapter form our history; the Munir report, explaining the events leading to forced resignation of Zafrullah Khan;

    Quite hefty at 33MB but quite an eye opener.

  216. Deewana Aik says:
    September 15th, 2007 5:52 pm

    btw, its my birthday today. :D

  217. toni says:
    September 26th, 2007 7:11 am

    Yaar saari duniya ke log aage nikkel gaye,hum abhi tak yeh faisla nahi kar paye,keh muslman kon hei?bahir ki duniya hamare zaheen tareen logoon ko apni tarf le ke ja rahi hei,aur ham firka parasti se bahir nahi nikkel rahe.KHUDA KE WASTE abb to hosh mein aa jao,aur is mulk ko ek koom mein tabdeel kar do.koi punjabi sindhi balochi sarhaddi na rahe,koi sunni sheia,wahabi,dev bandi ahmadi brelvi na rahe,sirf EK PAKISTAN,HAM SAAB KA.muslmano aur iisaioon ka saab ka.YE WATAN HAMARA HEI

  218. Rashid Jahangiri, MD says:
    October 20th, 2007 4:21 pm

    In 1974 Pakistan National Assembly trial of Ahmadies (both Lahori group and Quadiani group) was conducted. To this day it has been kept secret. Now it is more than 33 years. I suppose after 30 years government archives are made public. On the other hand, Justice Hamud-ur-Rehamn commission report on fall of Dacca, 1971 war was has been made public, which definitely had some national security issues. I wonder if inquiry report on 1971 war can be made public then why not 1974 trial of Ahmadis can be made public??? I do NOT think it has any national security issues, that warrants its need to be kept confidential and top secret. Does any person think other way???
    In early 1980s Lahori Ahmadies had to face Muslim Ullamas in an IMPARTIAL COURT and in front of an IMPARTIAL JUDGE i.e. Supreme Court of South Africa, Lahori Ahmadis were declared as MUSLIMS. This judgment was also reproduced in

  219. salman ahmad awan says:
    November 14th, 2007 1:39 pm

    He was the man of deeds.He was sumptuous in allmost every field of life.its been quite few years since i read book on him but if i dont stand to be corrected let me say fleting memories of him pass through my contious in an almost photographic way.He was the man to be given everything in his nature.His stature is as much the part of his life as his personality was.

  220. Thayyib Ahmed - Dubai says:
    November 20th, 2007 8:13 am

    Thanks for the wonderful insight of a man who was ahead of his time.

    In my youth I always looked him as a role model for the entire Muslim community. His tremendous knowledge of Holy Qur’an visible in his unique translation into the plain English made him of unparallel greatness of a statesman.

  221. shahid ahmad says:
    November 27th, 2007 12:35 pm

    Assalam-o-alikum Guys,
    This is just a co incidence that from last few days i am home and reading a book “The Reminiscences of SIR MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLA KHAN”, Interviews by Prof. Wilcox & Prof. Embree for Columbia Univeristy, & Introduction by Prof: Perwazi. On the life of Sir Muhammad Zafrullah khan. This is our dilemma that people who were against the creation of Pakistan came into power after the partition and those who did efforts got forced to sideline. Our history tempered gradually and no one did any thing to stop that, our young generation did not even know who was the first foreign minister of pakistan and who was with and against of creation of it. After 50 + years of creation of this beautiful land we are killing each other in the name of islam, in the name of terrorrism. We are in the middle of no where, stranded and stuck between many issues. I hope, wish and pray for those who helped in the creation of this mother land and pray for those who are in Government or will be in the Government to use their common sense and i wish they put our country first before any thing in their mind.

  222. January 2nd, 2008 5:57 pm
  223. Mehmood says:
    January 2nd, 2008 8:23 pm

    Dear Yasser Latif Hamdani.
    First time I came across this website. Realy liked it. It has renewed my faith in pakistan, we still have people who know the truth, who like to know the truth and who can rise and can stand above the cloud of misinformation created by years and years of misinformation.
    Well done. Keep good work going.
    Bye. Mehmood

  224. Masroor says:
    January 3rd, 2008 6:18 am

    The military dictators and their cronies who ruled Pakistan for almost thirty years did their best to alter the history in a manner they believed to be more in line with their imposed ideals. The events, their significance and personalities attached with them have been altogether tempered. It is quite common to hear that Sir Syed Ahmed was an Islamic scholar; Mehmood Ghznavi was a Muslim hero who conquered India in order to spread the word of God and so on and so forth. These and other facts are hardly ever quoted with truth and in right perspective.
    Among all, the Zia era was most significant in the sense that many of our national heroes, belonging to minorities and other religions, were wiped from the history books and the generation growing up in those tumultuous years is totally oblivious of what has been done for this country by those inspiring souls. Zia promoted an intolerant society. Hypocrisy is the one word which is most suited to describe the social setup in those (and even now as well) days. The state became the proprietor of one particular religious thought and people not aligned with that were systematically purged from virtually every field.
    Ahamdis and Christians are the two worst affected communities. Many of there important people and there heroic contribution for their country was deliberately forgotten during Zia regime.
    Cecil Chaudary, a Christian by religion fought the 1965 Indo-Pak war as a young fighter pilot in Pakistan Air Force. Even to this day his colleagues remember him as one of the top ace pilot who did heroic efforts to save his country. But during Zia era, when the concept of an Islamic militant soldier was officially adopted, he was totally wiped from the historical accounts. Now almost no one remember him. A senior and decorated air force officer, he resigned later when he was denied promotion and passed over by a lower-ranking Muslim officer.
    Similar is the case with Ahmadi army officers, many of them served the country very well but deliberately denied recognition. During the Islamization of the military they were completely forgotten and today no one knows that who was General Akhtar Hussain Malik and Brig. Iftikhar Janjua. Who was Dr. Abdul Salaam and why the world respect him so much.
    Another great son of this soil who has been forgotten and deliberately belittled is Chaudary Muhammad Zafraullah Khan. He has been a witness to most important events in our history. Mohammad Ali Jinnah entrusted him to represent Pakistan in the boundary commission. Later he was given the Foreign office of the newly formed Pakistan where he presented not only the Pakistan

  225. Syed Luqman Ahmed says:
    January 4th, 2008 7:01 am

    Asalam Alaikum,

    its very nice to found such good website on the network. i really appreciate the work of Yasir Latif Hamdani. i have query from yasir. Are you Ahmadi? Please reply me soon. i am sending this link to my friends so that they can came to know the Sir Zafarullah Khan Sahib. Once Again i thanks to Yasir.
    i like the comments from Asma as well. for any query you can contact me any time on above said Email ID.

  226. YLH says:
    January 4th, 2008 7:11 am

    No I am an atheist.

  227. Aik Aur Dewana says:
    January 22nd, 2008 5:58 pm

    Video report: Sir Zafrullah Khan Becomes UN Assembly President – 1962

  228. February 26th, 2008 6:12 pm

    Hello Dear readers

    I know sir Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan and and i am
    also one of those blessed ones who have attended this
    great mans fuenral.
    Sir Zafar Ullah Khan serve as forrgen minister of Pak
    from Dec 1947 to 1954 and that Judge to international
    coure till 1961 and UN president 1962-63 17 th secssion.
    Than again judge in hague. And finaly President to the
    international court fro 1970-73. I would like advise all
    the readers to studay the life of this great man and his
    remarkable servise to mankind. Man like Zafrullah khan
    did not born in the world so often. Shams

  229. February 26th, 2008 7:15 pm

    Response to Mr king__Faisal

    Dear faisal i have read your comit on Ch. Zafrullah Khan,
    Faisal, Ch. Zafrullah Khan in his all life never desire for the
    high office. Long before pakistan Ind he served in difrent
    feildes. He was president of Muslim Legue in 1932-33 and
    serve in round table confranses. On the desire of Qaid-e-
    Azam Muhammad Ali Jinah Ch. Zafrullah Khan serve as
    forgen minister. Mr. Jinah have told Liaqat Ali Khan that
    Zafrullah can be chief justes of pakistan prime minister of
    pakistan but want him to be the forgen minister of pakistan
    dear Faisal Zafrullah Khan was a servent of mankind he
    served the whole mankind in his best . He served the Muslim countrys he faught the indp of many Arb countres
    please try to read about the life of Zafrullah Khan.
    You can wright me by email if you want to know more,
    insha-allah i will try to help you. Shams

  230. Sohail says:
    March 24th, 2008 10:16 am

    Hi guys

    Great work on peofiling some leaders of Pakistan.

    But quite frankly we need to be weary of those who pretend they are muslime but are infact not muslims. It is ok to be a non-muslim and be counted as one. I would rather deal with such personalities who possess clarity in their vision, in their faith and clarity in how they represent themselves.

    But dealing and profiling a personality which possesses opaqueness in character and regarding them as great leader, really negates the true reality. It once again demonstrates how people with opaqueness in character and religious beliefs deceived this nation.

    I suggest, we best avoid profiling these people who eluded poor masses and subject the people of pakistan to great confusion that still persists.


  231. Muzaffar Mansoor says:
    April 1st, 2008 6:53 am

    Sir Zafrullah Khan was a son of the soil, Quaid-e-Azam along with all elelder freedom fighters who got independence from the English had more intellegence and vision then any one of us I believe, Zafraullah Khan was a Muslim and a hero no one could and should deny other than by few Mullahs who portray Islam differently from that of the Holy founder of Islam Hazrat Mohammad SAW

  232. Dr Muhammad Farrukh Nawaz says:
    April 25th, 2008 3:49 pm

    Well written and well explained.It is pity and sad that we have forgotten these great and true leaders.I remember and it was published in newspapers just before his death that Sir Zafarullah Khan refused to meet infamous and shameless dictator Zia-ul-Huq when he came to see him during his illnness.Because Zia-ul-Huq was always double standard and whole nation is bearing the brunt of his cheatings.Rather Sir Zafarullah Khan met ambassadors from middle eastern countries like Marakash, Jordan, Algeria and also Palestine.
    As a President of International Court of Justice, he also fought for the rights of Palestinians.I really congratulate the author and also the website to show the facts.It may bring our country and nation together.I just hope and pray.

  233. zakintosh says:
    May 18th, 2008 9:38 am


    “…those who pretend they are muslim but are in fact not muslims.”

    so who decides this on behalf of God? Pakistan’s extremely ‘religious’ parliament with it’s fair share of bigots, opportunists, closet drunkards, cheats, liars, and hypocrites (not to mention the occasional rapist and murderer)?

  234. August 20th, 2008 10:54 am

    Khalid Hasan

    I met Chaudhry Zafarulla Khan just once. It was in the late 1960s. He was in Lahore and speaking at Government College, an event I was assigned to report on for the Pakistan Times, where I then worked. When I arrived, he had just stepped out of his car and I walked with him to the event. He told me that he would need to walk slowly because he had sciatica. That was the first time I had heard the word, so I asked him what it was, which he explained to me with great precision, something that was his hallmark. It was clear that sciatica was something one ought not to wish even for one

  235. Omar says:
    October 3rd, 2008 8:07 pm

    I think that he was truly a remarkable man. I remember being dragged to meet him by my father one day in Lahore, when he was already very old and largely forgotten and I was a young boy. It was a large dark room. He quickly enchanted me. Then he asked me to read out loud the final pages of his autobiography. As I did so, tears rolled down from his eyes. I will never forget that. As many rogues as Pakistan has produced, so it has created some unbelievable human gems. Unfortunately most of us don’t know one from the other.

  236. hisham says:
    February 10th, 2009 9:21 am

    i love this person and people only hates him because he was an ahmadii qadiani or what ever but he was a real hero

  237. Mehmood says:
    February 11th, 2009 6:08 am

    Ata Rabbani (father of Raza Rabbani) in his recent book ‘The Sun Shall Rise’ summarises the career of Zafrullah Khan as follows;

  238. Mehmood says:
    February 11th, 2009 6:10 am
  239. mubashir says:
    March 27th, 2009 7:06 am

    There is no mother to produce a son like him, pakistan had a great son like him but only refused because he was an ahmadi. when this thing will finish from pakistan, that will be the day pakistan will start progressing, just an ahmadi and the whole country did bad to him, he did every thing for it. proud to be an ahmadi!!!!!!!! proud to be pakistani.!!!!!!!

  240. April 20th, 2009 7:42 am

    A detailed interview which spans all of Sir Zafrulla’s active life.

  241. Rationality says:
    October 6th, 2009 4:08 pm

    The world may forget Pakistan but not Zafrullah Khan. In fact, if people remember Pakistan in the future they will because Zafruallah was a Pakistani. He was a true Muslim and true servant of Humanity in all aspects of his life. Pakistanis should learn Islam from him. Those who consider him to be non-muslim, should pray that Pakistan produces more “non-muslims” like him because the “muslims” currently running the country are dragging the country to hell!

  242. muhammad usman says:
    February 18th, 2010 2:23 am

    i am also fan of sir zaffarullah khan.He contributed much more to the cause of pakistan but we should keep in mind but not being prejudice that he was a qadyani or ahmadi.No doubt he payed what he could to pakistan but in return we can not say him muslim. Definition of muslim is very bounded in few faith,while following the faith we cant say he is muslim but unanimously we can say he was a great and great son of pakistan.

  243. Obaid1 says:
    August 18th, 2010 12:54 am

    Sir Zafarullah Khan on NPR’s Bob Edwards show on 07 24 2010

    Producer Dan Gutman likens his importance to Pakistan’s independence to that of Thomas Jefferson for independence of US ; sort of brains behind the operations.

  244. Karim says:
    August 30th, 2010 11:59 am

    Son of Liaqut Ali Khan on Sir Zafarullah Khan

  245. April 16th, 2011 12:36 am


  246. Majeed says:
    April 16th, 2011 1:41 am

    @gohar mehmood:

    Can you provide evidence of your claim? I am guessing you can differentiate between evidence and allegation.

  247. Majeed says:
    April 16th, 2011 2:28 am

    @gohar mehmood:

    Why Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan Not offered Funeral Prayer of Quaid-e-Azam

  248. Ather Sheheryar says:
    April 23rd, 2011 12:50 am

    can somebody tell me , from where i can find his book the agony of pakistan, in faisalabad

  249. nasir says:
    November 12th, 2011 2:05 am

    I had the pleasure of meeting him a couple of times when I was a kid – a wonderful gentleman

  250. November 13th, 2015 4:59 pm

    [...] fathers of Pakistan. You know, the Pakistan Resolution that our national struggle was based on? He drafted it. He was the first foreign minister of Pakistan. He was known for his eloquent representation of [...]

  251. November 17th, 2015 1:48 pm

    [...] fathers of Pakistan. You know, the Pakistan Resolution that our national struggle was based on? He drafted it. He was the first foreign minister of Pakistan. He was known for his eloquent representation of [...]

  252. November 18th, 2015 10:00 am

    [...] adalah salah seorang pendiri negara Pakistan terkemuka. Dia adalah konseptor Resolusi Pakistan yang diperjuangkan oleh rakyatnya. Dia adalah menteri luar negeri pertama Pakistan. Dia [...]

  253. March 23rd, 2016 5:35 pm

    [...] thousands of the supporters of the Pakistan movement at Minto Park, Lahore was drafted by Sir Zafarullah Khan, who was the prominent representative of Pakistan at the international level. A diplomat and an [...]

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)