Ambedkar’s View On Islam
A staunch critic of Islam who questioned Muslim Patriotism
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar was the chief architect of Indian Constitution. He was born in a community that was considered untouchable and hence subjected to a lot of social and economic discrimination. Ambedkar along with some 3,65,000 of his supporters renounced Hinduism to take up Buddhism on 14 October 1956.
Ambedkar was certain about embracing only a religion with Indian roots (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) because he believed that the monotheistic principles of Abrahamic faiths did not fit in the pluralistic nature of the Indian society.
Among all Abrahamic faiths, Ambedkar was most critical of Islam. Liberals in India who often cite Ambedkar’s criticism of the caste system in Hindusim conveniently ignore his views on Muslims and Islam.
In his book ‘Pakistan Or The Partition Of India’, first published in 1940, he writes -
The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
Ambedkar opined that Muslims think of Hindus as inferior beings and would find it hard to accept the authority of a Hindu majority government.
To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if a proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.
For reference, The Khilafat Movement (1919-1924), was a pan-Islamic, political protest campaign launched by Muslims in British India to influence the British Government and to protect the Ottoman empire during the aftermath of First World War.
Mahatma Gandhi had supported the movement as part of his opposition to British Empire and he also advocated wider non-cooperation movement at the same time. Vallabhbhai Patel, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and other Congress figures also supported the movement.
In Northern Kerala, the Khilafat agitation against the British rule became a religious uprising and was directed against non-Muslims. In August 1921, thousand of Hindus were massacred, a large number of women were raped and temples were vandalized. This incident was called Moplah Massacre.
On loyalty to Religion over Region, he said —
Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.
Explaining the concept of Islamic & Non-islamic countries -
According to Muslim Canon Law, the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans — but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’ Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam, it becomes Dar-ul-Harb
He wrote that Muslims would always choose Rule of Islam over Rule of Law-
Among the tenets, one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land
He further wrote —
There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam.
He also mentions ‘Hijrat’, the Islamic Psychology of Migration for the sake of Jihad. This also explains the unusual current trend of ‘Migration Jihad’ where middle-eastern immigrants seek refuge in modern, developed European nations instead of wealthy Arab nations.
Watch this video (with English subtitles) if you thought only Hinduism had caste system-
Throwing light on the caste system among Muslims citing the 1901 Census, Ambedkar wrote-
Census for 1901 for the province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal: The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes — Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan has very little application to this province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognise two main social divisions: Ashraf or Sharaf and Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups, and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, ‘Ajlaf’, ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’. In some places a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all’, is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground. Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.
Hinduphobic groups often quote Ambedkar for his criticism of Hindus, but they conveniently ignore that while he never questioned the patriotism of Hindus, he always questioned Muslims’. Veer Savarkar was open to accommodating Muslims in India. But, for the liberals, Savarkar was a bigot and Ambedkar a hero.
Read this left-leaning digital news publication’s article on Hindutva icon Veer Savarkar
