B R Ambedkar Was Certainly Not A Critical 'Friend' Of Islam

13 December 2025

While I appreciate Mr Ashrof's erudition, his latest piece, The Critical Friend: Ambedkar’s Mirror and The Crisis of Indian Islam, projects Dr B R Ambedkar as a friendly critic of Islam who cared for Islam and Muslims. Among the three Abrahamic faiths, Ambedkar was most critical of Islam. It is a travesty of history that BR Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system is routinely cited by ‘liberals’ to scorn and deride Hinduism, but whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and more specifically the history of Muslims in India, have received little critical scrutiny and has been swept under the carpet.

On the question of Muslim loyalty to his country 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…”

Before he decided which faith, he would choose, Ambedkar was certain about one thing: His religion of conversion would be from the Indian soil and not the one that had its roots elsewhere. He had deeply analysed the Abrahamic faiths at that time and concluded that their homogeneity and monotheistic principles did not fit with the diverse and pluralistic nature of Indian society.

Among the three Abrahamic faiths, Ambedkar was most critical of Islam. It is a travesty of history then that BR Ambedkar, whose mortifying critiques of the caste system is routinely cited by ‘liberals’ to scorn and deride Hinduism, but whose trenchant criticism of Islam, and more specifically the history of Muslims in India, have received little critical scrutiny and has been swept under the carpet.

Highly educated Dr Ambedkar was a very shrewd and astute politician. His conversion to Buddhism (neo-Buddhism) was a political move. He was an agnostic or skeptic, if not an outright atheist. He rejected all organized faiths and his only motive to embrace Buddhism was the atheistic nature of pristine Buddhism because the Buddha never believed in any god. Nor did he believe in any organized faith. Ambedkar's Navyaan was Political Buddhism as he knew very well that to bind all Dalits together and make them follow him (Ambedkar), some kind of a religion was required. So, he accepted an atheistic religion and very intelligently discarded all three prevalent sects of Buddhism: Mahayaan, Hinayana and Vajrayan (it's actually Tantra sect of Hinduism). He conceptualised and created his own movement and gave it the colour of a faith which was an atheist faith. He called it Navyaan and his followers are called Ambedkarites and for them, Dr Ambedkar is a greater 'god' than even their 'Buddha', whom they call Lord Buddha.

Ambedkar was no (critical) 'friend' of Islam. He abhorred Islam. 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. Hinduphobic groups often quote Ambedkar for his criticism of Hinduism, but they conveniently ignore that while he never questioned the patriotism of Hindus, he always questioned Muslims’.  Savarkar was open to accommodating Muslims in India. But, for the liberals, Savarkar was a bigot and Ambedkar a hero. Read what he wrote in a rather crude manner in his book, Pakistan or partition of India, “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.”  Elsewhere, Ambedkar pointed out that Islam did not promote universalism but rather divided the world into Dar al-Islam (land of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (land of war), which made peaceful coexistence difficult. He was critical of the political behaviour of Muslims, whom he accused of prioritizing religious identity over national unity. These thoughts have the potential of earning him the tag of “Islamophobic” by radical Islamists today.

Mr Ashrof must read Arun Shourie's, " Worshipping false gods: Ambedkar, and the facts which have been erased." To Ambedkar, Muslims and Hindus were equally reprehensible and both the faiths were diabolical. Ambedkar was an opportunist who knew on which side his bread was buttered.

…

A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including Persian

URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/ambedkar-not-islam-friend-/d/137991

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