Ambedkar's Views On Islam Were Based In The Exclusivist And Extremist Interpretations Of Islam Evolved During The Era Of Arab Imperialism, Not Islam's Original Scriptures
Ambedkar Considers Flaws Of The Indian
Muslim Society Like Casteism As The Flaws Of Islam. Nowhere Else In The World Muslims
Practice Casteism. The Bane Of Global Muslim Society Is Sectarianism, Not
Casteism. Untouchability Is Not Practised Even In Caste-Ridden Indian Muslim Society
Main Points:
1.
Ambedkar
was misled by the interpretations of some hardline Islamic scholars that
evolved during the era of Arab expansionism. With Mahatma Gandhi promoting
regressive Khilafat movement in opposition to Jinnah, Ambedkar too was
influenced by Deobandi and Wahhabi Version of Islam that had started gaining
ground due to its alliance with the Congress party that was spearheading Indian
Independence movement.
2.
Ambedkar
accepts that Casteism among Indian Muslims has roots in Hinduism. Hindus who
converted to Islam left their religion but could not go beyond caste
distinctions despite Islam' unequivocal message of equality and fraternity.
3.
Delhi
Sultanate strengthened casteism in Indian Muslims.
-----
By New Age Islam Staff Writer
16 April 2022
File image of BR Ambedkar. Wikimedia
Commons
-----
Ambedkar
was the architect of Indian Constitution. He was one of the greatest leaders of
India and the fighter for the cause of the downtrodden and the so-called
'untouchables' whom Gandhiji called Harijans but who now prefer to call
themselves Dalits . He was so much against the caste system of Hinduism that he
renounced the religion of his forefathers, that is, Hinduism and converted to
Buddhism. However, as a scholar and as an anthropologist, he also studied Islam
and observed its practical applications in the Muslim Society.
On his
close observation of Islam, Ambedkar, though appreciates the fundamental
philosophy of equality, brotherhood and justice envisaged by Islam, yet he
formed a negative concept of Islam. His ideas on Islam were based on the
exclusive and extremist interpretations of Islam presented by some hardline
Islamic scholars of the middle ages and being then propagated by Wahhabis.
Muslim religious class was then promoting the idea of composite culture and
Darul Sulh and Darul Aman but Ambedkar must have read traditional books that
only talk about Sarul Islam and Darul Harb.
These ideas
are present in his book Pakistan or Partition of India. In his article on
FirstPost, Aabhas Maldahiyar's reading is based on this book and Ambedkar's observations on Islam have been
presented without any critical scrutiny. The purpose of the author seems to
bring home the point that Muslims making Ambedkar their ideal to form
Dalit-Muslim unity are not aware that Ambedkar never appreciated Muslims and
never considered them patriots or loyal to either Hindus or even Dalit who were
then called Harijans.
The Author
quotes Ambedkar as saying that Muslims never accepted a country as their
motherland if it is ruled by Hindus or non-Muslims and that they consider
Hindus kafir and the country of Hindus as Dar-al- Harb. Muslims want to live
only in Dar-al-Islam, a country ruled only by Muslims. And Muslims believe that
they should continually wage jihad against a Dar-al-Harb until it is converted
into a Dar-al-Islam. The fact is that the Quran does not use the terms Dar-al-Harb
and Dar-al-Islam. These terms have been coined by some classical Islamic
scholars. The author also says that Ambedkar was of the view that Islam
promoted or supported casteism as the Muslim society was divided into Ashraf
(upper caste) and Ajlaf (lower caste) and the upper caste consider members of
lower castes as untouchables and never gave them respect and their social
rights.
It sems
that instead of reading and studying Islam from its original sources, the Quran
and hadith and the practices of the holy prophet pbuh, Dr B.R. Ambedkar formed
his ideas about Islam from the exclusivist and extremist exegeses of the Quran
and commentaries of the Islamic scholars of the middle ages as well as of the
modern age. Ambedkar says that Maulana Mohamed Ali being an Indian preferred to
be buried in Jerusalem to prove that he was not a patriot. But Ambedkar ignores
scores of other nationalist Muslim leaders, thinkers and philosophers who
fought for the independence of India and were buried in Indian soil. A selective
approach only misleads people.
Dr
Ambedkar's view that Islam institutionalises casteism is also based on a wrong
understanding of the Muslim society. The flaws and evils of the Muslim society
do not mean the flaws and evils of Islam. The Quran and Hadith do not support
casteism and the only criterion for superiority in Islam is piety. It is a fact
that casteism among Muslims is only the result of the impact of casteism in the
Hindu society. The casteist hierarchy in Indian society was so deeply entrenched
in the Indian society that when a Hindu converted to Islam he would be ascribed
a caste in Islam according to his caste in his previous religion. For example,
if a Brahmin would convert to Islam, he would be ascribed the Shaikh caste. If
a Rajput would convert to Islam, he would be ascribed the caste of Pathan and
so on. The caste system among the Muslims of India was also strengthened by the
Iranian rulers of India. According to historian Ziauddin Burney, during the
Delhi sultanate, no lower caste Muslim was appointed in bureaucracy or as a
minister. During the life of the prophet of Islam or during the caliphate of
the four rightly guided caliphs, Muslims were appointed on government posts
according to their administrative abilities. During the caliphate of Hazrat
Ali, some Brahmin Hindus from India were given responsibilities in the
government because of their skills and abilities.
Therefore,
the article of Aabhas Maldahiyar makes it clear that Dr Ambedkar's
view on Islam and Muslims was based on the interpretations of some classical
and modern fundamentalist scholars and commentators and does not present a true
picture of Islam. Modern Dalits would well to study original scriptures and
progressive emerging Islamic theology suitable for the 21st century. In any
case, with their loyalty to the Indian nation Muslims have proved Ambedkar's
reservations ill-founded. They have refused to be provoked under repeated
threats of genocide, rape and vilest abuses being chanted in front of their
mosques. If Ambedkar were alive today, he would have revised his opinions about
both Islam and Indian Muslims.
------
How BR Ambedkar’s Idea Of Islam
Exposes Woolly-Headed Liberals Of The Day
By
Aabhas Maldahiyar
April 15,
2022
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.
—
‘Pakistan or Partition of India’, by Dr BR Ambedkar
Imagine
these words coming from any public figure of the current era. He would have
certainly been branded an Islamophobe by the flag-bearers of Western
liberalism. Ironically, these are the words of the man who has often been
invoked by those who fail to acknowledge the existence of Islamist terror in
India. Ambedkar’s portrait was even being championed by the soft rioters during
the CAA agitation.
Recently,
we saw a series of clashes when Ram Navami processions passed in front of
mosques. Ambedkar categorically documented this being an age-old phenomenon.
This can be found on page numbers 167, 168 and 269 (based on the edition
available in this link). I have also collated these excerpts in this thread of
tweets. Ironically, yet again, I observed people weeping for the “India of
Ambedkar” on many news channels while trying to vilify the Madhya Pradesh
government’s action against the rioters.
In
Ambedkar’s own words, “Islam is said to bind people together, but 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 the 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. The second defeat 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 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. 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.”
Ambedkar
believed that a Muslim couldn’t accept a Hindu government for they regarded
“Hindus” as “Kafirs”, and hence inferior. Read what he writes in the context:
“How far will Muslims obey the authority of a government manned and controlled
by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not call for much inquiry. 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 which 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 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. A Musalman wrote in the Khilafat paper
called Insaf: “What is the meaning of Swami and Mahatma? Can Muslims use these
words in speech or write these words about non-Muslims?” He says that Swami
means ‘Master’, and ‘Mahatma’ means ‘possessed of the highest spiritual powers’
and is equivalent to ‘Ruh-i-Aazam’, and the supreme spirit.
Ambedkar
further writes, “He asked the Muslim divines to decide by an authoritative
fatwa whether it was lawful for Muslims to call non-Muslims by such deferential
and reverential titles.”
Ambedkar
was very clear that Muslims prefer “Law of Islam” over “Law of Land” which
evident from what he writes as below: “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.”
Ambedkar
talked about Dar-ul-Islam and claimed that Muslims fought the British only for
it. He also said that Muslims would continue jihad to establish it and won’t be
wary of seeking foreign aid. Read the below excerpt: “According to Muslim Canon
Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (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-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.”
Ambedkar
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.”
And just as
there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are
instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim jihad. The curious
may examine the history of the 1857 mutiny and if he does, he will find that,
in part, it was a jihad proclaimed by the Muslims against the British, and that
the mutiny so far as the Muslims were concerned was a recrudescence of revolt
which had been fostered by Sir Sayyed Ahmad who preached to the Musalmans for
several decades that owing to the occupation of India by the British the
country had become a Dar-ul-Harb. The mutiny was an attempt by the Muslims to
reconvert India into Dar-ul-Islam.
A more
recent instance was the invasion of India by Afghanistan in 1919. It was
engineered by the Musalmans of India who, led by the Khilafatists’ antipathy to
the British government, sought the assistance of Afghanistan to emancipate
India. Whether the invasion would have resulted in the emancipation of India or
whether it would have resulted in its subjugation, it is not possible to say
because the invasion failed to take effect. Apart from this, the fact remains
that India, if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the
Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a
jihad.
People
often try to quote Ambedkar for his criticism of Hindus, but they forget that
while he never questioned Hindus for patriotism, he always questioned Muslims
for the same. Yes, he criticises Hindus for social issues but always saw Islam
to be carrying larger baggage of social evils. In the paragraphs below, his
opinions about social issues among Muslims are mentioned.
Ambedkar
writes, “The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well
known. The publication of Mother India by Miss Mayo gave these evils the widest
publicity. But while Mother India served the purpose of exposing the evils and
calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their sins, it
created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus
were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the
Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a
progressive people. That, such an impression should prevail, is surprising to
those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters.”
Ambedkar
firmly considered that Muslims have all the evils of “Hindus” and even
something more as he wrote: “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. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane
treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing
whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse.”
Ambedkar
quoted Sir W Muir as following: …rather, while lightening, he reverted the
fetter… There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves…” Ambedkar
wrote, “But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. As an
illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims.”
Then
Ambedkar detailed about the caste system among Muslims citing the 1901 Census
as he wrote: “Census for 1901 for the province of Bengal records the following
interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal: The conventional division of
the Mohammadans into four tribes— Sheikh, Syed, Moghul and Pathan has very little
application to this province (Bengal). The Mohammadans 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 Mohammadans including the occupational groups, and all
converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, ‘Ajlaf’,
‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or
Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless. 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.
I.
Ashraf Or Better Class Mohammadans
Saiads.
Sheikhs, Pathans, Moghul, Mallik, Mirza
Ii.
Ajlaf Or Lower Class Mohammadans
Cultivating
Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any
functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g.,
Pirali and Thakrai.
Darzi,
Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.
Barhi,
Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula
Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
Abdal,
Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam,Mucho, Nagarchi, Nat,
Panwaria, Madaria, Tuntia.
Iii.
Arzal Or Degraded Class
“Bhanar,
Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar”
Ambedkar
talked about the system of untouchability in Muslims. He mentioned that
“Azrals” are the untouchables in Islam. After giving an account of “evil
untouchability” in the panchayat system of Bengal, he asserted: “But the facts
for Bengal are enough to show that the Mohammadans observe not only caste but
also untouchability.”
Ambedkar
quoted The Census Superintendent as below: “The authority of the panchayat
extends to social as well as trade matters and… marriage with people of other
communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes
cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as
Hindu castes. The prohibition on intermarriage extends to higher as well as to
lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this
rule is transgressed, the offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat
and ejected ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot
ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the
community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation
and takes to other means of livelihood (…) thousands of Jolahas are butchers,
yet they are still known as Jolahas.”
So, to sum
it up, I must say that Ambedkar was a staunch critic of Islam and he considered
Muslims as a threat in India. While Savarkar was open to accommodating Muslims
in India, Ambedkar was completely against it. But, for the Western liberal
standards of rule, the former shall always remain a bigot and the latter a
hero.
This
article is the result of the author’s reading of Ambedkar’s book, ‘Pakistan
or Partition of India’.
----
Aabhas Maldahiyar is an architect and an author.
Views expressed are personal.
Source: How BR Ambedkar’s Idea Of Islam
Exposes Woolly-Headed Liberals Of The Day
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism