Report Wire - Dr BR Ambedkar’s views on Islam: Read what the ‘Liberals’ would by no means need you to know

Report Wire

News at Another Perspective

Dr BR Ambedkar’s views on Islam: Read what the ‘Liberals’ would by no means need you to know

9 min read
Dr BR Ambedkar's views on Islam: Read what the 'Liberals' would never want you to know

14 October 2021 marks the sixty fifth anniversary of the day when the chief architect of India’s Constitution Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar undertook one of many largest choices of his life-giving up Hinduism and embracing Buddhism. He together with shut to three,65,000 of his supporters gathered at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur, and renounced their religion to take up Buddhism.
Ambedkar was born right into a Mahar (Dalit) caste, who had been handled as untouchables and subjected to socio-economic discrimination. To convey an finish to this predicament, Ambedkar determined to relinquish Hinduism and undertake one other religion. After considering for over 2 a long time on which faith dovetailed completely along with his necessities, he homed in on Buddhism and transformed to the stated faith on 14 October 1956.
But earlier than he determined which religion would he select, Ambedkar was sure about one factor: His faith of conversion can be from the Indian soil and never the one which had its roots elsewhere. He had deeply analysed the Abrahamic faiths at the moment and concluded that their homogeneity and monotheistic ideas didn’t match with the varied and pluralistic nature of the Indian society.
Among the three Abrahamic faiths, Ambedkar was most important of Islam. It is a travesty of historical past then that BR Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system is routinely cited by ‘liberals’ to scorn and deride Hinduism, however whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and extra particularly the historical past of Muslims in India, have acquired little crucial scrutiny and has been swept below the carpet.
One of the enduring traits of Babasaheb Ambedkar was his forthrightness and his unapologetic expression of his opinions. He didn’t flinch from talking his thoughts out, usually weighing in on complicated points that politicians at the moment studiously prevented.
For occasion, the criticism of Islam was thought-about a political scorching potato then and even after a long time of India’s independence, however that didn’t deter Babasaheb Ambedkar from expressing his strident views on the Islamic doctrines and beliefs.
Ambedkar’s scathing views on Islam and Muslims in India
A compendium of Ambedkar’s ideas on Islam and Muslims in India may very well be discovered within the seminal ebook ‘Pakistan Or The Partition Of India‘, first printed in 1940, with subsequent editions in 1945 and 1946. The ebook, a group of his writings and speeches, lays naked a staggering account of what Ambedkar thought of Islam.
Those ideas have the potential of incomes him the tag of “Islamophobic” by radical Islamists right now.
In crude and lucid language, Ambedkar expounded that Islam was a divisive faith, a religion that segregated individuals into inflexible teams of Muslims and non-Muslims, the place the advantages of brotherhood and fraternity had been restricted solely to the previous, i.e Muslims, whereas the latter was handled with contempt and enmity.
“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. 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,” BR Ambedkar wrote in ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’.
Ambedkar additionally elucidated the incompatibility of Islam with native self-government. Underscoring the Islamic ideology of Muslim Ummah, Ambedkar stated loyalty of a Muslim shouldn’t be primarily based on his domicile within the nation however on the religion to which he belongs. Islam, based on BR Ambedkar, may have by no means allowed a real Muslim to undertake India as his motherland. For that to occur, the institution of Islamic rule was crucial.
This was a bleak risk provided that India was a Hindu majority nation. Therefore, he concluded that for a Musalman, India may by no means be his motherland. This, in fact, was the cornerstone of the two-nation principle propounded by the Muslim League, which inevitably led to the partition of the nation.
“The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”
‘For a Musalman, loyalty to faith trumps his loyalty to the country’: BR Ambedkar on the query of Muslim allegiance to India
On the query of Muslim loyalty to his nation vis-a-vis his loyalty to Islam, Ambedkar wrote:
“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…The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to His Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…”
Ambedkar opined that the instructing of the Holy Quran rendered the existence of a steady authorities virtually unattainable. However, he was extra alarmed by the Muslim tenets that prescribed when a rustic is a motherland to the Muslims and when it’s not.
“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 stated.
As per Islamic teachings, the world was divided right into a binary setting: Muslim and non-Muslim international locations. This division, Ambedkar defined, was the premise of the extremist idea of Islamic Jihad. The appellation used to explain non-Muslim lands, Dar-ul-Harb, which roughly interprets to Land of War, is one other testomony to the bigotry promoted in opposition to the non-believers.
‘To Muslims of India, a Hindu is a Kaffir and therefore, undeserving of respect and equal treatment’: BR Ambedkar
The Muslim Canon Law made it incumbent upon Muslim rulers to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. This ideology was the cornerstone of the quite a few crusades that Islamic invaders from the center east carried out to beat India ranging from across the 9-Tenth century.
In truth, this ideology powers Jihad even right now when 1000’s of Islamic terrorists world wide keep on with their campaign in opposition to non-believers, whom they pejoratively confer with as Kuffars or Kaffirs. How Muslims had been instructed to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam was summarised by Ambedkar as:
“…It might also be mentioned that Hijrat [emigration] is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. 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.” And simply as there are cases of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are cases exhibiting that they’ve not hesitated to proclaim Jihad,” Christophe Jaffrelot quoted Dr BR Ambedkar as saying in his ebook ‘Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analysing and Fighting Caste‘.
Addressing the query of Muslim obedience to a Hindu majority authorities on the centre, Ambedkar opined that it’s an inconceivable prospect to anticipate Muslims to simply accept the authority of a authorities dominated by a Hindu majority as a result of for them Hindus are Kaffirs and subsequently, unworthy of respect and undeserving of ruling them.
“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. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit…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,” BR Ambedkar had stated.
Ambedkar’s tackle the prevalence of caste inequities inside Islam
Ambedkar was additionally first amongst distinguished intellectuals of his time to convey to fore the prevalence of the caste system in Islam. Hinduism hitherto had lengthy been vilified for the existence of the caste system however Ambedkar highlighted that the dominance of the caste system and the observe of untouchability was pervasive in Islam as properly.
He stated Muslim society was riven by the social division between the Ashrafs and Ajlafs. The Ashrafs or the nobles included the international descendants and transformed Brahmins whereas the Ajlafs or wretches had been the decrease caste Muslims.
Even after their conversion into Islam, Muslims had been recognized and stratified accordingly primarily based on their caste. Besides Ashraf and Ajlaf, there was a 3rd class known as Arzals, which by many accounts is probably the most discriminated neighborhood amongst Muslims. Muslims had been forbidden from associating themselves with Arzals. Arzals weren’t allowed to enter mosques to supply prayers. In addition to this, Arzals had been additionally prohibited from utilizing the identical burial grounds as different Muslims. On events, they had been additionally handled as untouchables.
Ambedkar didn’t cease simply there. He pulled no punches in criticising Islam for the prevalence of kid marriage, non secular intolerance, the idea of slavery, rabid adherence to religion, the standing of ladies within the society, polygamy and varied different controversial practices.
“Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery, nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women,” Ambedkar stated whereas describing the scourge of casteism that plagues Islamic society in India.
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar was a person of nice discernment and character. At a time when different Congress leaders had been condoning behaviour that wanted to be known as out, Ambedkar made no bones about what he felt about Islam and Muslims in India. Unfortunately, a long time later as ‘liberals’ acceptable him and selectively invoke his statements to have a go at Hinduism, so as to drive Dalits away from their Hindu roots, this aspect of his life the place he presided over a radical and complete evaluation of Islam and the social maladies afflicting Muslims is conveniently brushed apart. It is time that Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s views on Islam receives the identical crucial scrutiny as his opinions on Hinduism have.