THE LOST HISTORY

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Another day I was reading a news on BBC.urdu.com that dozens of molvies from different school of thoughts held a meeting under the supervision of MAJLIS E AHRAR, regarding with Lahore mascare of ahmedis and its out comes, well they condoem the comments passed by NS and try to pointed out it A GREAT GEHRI SAZISH for Muslim Ummah of Pakistan.

As an Ahmedi Muslim and a Pakistani I feel to share some pages of History which might be few peoples knows but its shows REMARKABLE roles for both Ahmedis Muslim and Al Ahrar and group while Quaid E Azam was struggling for making a seperate state for muslims of subcontinent.

It is generally known that Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah (George Washington of Pakistan) single handedly founded Pakistan.

While the Indian leaders notably Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru and a host of Congress leaders spent many years in Jail and launched several civil disobedience Movements - but this thin and slim outstanding lawyer called Jinnah carved out an Independent Islamic state called Pakistan in seven years from nowhere.

From Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940 to crucial talks in June 1946, battles were won by this remarkable statesman, Mr M. A. Jinnah. This astounded the India’s Princely Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. He was amazed at the remarkable the skills of this sharp and tactful statesman at negotiations. His determination stronger than the rock of Gibraltar and his unquestionable integrity were the sterling qualities that landed Muslims of India a homeland of their own.

PAKISTAN OWES ITS EXISTENCE TO AN AHMADI DIVINE

Few know this fact that Mr M. A. Jinnah had quit the Indian political scene and out of the frustration left Indian politics. He retreated to London (U.K.) after attending the second Round Table Conference in 1932, where he established a remarkable legal practice.

It was a great loss to Muslims in India. It provided immense relief to Indian Congress, as their main adversary left the field.

He was persuaded back to India by no other person than Hadhrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Head of Ahmadiyya Movement. This divine figure surveyed the Indian political horizon and found no honest and outstanding Muslim figure to lead the Muslims of India, the Muslims who lost their empire in India after five centuries of Moghal rule.

Hadhrat Sahib asked the then Ahmadiyya Missionary in London (UK) Mr Abdur Raheem Dard to get in touch with Mr M. A. Jinnah who initially turned down all overtures. It took Mr Dard in three hours face to face talk successfully persuaded him to return to India. Mr Jinnah was most reluctant, but he eventually changed his mind.

The Sunday Times London (April 9,1933) carried a report of a reception that was held by the Imam of London Mosque Mr Dard, where Mr Jinnah frankly acknowledged the fact that:

“The eloquent persuasion of Imam left me no way of escape”

Sardar Shaukat Hayat in his book “The Nation that lost its soul” (page 147) mentions the following event:

“One day, I got a message from Quaid e Azam saying ‘Shaukat, I believe you are going to Batala, which I understand is about five miles from Qadian, please go to Qadian and meet Hadhrat Sahib and request him on my behalf for his blessings and support for Pakistan’s cause.’ After the meeting (in Batala) I reached Qadian about midnight, I sent a word that I had brought a message from Quaid e Azam. He came down immediately and enquired what were Quaid’s wishes. I conveyed his message for prayer and for his support for Pakistan. He said: ‘Please convey to the Quaid e Azam that we have been praying for his mission from the very beginning.’ Where the help of his followers is concerned, no Ahmadi will stand against any Muslim Leaguer.”

The second feat, during that crucial period after elections, was achieved, when Ch Zafrulla Khan who prevailed upon Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana to resign at a time when Mr Tiwana enjoyed complete confidence of the Panjab Assembly, paving the way for the Muslim League to appear on the horizon.

CRUCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF AHMADIS DIVINE IN MAKING OF PAKISTAN

Hadhrat Mirza Bashir ud Din Mahmud Ahmad was watching with dismay the unholy alliance between the Viceroy and the Congress Party, as an Interim Indian Government was formed in 1946 without Muslim participation. Mr Jinnah threatened to launch a protest movement.

On September 23, 1946, this divine figure arrived in Delhi along with a team of advisors and remained in Delhi at the residence of Ch Zafrulla Khan for three weeks.

He held high level discussions with top Indian leaders, Mr M. A. Jinnah, Mahtama Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Nawab of Bhopal, Khawja Nazimuddin, Sardar Niashtar and Nawab Chattari. Hadhrat Sahib also wrote a letter to Lord Wavell indicating to him that the Muslim League enjoyed the total support of the Indian Muslims.

A day before his departure for Qadian, Lord Wavell invited the Muslim League to join the Interim Cabinet of India.The daily Nawa i waqt in its issue of October 14,1946 quoted Hindu Daily Milap:

“This act tantmounts to torpedeoing of the Indian Independence Movement. Hadhrat Sahib in a policy lecture forcefully supported the concept of Pakistan.” (Al Fazal May 21,1947)

TREACHEROUS ULEMAS

In the crucial stages of delicate negotiations that Mr Jinnah conducted with the British Government, the whole gang of Ulema led by Ahrars (the Muslim clergy) abetted, instigated and funded by the Indian Congress, opposed Mr Jinnah at every step.

Majlis-e-Ahrar is clearly the oddest Islamic movement in the subcontinent… it was for “secular” and “united India”, was extremely anti-Ahmadi and was also fighting for “Madh-e-Sahaba” (or the honor of Sahaba) against Shias while its president – another significant point- was a Shia Muslim by the name of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar. So it was an Indian Nationalist “Secularist” anti-Ahmadi, anti-Shia, anti-Jinnah Movement led by a Shia Alim!!!

Ironies never cease. the Majlis-e-Ahrar was part and parcel of the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress and denounced the Muslim League for not taking part in it. Majlis-e-Ahrar’s greatest propaganda was against Mahomed Ali Jinnah … who they denounced as “Kafir-e-Azam”.

Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar wrote the famous couplet: “Ik Kafira kay peechay Islam ko chora, Yeh Quaid-e-Azam hai kay Kafir-e-Azam”

Repeatedly Pakistan was described as “Palidistan”, “Kafiristan” and “Khakistan” by the Majlis-e-Ahrar. In 1946…. it’s candidates were soundly defeated by the Muslim League’s candidates.

Well, the history period getting long SORRY, there still few reserachable points in above lines

why ? THEKEDAR of Islam now in Pakistan was so ulergic to making a muslim state ?

Why ? They like and love to lived in a Secular Indian and support Congress and NOW so ulergic
with the word of Secularism ?

Why ? They move in IN there so called KAFRISTAN ?

Why ? They against of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jamat e Ahamdiyya ?besides above questions
the hint of this one is ALL INDIA KASHMIR COMMITEE 1933, an organisation fighting against the Dogra Rules in Kashmir and the Head of Committee that time was Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Muhamood RA. the 2nd Calpih of Jamat.

and 2nd is Jinnah`s own background as a Khoja Siha Mohammadan.

Its seems to me all the time Muslim Clergy playing the dirty politics unfortunaltly in the name of Islam to just mis guide inocent peoples. They Did it and they still Doing it…

Please keep the balance in responces with Pakistan Affairs and Religion… If some one wana
discuss related thread on religion basis make a new thread on Religion Fourm.

get some help from www.thepresecution.org

2

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Eye-opening history of Pakistan... all the mullahs who were dead-set against the creation of Pakistan, failed against the determination and resolve of the Muslims and Quaid e Azam, and then the same mullahs did a u-turn and became "thekedar" of Islam in Pakistan?

3

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Dude, they will just say that this is a lie and that Ahmadis are actually the enemies of Pakistan and are working together with the Israelis. LOL And before that they were working for the Brits etc.

4

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Yes may be they can but history cant lie

5

EyEsOnSkY you are right that The Quaid was persuaded to come back, and he worked hard for a separate country for Muslims, but there other reasons just as important..............one of them being that Muslims had joined the fight in World War II against the Nazi's and the Japaneze, and it was Sir Winston Churchill who was all for the Muslims deserving their own homeland.

Especially since The Britts captured Hindustan from the Muslims to begin with!

6

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

yeah u are right either, there is a lot of factors that muslims was needed a seperate homeland

7

i have to ask this, 'what Muslims have achieved with there own home land?'

8

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

thanks for worries

we achieved all our goals, surely have some problems and trying to slove them

9

perhaps it is because they couldn't impede the creation of Pakistan so they became Pakistanis to destroy it from within. I pray and hope all such ill wishes not come true.

10

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Why not Majlis e Ahrar and company go back to India and start sucking the feets of hindus congress, there is no reason for them to stay in Pakistan..

11

Ahmadis supported creation of Pakistan?

What a farce!

At the time of independence and before the Boundaries commission, the Qadiyanis presented a memorandum that they are separate from Muslims. The result was that the Muslim population proportion decreased in areas of the Punjab belt and at last in the Award decision Gurdaspur was handed over to India so that India could keep in contact with Kashmir.

12

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Mr. You can lie but history cant.... took some breaths in open fresh air if you got high blood preasure... you guys have nothing but lie after a lie, cant face truth and always trying to cover it with lies. Allah Tallah hi apko hadaiet de sekta hai bandon ka kam nahi

13

LOL I told you.

Well atleast he didn't say that they are working for the Israelis. Maybe he will say that in his next post.

14

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Until you back this with some authentic sources & links .. i am not buying a single word of it.

So shall we ?

15

-

16

-

17

**This topic is nothing but a phony-balony Ahmadi propoganda based on fiction. **
Below is the article by well respected and learned scholar that debunks this myth about Ahmadi’s role in creation of pakistan.
In fact qadayanis were nothing but selfish british lap dog.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\22\story_22-6-2010_pg3_2

VIEW: Pakistan and Shia and Ahmediyya stands*** —Ishtiaq Ahmed***

http://dailytimes.com.pk/images/2010/06/22/20100622_Ishtiaq_Ahmed.jpg

Sir Zafarullah enjoyed Jinnah’s personal trust. Such factors hugely helped to persuade the head of the Ahmediyya community, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, subsequently to change his decision on Pakistan

Mr Ammar Ali Qureshi’s rejoinder ‘The idea of Pakistan’ (Daily Times, June 14, 2010), to my article ‘The demand for Pakistan and Islam’ (Daily Times, June 8, 2010), provides a useful basis for further discussion of the origins and implications of establishing a Muslim-majority state in the Indian subcontinent.

When I quoted Raja Sahib Mahmudabad, it was with reference to his personal convictions. Raja Sahib was a prominent leader of the Muslim League and one of its main patrons. Maulana Hasrat Mohani was another prominent Muslim who wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state. More names can be given. The exchange of views between Syed Ali Zaheer and Jinnah were of a personal nature, but Zaheer was a prominent Shia politician of Lucknow and, therefore, represented an important voice in the Shia community.

On the other hand, when I refer to the rejection on December 25, 1945 of the Pakistan idea by the All Parties Shia Conference, then it is an organisation that took that decision and one can legitimately attribute to it a collective point of view. However, I pointed out that such a ruling was not accepted by most Shias who decided to support the demand for Pakistan. There is nothing contradictory in what I said; these are facts.

**Now, when we come to the position of the Ahmediyya community, I had done my homework before I wrote my previous article. At the time of the Lahore Resolution, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan was a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Viceroy Linlithgow instructed Sir Zafarullah to prepare a memorandum advising the Muslim League to demand a separate state (Wali Khan, Facts are Facts, 2004, page 40). **

At that time, World War II was raging in full fury and Britain was facing defeat on all fronts. The British wanted to put pressure on the Indian National Congress, which was not cooperating with them. In September 1939, the Congress ministries had resigned to protest over India being committed to World War II without Indian leaders being consulted. Moreover, the Congress had started demanding transfer of power and the British wanted to prevent such menace from gaining momentum. Nothing would have done it better than the Indian Muslims demanding a separate state and thus calling into question the Congress’ claim to represent Indian opinion. Sir Zafarullah was by no means acting as a free agent when he prepared a memorandum on Pakistan. He simply carried out a task given to him by the viceroy.

The fact is that at the time of the adoption of the March 23, 1940 Lahore Resolution, the Ahmediyya community was under instruction from their khalifa not to join the Muslim League. Sir Henry Craik, governor of Punjab, makes this crystal clear in his secret fortnightly report dated March 25, 1940 that he sent to Linlithgow. He wrote: “I had an interesting talk this morning with Pir Akbar Ali, a Unionist member of our assembly, who belongs to the Ahmediyya community…Pir Akbar Ali gave me two items of information, which may interest you. The Ahmedis, he said, have always considered the Khaksar Movement a dangerous one and not a single Ahmedi has joined it. The second item was that the Ahmedis as a body have not been allowed by the religious head of their movement to join the Muslim League. Akbar Ali himself has been allowed to join as a member of the Unionist Party for a term of six months only. The question whether his followers should be allowed to join the League is, I understand, shortly to be considered by the head of the community” (Lionel Carter, Punjab Governors’ Fortnightly Reports vol. 1, Punjab Politics 1940-1943: Strains of War, 2005, page 101).

Sir Zafarullah was associated with the Muslim League since the 1930s, but at that time the Muslim League was merely a platform for expressing demands about Muslim representation and quotas in government services. When Iqbal made his famous ‘demand for Pakistan’ speech in Allahabad, the house was empty. The quorum of 75 persons needed to pass a resolution could only be filled after several hours of effort to bring Muslims from all over Allahabad to the meeting hall. It was the first move by the Muslims to challenge the Congress, which had adopted the Swaraj (self-rule) Resolution in January that year. In the 1937 elections, the Muslim League won only two seats in Punjab, which became one when Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan crossed the floor and joined the Punjab Unionist Party. The first party office in Punjab was opened in Lahore in 1938.

Doctrinal disputes between the Ahmedis and other Muslims were a harsh fact and, therefore, hesitation on the part of the head of the Ahmediyya community to give the green signal to his followers to hitch their future to Pakistan makes perfect sense. Rather, not to look for assurances and guarantees for his followers would be a case of criminal negligence and gross irresponsibility. Moreover, as a community closely aligned with the British, it was equally necessary not to antagonise them.

Jinnah’s stature rose sharply only after the Lahore Resolution was adopted. This is also recorded in the March 25 secret fortnightly report of Governor Craik. Sir Zafarullah enjoyed Jinnah’s personal trust. Such factors hugely helped to persuade the head of the Ahmediyya community, Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad, subsequently to change his decision on Pakistan. Why all this silly myth-building about the Ahmedis championing the idea of Pakistan in the 1930s remains a mystery to me.

It is equally silly of people like Wali Khan to promote another myth that after the Lahore Resolution the British had definitively made up their mind to partition India. After the war, the British were very keen to keep India united because they wanted to use India as a base and their most valued institution — the British Indian Army — for the geopolitical interests they believed they would still have in South Asia and the Middle East. Between 1945 and August 1947, the pendulum would swing dramatically between the polar extremes of a united and a partitioned India. Also, the British, Congress, Muslim League and even the Sikhs would prevaricate a number of times before the pendulum stopped on partition. To talk of a Pakistan project in 1906 or 1930 or 1940 is therefore innacurate.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at [EMAIL=“[email protected]”][email protected]

18

^I can also point articles...

[QUOTE]
Ishtiaq Ahmed’s distortions about Pakistan Movement

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed in his article has once again faithfully reproduced his arguments from an earlier article which was in my view historically inaccurate and wrong. I do not dare question Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s motives in distorting history – though it is sadly second nature to him but I do question the wisdom of Dr. Ahmed’s deliberate targetting of Shias and Ahmadis in his articles.

Consider: He writes that the demand for Islamic state in the League came from Raja of Mahmudabad- a Shia and one of the closest confidantes of Jinnah. Nothing wrong with that claim but Dr. Ahmed deliberately omits what Jinnah- who was himself a Khoja twelver Shia- said in response. This is how Raja sahib himself recalled the event:

“Lahore Resolution was passed earlier in the year, and when Pakistan was formed it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunnah and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution.

Raja sahib was then asked to distance himself from the League which he did. This is no small omission on part of Dr. Ahmed and this is an omission he makes repeatedly. A half truth is – as good doctor would admit- no truth at all. Then comes his usual “Pir of Manki Sharif letter” argument. Ishtiaq Ahmed alleges that in this letter proves that Jinnah had promised Sharia to the Pir. May I suggest to Dr sahib to see what Jinnah promised and then pick up the Shariat Act of 1937 and compare the two. Shariat Act of 1937 is the bedrock of Muslim laws in Secular India mind you. Jinnah had promised the application of Shariat to affairs of the Muslim community and this would include matters like inheritance, family laws etc. Ofcourse Dr. Ahmed either would not know or would not admit that much later – long after independence- it was a Jinnah-trained lawyer- Daniyal Latifi, a leftist, a member of the Muslim League and the author Punjab Muslim League’s manifesto, who got a hapless old woman, inappropriately named Shah Bano, a Supreme Court verdict on alimony. It was the secular Congress Party which then overturned the verdict through legislature on grounds that offended the religious sensibilities of Muslims (read Deoband).

Perhaps the unkindest cut of them all is the claim that Ahmadis were wary of the Pakistan Movement initially till “Zafrulla was won over”. There is no doubt that the Munir Report is an extraordinary document- perhaps the finest in our history- but that doesn’t mean everything claimed in it is in toto accurate. A researcher’s job – Ishtiaq Ahmed told me in private correspondence- is to sift through facts and arrive at independent analysis. Well historically everyone is aware of Sir Zafrulla’s role in the roundtable conference as Punjab’s main man. No less a person than Khan Abdul Wali Khan – whose book forms a major reference point for Ishtiaq Ahmed - claimed with absolute certainty that Sir Zafrulla, “a Qadiyani”, was the author of the Lahore Resolution. Ostensibly if Zafrulla was the author of the Lahore Resolution and the Lahore Resolution marks the start of the Pakistan Movement, wouldn’t Ishtiaq Ahmed’s claim amount to blowing hot and cold over nothing?

The truth is that Ahmadis were closely involved with Jinnah as early as 1931 when he went and attended Juma prayers at their London Mosque. It was the Imam of the Woking Mosque who being Jinnah’s close friend convinced him in 1934 to return to India and take over the Muslim League. The Ahmadiyya movement’s chief – Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud- was at this time the president of the All India Kashmir Committee. One of its more famous board members was Allama Iqbal. This was before Iqbal turned notoriously anti-Ahmadi in his last years over a familial dispute over his Ahmadi half brother.

I could go on demolishing Ishtiaq Ahmed’s assertions which are historically completely off the mark but that would take up too much space. One must however question Ishtiaq Ahmed on his private griefs. In my view there have always been two kinds of threads in South Asian Islam – the heterodox variety which consists of Barelvis (the low church), Shias, Ismailis Ahmadis, Mahdavis (Nawab Bahadur Yaar Jung was a Mahdavi for example) and the high church Deoband. The former overwhelmingly sided with Jinnah and the Muslim League, with the exception of a small unrepresentative body. The latter overwhelmingly supported the Congress Party with the exception of a small unrepresentative group.

I suspect however that Ishtiaq Ahmed’s loyalties don’t lie with Deoband. I would put him squarely in the camp of Agha Shorish Kashmiri – the Ahmadi-hater - who also invented a fake interview with Maulana Azad to discredit Pakistan and its creation. With ideological gurus like that is it any wonder that Ishtiaq Ahmed has such a hardtime telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[/QUOTE]

Also from another article. I'll post the relevant part and link the rest:

[QUOTE]
There are two gaping holes in this persistent myth on both sides of the border. The first is the fact that the only religious group that supported the Muslim League en masse was Jamaat-e-eAhmediyya and it did so consistently from 1930 onwards. Anti-Ahmediyya bigots have latched onto the Munir Report’s ambiguous statement about Ahmedis being initially reluctant to join the Pakistan Movement till Sir Zafarullah was won over by Jinnah. Ironically, these people ignore the prescriptions of that fine document completely but rely on this one statement out of context. The truth is that Sir Zafarullah had been the president of the Muslim League from as early as 1931 and, according to Wali Khan’s book, Facts are Sacred, was the author of the Lahore Resolution itself. Therefore, by the Munir Report’s assertion, and depending on what you place as the start date for the Pakistan Movement, the Ahmedis either joined the Pakistan Movement in 1931 or in 1940. That means that those latter-day ‘heretics’ were the earliest community to join the Pakistan Movement.

dailytimes.com[DOT]pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\14\story_14-6-2010_pg3_3
[/QUOTE]

Point being take some time. Look at what's written before one goes looking for a counter argument. Nothing is wrong with writing against but think about it, do some studying up on it and then go for it

19

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

^

Can you try to post a non-ahmadi source about the contributions of ahmadis to pakistan?

20

Re: THE LOST HISTORY

Dailytimes is an Ahmadi source now? Oh common now, Nasir.