Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

It was Gandhi who manipulated religion for political ends and destroyed the unity that Jinnah had worked so hard to create. People like Tvarad are too biased to accept a fact of history. Jinnah was the only politician in the history of the subcontinent to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity.

It was the devious alliance between Caste Hindu fascist leaders like Gandhi and their side kick the Muslim Clergy that forced Jinnah to fight for and win Pakistan. Congress' inability to accept rational and secular leaders like Jinnah as the true representatives of Muslims and Congress' reliance on freaks and Mullahs instead led to the creation of Pakistan.

And ofcourse... while the clergy wanted to keep the Muslims backwards (and thus play into the Gandhian idea of India), Jinnah and the Muslims who followed him had asked for political and economic safeguards... something patently unacceptable to Gandhi and the Congress... Muslims like Jinnah daring to speak for them ... oh my God.
there is a much greater link of Gandhi to Moplahs and indeed Jamia Hafsa ... than the two nation theory that Jayp wants to malign and has even taken to inventing quotes... you know could care less to bring them together but if someone can so illogically argue and try to link the Islamo-fascist tendencies in a small minority of Muslims to our legtimate stance for Pakistan... then one should point out the obvious links between Gandhi and true Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist movements of South Asia... I do not wish to dwell Gandhi honestly but if this line of argument is taken... should I not point out the facts?


Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


and

’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.

and

A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.

http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm

Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.



Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them


The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.


And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".

The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.


The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.


The Khilafat Movement


In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.


In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”

Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.


Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.

In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.

According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.


The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.


Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)

Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.


And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.


As for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.... whether the Masadi likes it or not... ZAB was Jinnah's greatest fan though he managed to singlehandedly dent Jinnah's legacy by allowing the Ahmadis to be declared non-Muslims. But still it was Bhutto who gave Pakistan the Quaid-e-Azam Academy and the Jinnah propagation project.


Poor Masadi lies day in day out but Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote from his death cell :

"With the exception of your father, the Quaid-e-Azam and perhaps Suhrawardy either charlatans or captains have run this country. Perhaps things will change with a struggle spearheaded by the militant youth. If things do not change, there will be nothing left to change. Either power must pass to the people or everything will perish."

Masadi is a classic case of someone who doesn't bother to actually read something but resorts to second guessing and third rate patch work. Hardly the academic.

The poor guy probably hasn't read a single one of ZAB's books... certainly not "Myth of Independence". Had he actually read the book, he would have come across the chapter where ZAB quotes Beverley Nichols' famous "Interview with a Giant"... Suffice to say it is a slap on the face of Masadi and his abuse directed as Jinnah by none other than Masadi's own idol of worship the Raja of Larkana.

It is the finest defence of Jinnah, by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Whatever his faults, and ZAB was after all a Wadera above all else so there were many many many least of all his absolute contempt for people... but no one can fault Bhutto for his honest devotion to Mahomed Ali Jinnah (though it was never enough for him to actually emulate the great man's honesty and integrity and courage)

To quote (Ghulam Ahmed Parwez's) Tolu-e-Islam's website (Bhutto could have been addressing freaks like Masadi):

On December 21, 1976, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto addressed a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate of the federation held to commemorate the centenary of birth of Quaid-e-Azam. Addressing Quaid-e-Azam's portrait hanging on the wall, he said in a most dramatic fashion: -

"Quaid-eAzam!

I know what arrows pierced your heart (during struggle for Pakistan). The British said you were arrogant. This was understandable, because you had refused to bow before them. The Congress leaders and their henchmen called you stubborn. That too was to be expected, because they had failed to trick you. What is not understandable, and what must have certainly bewildered and distressed you is, that the nation, for whose sake you were putting up with all this, was in forefront of your tormentors!"

Then he went on to give details of what people from one province or the other had done against the Quaid-e-Azam. After this detail, he remarked about the irony that the Maulvis and Maulanas had also pounced upon him. He followed with an observation that among his critics, a certain person, although saying things similar to others, couched them in a comparatively fancy language. Then he started quoting in English, excerpts from the book by Mr. Maudoodi titled "Muslims and the Present Political Turmoil" Volume 3. He quoted so extensively, that the text covered two columns and a half of Pakistan Times of December 23, 1976.


So there... this lays to rest the uneducated and ignorant claims by Masadi about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Now we know how he will respond:

1. He will declare that I don't have the intellectual depth.

2. He will declare that he knows Bhutto better because he has done much research on god knows what.

3. He will declare that he is gospel truth himself.


In retrospect... the worst thing Jinnah did was to create opportunities for people like Masadi. It is anybody's guess what sewer Masadi would be in if it hadn't been for Pakistan.

Re: # 17

You are just too prolific when it comes to Mahatma. Though I am not a student of history, I can say one thing for sure that Gandhi's good-heartedness has shaped the thoughts of most of our people.

I or even you are not in a position to know what really happened during that era and we are left to infer from the documents. I believe the ability of the authors, of those artefacts; to not to get influenced by their own proclivity to ideologies would have been impossible.

The only way to infer Gandhi's qualities is to see the impact he has had on the lives of people around the world and the state of our society. Though we have several problems we still have a positive resultant feeling about our society, which in itself explains the sound principles of the leaders here.

Your idea of Gandhi might still have some authenticity, but you over do things and end up less credible. In your obsession I have seen you many times losing your objectivity. We never have lost sight of the fact that Gandhi was another human being but we also understand how difficult it is for an ordinary mortal to raise beyond his prejudice.

All I can say is whenever we think of Gandhi we resolve to be good human beings, which in itself is a great achievement of Gandhiji. I believe Gandhi’s intentions were good and I do not judge him based on few of his actions/decisions.

Anybody can quote people selectively and substantiate their ideas. Gandhi was a political leader and definitely he would have had his share of critics during his time.

The point Mr. Ramanan is that Gandhi is the father of bringing religion into politics for his own political ends.

I have quoted your own Congressmen and historians. The problem with people on chowk is that they make tall claims without backing up with historical facts.

I don't know what this goodheartedness is... all I know is that Gandhi wanted Mullahs to be in control of the Muslim community because Mullahs were less threatening (they did not ask for political safeguards and economic safeguards like secular Muslims like Jinnah did).... it is an old tactic of a majority leader.

You may read post 17 along these lines. Pakistani masses will always opt for a Jinnah or a Bhutto and never for a Maulana Azad or Maulana Fazlu. That is the bottomline.

#19 Posted by MantoLives on January 3, 2008 11:07:37 pm


Pakistani masses will always opt



that's moot really..seeing as how you'all won't really be given a real chance to opt for anything...you'll just have to go where the leash leads you...

Mantolives:

#19,

"The point Mr. Ramanan is that Gandhi is the father of bringing religion into politics for his own political ends."

The one thing I've learned about living in India is that you cannot remove religion from anything. And I'm saying this as an atheist.

The man was honest enough to say that his political philosophy was guided by his religion and yet worked towards an inclusive, secular nation. By him being Hindu, he didn't ask anyone to be less of a Muslim, Christian, Sikh or whatever. I respect people like Maulana Azad for the same reason.

The dishonesty with Jinnah was that he acted like he was secular but did everything in the name of religion. After getting Pakistan, he wanted to put the genie of communalism that he had released for his own ends back in the bottle and wanted Pakistan to be secular! Now that's hypocrisy.

Tvarad,

Once again you haven't bothered to read what I wrote. I completely disagree with what you've written. The man you are describing is NOT Gandhi but simply someone who exists in your head.

Go back to 17 and read what Gandhi really was. He is solely responsible for bringing the religion genie out of the disgusting bottle it should have been kept in.

Jinnah's concerns were the welfare of his community. Therefore religious theology was not the point. Because he wanted economic and political safeguards and not religious per se ... he was unacceptable to majoritarian fascists like Gandhi.

I suggest you read this part again:

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.


Ofcourse you respect Azad more. Leaders like Azad were never a threat to majoritarian fascism of Gandhiji and others. Infact the Mullahs like Azad, Maududi and Madani played Gandhi's game of keeping Muslims backwards educationally, politically, industrially etc.

Read 17 in toto again.

PS: Contrary to your claims though... Jinnah always put a clear foot forward after leaving the Congress. He took on the role of the spokesman of the Muslim community. It is qualitatively different from becoming a Mahatma.

Jinnah was absolutely clear that he was not a maulana or a religious leader but simply putting forward legitimate political and economic claims of his community.

His 11th August speech and vision for Pakistan was not any different from his entire career. He wanted a Pakistan based on justice, fairplay and equality for all citizens.

On the contrary the only hypocrites are people like Gandhi who kept up the facade and lie of secularism while promoting religious bigots and mullahs for their own political ends.

The only way for the survival of Pakistan

Pakistan was come into existence by the special gift of Allah “Subhana Wa Tallah” on August 14, 1947. If we remind the historical events of the creation of Pakistan, we would see a gloomy picture of hatred, violence and bloodshed at the time of partition and migration to and from Pakistan. Many of our cultured and so-called educated people now forced to believe that the creation of Pakistan was gifted by the English Rulers of the subcontinent, who woven a conspiracy against the Muslims of India and specially the Muslims of new country.

The fact that Pakistan was created on 27th of Holly month of Ramadan. The month which is sacred for its divine blessings from Allah. The prayers and religious offerings are accepted by the special grace of Almighty Allah and the Muslims are bestowed with the unseen prizes and gifts according to their purity of intentions and connection with their Mighty Creator Allah.

We on the whole as a Muslim Society living in Pakistan have totally ignored the facts and figures and true purpose of the creation of Pakistan. More or less 1 million Muslims were murdered or died during the transitional period of subcontinent. The day begins with the creation of Pakistan; we have been conspired with wrong mythology and ideas. We have forgotten the two nation theory which was the basic factor of the establishment of a Muslim estate in the subcontinent.

Pakistan was established in the name of Allah and to practice the Muslim laws, rules and regulations of Holly Quran. Our forefathers cheated us and spoiled the blood of martyrs of partition. The only way to survive our beloved Pakistan is to fulfill those promises which were undertaken by our forefathers with Almighty Allah. No peace and harmony can stay in this region without the practice of Quranic Code of Conduct in the society on the whole and individually at homes. We have to collectively fight to eradicate the evils of society like, drinking, telling lies, conspiring against each other for material pursuits, bribery, dishonesty in our routine dealings, forgery, cheating, dodging, using every hook and crook to get rich, availing opportunities against the national interest, supporting such elements who are harmful for the greatest interest of Islam and Pakistan, etc. etc.

We all know what evils have taken roots in our mind and hearts which have corrupted our body and souls and taken us far from the path of a civilized and cultured society which was the magnificence of Islam at the time of the rule of Hazrat Omer Bin Abdul Aziz (Razi Allah Ho Anho).

We have to adopt the Holly Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) in every dealing of our life otherwise we would be definitely vanished from the face of the earth and Allah will take charge to some other people to perform His Holly Duty.

Please reanalyze the circumstances ever since the creation of Pakistan and take the right step which would be in accordance to the Quranic Code of Conduct and Holly Sunnah.

aziz qureshi,

You are as mistaken as your Indian counterparts.

uba # 16

"were the muslim masses driven purely by a "sense of injustice"?. I believe that the "sense" was limited only to the muslim elite (zamindars, landed feudals & aristocrats) who inherited that sense from their forefathers who lost their priviledges in 1857."

Then you believe wrong. (Almost) every single Muslim was driven by a sense of injustice perpetrated against him or her by Hindus. The few who were not so driven attended evening prayers led by Gandhi.

whatever the wishes of the founders of Pakistan..the reallity is the reality. Religion is a major force driving the nation. why hide from it?

whatever the wishes of the founders of Pakistan..the reallity is the reality. Religion is a major force driving the nation. why hide from it?

"Islam has been used as a systematic tool for furthering political aims and governance authority within the aforementioned regimes."

Is this article a joke?

Pakistan was founded upon Political Islam that was the basis of TNT and division in 1947. Pakistan or "Pure-land" was based on the notion of Islamic purity of the momeen followers from naji idolators like me.

Every other regime there furthered the "purity" of Arabic identity of that political Islam - now Talibanis have clearly emerged as the consequence of that Arabic purity so eulogized by the Pakistanis.
Pakistan has been clearly moving towards Arabianization whereas idolator Indians have certainly moved towards de-dhimmification since independence.

Once again... laddu you are not very educated about the history of Pakistan. Your assertion is incorrect.

Please read 17.

I suggest you read this part again:

Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.

Re: # 30

Gandhi was stupid- I believe he could not bear to read the entire Medina portion of Quranic verses... so he was half educated about the 'bad cop' routine of Islam.....he probably thought Khilafat was some sort of a 'respect for all religions' state ......... but of course he was half educated in Islam and so he fell into the trap of Political Islam.... mullahs loved his dhimmitude by the way ...... he probably did not like Jinnah because Jinnah was a munafiqoon and ate pork.... Jinnah did not like those smelly mullahs who wanted to follow the second part of Medina Quran.... probably Jinnah also never went beyond the first part of Mecca Quran.....

#24 Posted by aziz.qureshi,

Are you telling this to people who have now invented a 'Visa God', in addition to the usual monkeys, cows and elephants as well as their excrement etc., and expect them to know what you're talking about?

But you have my sympathy!

Divine Intervention? Indians Seek Help From the 'Visa God'

By Vauhini Vara

HYDERABAD, India -- Lord Balaji is one of the most-worshiped local incarnations of the Hindu Lord Vishnu. His adherents flock to his many temples to pray for things like happiness, prosperity and fertility.

Lately, the deity has grown particularly popular at the once-quiet Chilkur Balaji temple here, where he goes by a new nickname: the Visa God. The temple draws 100,000 visitors a week, many of whom come to pray to Lord Balaji for visas to travel or move to the U.S. and other Western countries.

Wall Street Journal 31 Dec