One of the Pakistan’s greatest Ahmadi betrayer Sir. Zafarullak Khan who was unfortunately Pakistan’s first foreign minister provided a great damage to Palestine for fulfilling his community wicked plans to be settle in Haifa – An Israeli City. Please read the following article which is opening a new debate & unveiling his role.
Pakistan delegation to the UN was led by Sir Zafarullah, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and included Mirza A.H Ispahani, Pakistan Ambassador in Washington, Mir Laiq Ali, Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Begum Tasadduq Hussain.
The position taken up by Pakistan with regard to Palestine in the UN was that the Balfour Declaration and the League’s Mandate were invalid and against the wishes of people and the proposal of partition was contrary to the Charter.
The Ad Hoc Committee to which Palestine question was referred by the General Assembly, appointed two sub-committees to deal with it. These sub-committees were so constituted that all the members of sub-committee I were in favour of the partition while the member of sub-committee II opposed partition. Thus there was no hope of a compromise solution emerging from either sub-committees. To redress this situation, the Chairman of sub-committee II, who was the representative of Colombia, requested the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to nominate two states holding a neutral attitude in place of two Arab states, who were members of the sub-committee and who were willing to resign from it. On the refusal of the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, the representative of Colombia resigned his Chairmanship of sub-committee II and Sir Zafarullah was elected in his place.
Sub-committee I, in its report recommended the internationalization of Jerusalem and the partition of rest of Palestine into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish, with a common economic council. Sub-committee II recommended a unitary state for the whole of Palestine with constitutional safeguards for the rights of all its inhabitants.
A Crucial Mission
Although Mirza Mahmud left Qadian and had come to Lahore and was faced with the crucial problem of finding a place to set up a centre in Pakistan, he never lost sight of Palestine question. When the issue was being discussed in the UN, he instructed Hakim Fazal Rahman, Qadiani missionary of Nigeria, to visit Palestine immediately. Walillah Shah and Jalaluddin Qamar were also instructed to go to Middle East and East Africa respectively to provide support to them. Hakim Fazal Rahman reached Beirut on 31 October 1947. Sheikh Noor Ahmad, Qadiani missionary Palestine writes:
“Hakim sahib suddenly arrived in Beirut and made effort to search me out. I was in Lebanon to see the cousin of Jamil Bek, the Prime Minster of Lebanon. I met Hakim Sahib on my return from Lebanon. Since he had to reach Pakistan, he wanted to go to Palestine at the very earliest. Anyhow, he left for Palestine on 4 November. Jama’at Kababir welcomed him, Hakim Sabib toured the cities of Jerusalem, Nasara, and Acca. He desired to see members of the Arab League Committee but owing to shortage of time he could not visit them. He stayed in Palestine for ten days. Then he left for Damascus. Noor Ahmad further states that he went to Beirut in connection with a very important work. During his absence from Damascus, Hakim Sahib saw many Barristers and Advocates, besides military officers. Hakim left for Karachi on 22 November 1947.”
Palestine issue came under frequent discussions in Lahore. In an important meeting held at Lahore, Mirza Mahmud discussed it in the context of an Arabic revelation of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad which says:‘The holy men (Abdals) of Syria prayed for us (Arabic).‘ He interpreted it to mean that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at had to go to Syria in near future.
‘Hazoor (Mirza Mahmud) while discussing the revelation of the Promised Messiah that ‘Abdals of Syria prayed for you’ declared that a friend had drawn his attention to the point that the Promised Messiah ‘s revelation had come in the context of those revelations which signified distress. Hazoor said that this revelation had already been under his consideration. In Palestine adverse condition were prevailing. However, it would be possible that a section of Ahmadiyya Jama’at from us might have to go Syria. The revelation can be interpreted in two ways: One that the Abdal of Syria prayed to God for us and the other that they called us.‘ Amended Plan
In the UN, Sir Zafarullah opposed the partition scheme in accordance with the stand taken by Pakistan on the Palestine issue. It may be recalled that the Quaid had always supported the Palestinian cause in numerous conferences, interviews, press releases and through the resolutions of the Muslim League at its annual sessions, Council and Working Committee Meetings from 1937-48.Pakistan’s stand was absolutely clear. In reply to a question by Reuter’s correspondent Duncan Hooper (25 October 1947), the Quaid said:
‘The leader of our delegation to the UN, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, has clearly defined our position regarding the latest developments in Palestine.’
Strangely enough when discussions were going on the partition scheme in the UN, Zafarulla started proposing amendments to it, which meant that he, in principle, agreed to the scheme if it was slightly amended. That was said to be done on the suggestion of Danish representative with a view to ‘crippling’ the scheme. Zafarullah says that he proposed an amendment just to see the reaction on it but the amendment was immediately accepted after voting.
Syed Jamal-ul-Hussaini, the leader of the Palestine delegation hurriedly approached him and enquired why he had done like that. Sir Zafarullah says that he explained the position and apprised him of the Danish strategy. To his utter surprise, he asked him in case all of his amendments were accepted he would favour the partition scheme: Zafarullah: No! We will be strongly opposing it. We want at least to weaken the partition plan even if it is accepted. It will not be as bad as it is now.
Jamale : We (Palestinians) will be in great difficulty then.
Zafarullah: You may inform Arab representatives that they may not vote in favour of an amendment and remain neutral.
Jamal: The difficulty still persists.
Zafarullah: What is that?
Jamal: If the Partition has not manifestly usurped our right, our people will not be prepared to wage a war against it. We will incur a heavy loss. We will be thankful if you do not propose any amendment!
Zafarullah: I got silent.
What was the real intention of Sir Zafarullah? Did he intend to sabotage Palestine case by favouring an amended Partition Plan instead of a unitary form of Government for a united Palestine? How far it projected Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue? These questions need a suitable reply.
Sir Zafarullah, in his speech, deeply sympathised with the Jews in the misfortune that they had suffered in Europe. But the correct solution of their problem, he pleaded, was that they should be reabsorbed in the countries to which they belonged and if that were not possible, they should be offered facilities for settling down in the larger, newer countries, which had more space and greater resources than tiny Palestine.
The supporters of the partition scheme were determined to see it through at all costs. The vote was to be taken in plenary session on 26 November 1947. But according to Sir Zafarullah, if it had been put to the vote on that day, partition could not have been carried. But the UN Secretary General informed that the UN staff would not work on Thanksgiving Day (28 November) therefore the matter must be postponed. When the matter came to actual voting after the adjournment, some of the states whose representatives opposed partition proposal tamely supported it at the behest of America and the resolution was passed. Then necessary two third majority was obtained for the partition scheme which was backed both by the US and the Soviet Union. Zafarullah feels convinced that it was the personal intervention of President Truman that brought about these changes.’
During the thanksgiving interval when the US was availing time to secure required majority for the Partition Plan, a correspondent asked Sir Zafarullah: What were the basis of successful negotiations between Arab and Jews? He replied: ‘If they agree to appoint me an Arbitrator I can solve the matter on correct lines.’24 It is not clear why and in what capacity he offered his services for arbitration and how far it fell in line with our stand on Palestine?
What was Ahmadiyya reaction to the ‘creation’ of Israel? AlFazl Lahore wrote a short column on the unjust resolution of partition and creation of a Jewish state. It was called a great defeat for the Arabs but at the same time its two bright aspects were stressed. Firstly, the Arab countries would know how to stand on their feet without inculcating wishful thinking for the West. Secondly the Arab countries would have realized the benefits of unity.
The paper neither condemned the partition nor exposed Imperialist-Zionist intrigues in any way. On the contrary Mirza Mahmud called the creation of Israel a fulfillment of prophecy already given in the Holy Quran, Ahadith and the Bible. The Qadiani elders also emphasized that Mirza Mahmud had already visualized it in a dream and his prophecy relating to ‘Modified Treaty’ clearly stipulated the Soviet assistance for the Jewish state. The prophecy is said to have been gloriously fulfilled after the creation of Israel.27
Zafarullah ‘s Role
Sir Zafarullah, in the capacity of the leader of Pakistan delegation to the UN was supposed to project Pakistan’s stand on Palestine issue. I.H.Ispahani says Zafarullah did well Anyhow, he was Pakistan’s representative and not a spokesman of Qadian. But it is very strange that whenever Qadiani role in support of Jewish “aspirations ” is exposed, they quote Pakistan press comments given in favour of Zafarullah’s speech at the UN, as if Pakistan stand on the issue was similar to that of Qadian’s. It is nothing but an attempt to conceal real facts.
The fact is that Zafarullah later on exploited Pakistan stand and his position to project Qadianism and to deceive Arab countries. When he returned from the UN he deliberately stayed in Syria to spend some time with Ahmadiyya community in Syria. He was welcomed at the airport by the Syrian officials as well as Sheikh Noor Ahmad Munir and other members of Qadiani community. Also present at the airport were Syed Sohail, the personal envoy of Syrian President, Ustaz Arif Hamza, representative of Syrian ministers, Ghalib Muoze Bek, General Superintendent Police, Fuad Mueen Bek and Izzat, and members of the Arab League. Zafarullah met the Syrian dignitaries in an ordinary and casual way but freely chatted with Qadiani members and warmly embraced them at the airport. That looked quite strange to the Syrian officials.
Noor Ahmad Qadiani writes in his report:
‘The representatives of Arab League asked the police officers who were these men (whom Zafarullah met so frankly). But he did not know Chaudhry Sahib had come to Damascus on our invitation and in accordance with our requests. His arrival here was a source of joy for us and moved by these feelings, every one desired to exchange greetings and embraced him with love. Every Syrian seemed to be surprised at it. They thought that Chaudhry Sahib had come here as a stranger. The Syrian press highlighted the reception accorded by Ahmadiyya Jama’at to him. In this way the Syrians came to know about the religious and political position of the Jama’at.’ Noor Ahmad further states: ‘The Syrian President requested Sir Zafarullah to have a lunch with him on 13 December 1947. He also invited me to lunch. We were informed that he (Zafarullah) would be the stage guest and a room had been reserved for him. Chaudhry Sahib asked me to request the President to allow him to stay with his Ahmadi brothers. He would like to stay in the hotel for only one night for his pleasure. I conveyed a literal translation of it to the President. He was very much amazed to hear it and inquired with surprise: ‘With whom he would stay’? I explained him in detail that Chaudhry Sahib would stay with us and we had made all arrangements in this regard.’ 31 Sir Zafarullah called on Mufti-e-Azam Palestine in Lebanon and exchanged views on Palestine question with high officials. He lunched with the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Jamil Bek alongwith a Qadiani party. Some important political issues were discussed during his stay with the President. In Beirut, Um-e-Jazam, the widow of the former President of Lebanese Parliament, Sheikh Muhammad Jassar was engaged in political activities. She and her husband embraced Qadianism for political reasons.
Zafarullah gave a proposal to Mirza Mahmud to launch a proselytising campaign in Arab states through setting up new mission. In subsequent years he fielded his missionaries in the Middle East in accordance with this plan.
Activities in Israel
Soon after the so-called State of Israel was proclaimed, the Palestinians waged an all out war against the Zionist forces. The Arab countries, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Egypt went into action against the Jewish state in support of Arabs of Palestine. Saudi Arabia and Yemen declared their participation in the war on the side of the Arab countries. In the armed conflict most of the territory of Arab states was forcibly annexed by Israel. The General Assembly ‘decision’ of 29 November 1947 for one Arab state remained unfulfilled. Israel carved out for herself 20700 sq. kilometer or nearly four-fifth of Palestine.
Ch.Muhammad Sharif, in his report sent from Israel to Pakistan calls the Israeli aggression, its ‘Victories’ and says:
‘On 23 April, 1948 Jews conquered Haifa. On 24 and 25 May they occupied suburbs of Haifa. Now came the turn of Arab population of Kababir. Early in the morning it was surrounded by the armed forces. They asked us if we wanted to leave the place then we should deposit all arms and surrender. We acted in accordance with the saying of the Holy Prophet (p.b.o.h), ‘A man who dies in defense of his wealth and land is a martyr.’ No army officer approached us. We gave ‘all clear’ (to the Jewish military forces) after making hectic search and investigation till evening.’ Mirza Mahmud fully realized the importance of Ahmadiyya Mission in Israel. He sent a special message ot Qadiani community of Israel from Lahore, a day before the termination of the British mandatory rule in Palestine. He instructed Kababir Jama’at of Israel not to sell their lands to Jews. Dost Muhammad, the compiler of Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat quotes an unpublished record of Ahmadiyya Advisory Body, Ratan Bagh, Lahore, dated 15 May 1948 stating that Hazrat Khalifa sent the following message to Ahmadis of Israel: ‘Write to Ahmadis of Syria to convey through whatever means they have, the message to Ahmadis of Kababir (Israel) to spend the difficult days with patience and in no way sell their lands to Jews whatever prices are offered to them.’ Brutal massacres and destructions were wreaked on Arab villages by Zionist organizations. There was ruthless murder of children and old people. The whole population of village Deir Yassin was mercilessly slain by the Hagana forces. The unarmed Palestinians fled in utter despair and panic from the villages to save their lives. During these days Ahmadi missionaries found an ‘excellent’ opportunity to exploit the miseries of Palestinian refugees. They visited the refugee camps and invited them to accept the false prophethood of Qadiani pretender. They also spied for the Zionists and informed them of the Palestinian resistance activities.
Rashid Ahmad Chughatai, in his report for the months of August-October, 1948 sent from Israel to Pakistan states:
‘I went to the city of Saur to see Ahmadiyya brothers of Haifa. There I preached Ahmadiyyat to Palestinian refugees. I stayed there for two days on the insistence of Ahmadi brothers. Besides preaching I spared time for their training. The Ahmadiyya message was given to 29 persons. Discussions took place with one of them for 4 to 6 hours. Some books were given to him to study Ahmadiyya creed.’ These shameful activities continued in utter disregard of the miserable plight of helpless refugees residing in tents and open. Ch.Sharif sent a report from Israel to Pakistan for the period 15 August, 1948-June, 1949. He says: ‘We saw the cities falling in front of our eyes. During these days nothing was heard except fire shots and every night we thought the day would not break on us. Although we were surrounded yet we continued to spread the message of Ahmadiyyat.’ An Absurd Proposal
On 16 May 1948 at the time of withdrawal of British forces from Palestine, Mirza Mahmud wrote a pamphlet in Urdu on Palestine question. Its Arabic translation was published from Iraq for wider circulation in the Middle East. The main theme of the pamphlet was:
Jews are occupying the holy places of Islam in accordance with the prophecies of the Heavenly Books. They intend to occupy the holy places of Islam. The greatest enemy of Islam is the Soviet Union. Its policy is much more dangerous to Islam than that of America. Pakistani Muslims should give at least one percent of their properties to the Government. In this way Rs. one billion may be collected. The Islamic world will follow the example and would contribute a sum of Rs. five to six billion for purchase of arms despite opposition from the Western countries. The holy places of Islam are in danger. Muslims should unite to defend them. In the end, it was emphasized that the prophecies of the Quran and Hadith undoubtedly stated that: ‘Jews would certainly occupy Palestine but only pious people would rule it forever. To shorten the period of prophecy Muslims should make sacrifice by casting aside their irreligiousness, heretic beliefs, lethargy and sluggishness.’ The pamphlet does not condemn Israel nor its brutal policies against the Arabs. Neither any sympathy with the Palestinian refugees has been expressed in any way. The proposal to hand over one percent of properties is not only impracticable but also ridiculous. At the time of partition, the Muslim refugees had even no place to take refuge not to speak of their properties. It was an attempt to win over the sympathies of Arabs in order to establish future pro-Zionist missions in the Middle East. Qadianis always considered themselves the chosen and pious people who would ultimately settle in Israel. Being firm believers in the prophecies of their Promised Messiah, Qadianis uphold that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s revelations i.e. ‘I have saved Israel from detriment. The Pharaoh and Human, the armies of both, are in the wrong,.. Avenues useful for Arabs, Arabs set out from their home’ relate to restoration of Jews in Palestine. The Review of Religions, Rabwah, explains: ‘This feature of the prophecy received a clear fulfillment. The war (1914) was not yet over when, a sa consequence of war itself Mr. (later Lord) Balfour declared that the people of Israel who had without a ‘homeland’ would be settled in their ancient ‘homeland’, Palestine. The allied nations promised to compensate the people of Israel for injustices done to them in the past. In accordance with these declarations, Palestine was taken from Turkey and declared the national home for the Jews. The administration of Palestine was shaped so as to make it easy for Jews to make it their homeland. A very old demand of the Jews that conditions promoting their national cohension should be created for them was met…’38 The Qadiani jopurnal further emphasizes: ‘The revelation of the Promised Messiah also says ‘I will relieve the Children of Isreal.’ This indicated a great change in the position of the Jews. It indicated the end of the opposition which nations of the world had offered so long to an independent home for Jews.’
Mirza Nasir Ahmad, the third successor of the Ahmadiyya community, was on his European tour in 1980. At a press Conference at the Café Royal in Piccadilly, in reply to question whether he recognized the State of Israel, he stated that he could not refuse to accept a fact of history that Israel exists.After his death Mirza Tahir Ahmad captured the Rabwah ‘gaddi.’ He very shrewdly put forth his point of view over the issue. His booklet ‘From Rabwah to Tel Aviv’ is an interesting study on the subject.
During the Gulf War (1991), he gave a series of ‘revealing’ addresses and an analysis of the role of big powers in the political upheavals in the Middle East. He also discussed the past role of Israel as an ally of Western countries. 40 It was an updated beat, a smoke screen to debunk the anti-Ahmadiyya propaganda. He continued to enjoy the support of Western countries and the Jewish lobby.