Dr.Ambedkar’s views on Islam and Indian Muslims Courtesy: Ganapathi Subramam & G. Vaidyanathan

1.  Dr. Ambedkar had written a book titled ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’ apart from his writings in a Marathi newspaper owned by him called ‘Bahishkruti Bharat’. The views and opinions were extracted from these two sources, mostly the first one.

2.  The muslims invaders were not interested merely in looting, but also in conversion of the ‘kafirs’. The hindu peasants had to part with half of their produce as Jiziya to the muslim rulers as well as pay a large tax on their cattle.

3.   It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the Muslim susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shuddhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic musalmans. But Mr.Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the musalmans not condemned these outrages but even Mr.Gandhi has never called upon the leading muslims to condemn them.

4.The muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world. Her fate is ‘once married always married’. She cannot escape the marriage tie, however irksome it may be. While she cannot repudiate the marriage, the husbands can always do it without having to show any cause. Utter the word ‘Tallak’ and observe continence for three weeks and the woman is cast away.

This latitude in the marriage and in the matter of divorce destroys that sense of security which is so fundamental for a full, free and happy life for a woman. This insecurity of life, to which a muslim woman is exposed, is greatly augmented by the right of polygamy and concubinage, which the muslim law gives to the husband.

5.   Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that islam must be free from slavery and caste. Slavery 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. The mohamedans observe not only caste but also un-touchability.

6.  The compulsory system of purdah to muslim women is a religious sanctity which it has not with the Hindus. The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared to its effects on morals. A social system which cuts off all contacts between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways.

7.  How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. Thee dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy.

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-lslam 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. It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims. It did greatly influence the conduct of the Muslims when the British occupied India. The British occupation raised no qualms in the minds of the Hindus. But so far as the Muslims were concerned, it at once raised the question whether India was any longer a suitable place of residence for Muslims. A discussion was started in the Muslim community, which Dr. Titus says lasted for half a century, as to whether India was Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-lslam.

9.    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 . Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam … there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad.

The curious may examine the history of the Mutiny of 1857 and if he does, he will find that, in part, at any rate, it was really 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 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 a Dar-ul-lslam … Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad a success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.

10.  To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of any respect. He is low-born and without status" This concept of Kaffir was extended even to Mahatma Gandhi by quoting his comrade-in-arm in the Khilafat movement, Mr. Mahomed Ali who said, " However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he may be without character" and  " Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."

11.  Mrs. Annie Besant says …The world has gone beyond such so-called theocracies, in which God's commands are given through a man. The claim now put forward by Musalman leaders that they must obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State in which they live, is subversive of civic order and the stability of the State … Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the 'Khilafat Raj' in India … there is no place in a civilised land for people who believe that their religion teaches them to murder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatise from their ancestral faiths … Such 'Laws of God' cannot be allowed to override the laws of a civilised country … In fact, Muslim sects are not safe in a country ruled by orthodox Muslims.

12.  Dr. Rabindra Nath Tagore, the poet, said he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even such men as Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that “under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohamedan."

13.  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 very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only ... 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 … 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. Also "The Muslims are howling against the Hindu Maha Sabha and its slogan of Hindudom and Hindu Raj. But who is responsible for this? Hindu Maha Sabha and Hindu Raj are the inescapable nemesis which the Musalmans have brought upon themselves by having a Muslim League. It is action and counter-action. One gives rise to the other.

Source:

Pakistan or The Partition of India, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Vol.8, Education Dept, Govt of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990