What were Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar’s views on Islam? What did he say about Indian Muslims? Was Ambedkar really anti-Muslim, as is often claimed and propagated by the fringe Brahmanical or other Upper Caste Hindu groups in India? Read this on till the end to learn more about Ambedkar’s views on Islam in general and Indian Muslims in particular as he himself has elucidated in his famous book “Pakistan or Partition of India”.
Dr. BR Ambedkar was a visionary jurist, social reformer, and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution. He engaged profoundly with the complexities of various religious and social issues during his lifetime.
One facet of his multifaceted intellect that merits closer examination is his perspective on Islam and its followers namely Muslims.
Ambedkar’s views on Islam and Muslims are a crucial aspect of his broader discourse on religious tolerance, social justice, and the emancipation of marginalized communities.
While it needs little elaboration that Dr. Ambedkar was an unequivocal critic of Hindu-Brahmanism as can be evidenced from his 22 vows against Hinduism, occasionally, he also criticised the rigid attitude of at least some Indian Muslims if not the religion of Islam.
Religious tie of Islam is the strongest known to humanity: Ambedkar
While explaining the religious bonds between Arabs and Turks in the Ottoman Empire, in his book, Pakistan or Partition of India, Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “the religious tie of Islam is the strongest known to humanity. No social confederacy can claim to rival the Islamic brotherhood in point of solidarity“.
Delivering a lecture in Allahbad in 1907, Dr. Ambedkar once pointed out the contrast between Muslim and Hindu ways of thinking in the following terms-
“The worst that can be said of a Muslim was that he had a tasteless mess which he called a dish fit for kings, and wanted all to share it with him, thrusting it down the throats of such as did not relish it and would rather not have it, while his Hindu brother, who prided himself on his cookery, retired into the privacy of his kitchen and greedily devoured all that he had cooked, without permitting even the shadow of his brother to fall on his food, or sparing even a crumb for him. This was said not altogether in levity; and in fact, I once asked Mahatma Gandhi to justify this feature of his faith to me”.
While Ambedkar praised the strong religious unity amongst Muslims, he also lamented that the rise of nationalism had harmed that feeling to some extent.
He wrote that further, that while Islam kept Arabs, Turks, and Kurds in close ties, the spread of the western style of territorial and ethnic nationalism harmed their unity.
“There was no derogating distinction between the Turk and the Arab, and there was nothing to prevent the Arab from rising to the highest rank in the Ottoman services.”
“Not only politically but even socially the Arab was treated as his equal by the Turk and Arabs married Turkish wives and Turks married Arab wives.“
“Ought not the Arabs to have been satisfied with this Islamic brotherhood of Arabs and Turks based on fraternity, liberty, and equality?“
“Say what one may, the Arabs were not satisfied. Arab nationalism broke the bonds of Islam and fought against his fellow Muslim, the Turk, for its independence. It won, but Turkey was completely dismantled“.
Read More| Brotherhood in Islam: An Extraordinary Fraternity
Does Islam promote Slavery?
Referring to some European-Christian scholars like Sir W. Muir and Mr. John J. Pool, Dr. Ambedkar wrote that there is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves.
“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. As Sir W. Muir has well said “…rather, while lightening, lie riveted the fetter…. There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves.“
However, the observation of Christian Scholars as noted by Dr. Ambedkar is not correct because both Quran and Sahih Hadiths explicitly command Muslims to strive to get slaves freed from captivity and to treat them honorably.
Surah Al-Balad (Chapter 90), Verses 12-13: “And what can make you know what is breaking through the difficult pass? It is the freeing of a slave.
Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), Verse 177: It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East or the West, but righteousness is in one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, and the Prophets, and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves.”
What will explain to you what the ascent is? It is the freeing of a slave or the feeding in times of famine of an orphaned relative or some needy person in distress, and to be one of those who believe and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion. Those who do so are the people of the right hand, and [as for] those who are bent on denying the truth of Our revelations, they are the people of the left hand, and the Fire will close in on them. Al-Quran 90:12-20
One must also note many of the great companions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH (eg Bilal ibn Rabbah RA), scholars, patrons and rulers (eg Mamluk rulers across Muslim world) of Islam had been former slaves.
Further, Holy Quran castigates those who have power and wealth for not sharing that with slaves and bondspeople and for not making them equal to them.
And Allah has favoured some of you over others in provision. But those who have been much favoured would not share their wealth with those ˹bondspeople˺ in their possession, making them their equals. Do they then deny Allah’s favours? Holy Quran 16:71
Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 285, Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet (s) said, “Set free the captives and accept invitations.“
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: The Prophet said, “Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom).“
Furthermore, one of the main purpose of Zakat (a mandatory charity and one of the five fundamental pillars in Islam) as listed in Holy Quran is to free captives and slaves as can be ascertained from following verses of the Holy Quran.
Zakat expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect zakah and for bringing hearts together for Islam and for freeing captives or slaves and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the stranded traveler- an obligation imposed by Allah. And he is All-Knowing and All-Wise.” Holy Quran 9:60
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The pagans were of two kinds as regards their relationship to the Prophet and the Believers. Some of them were those with whom the Prophet was at war and used to fight against, and they used to fight him; the others were those with whom the Prophet (ﷺ) made a treaty, and neither did the Prophet (ﷺ) fight them, nor did they fight him. If a lady from the first group of pagans emigrated towards the Muslims, her hand would not be asked in marriage unless she got the menses and then became clean. When she became clean, it would be lawful for her to get married, and if her husband emigrated too before she got married, then she would be returned to him. If any slave or female slave emigrated from them to the Muslims, then they would be considered free persons (not slaves) and they would have the same rights as given to other emigrants. The narrator then mentioned about the pagans involved with the Muslims in a treaty, the same as occurs in Mujahid’s narration. If a male slave or a female slave emigrated from such pagans as had made a treaty with the Muslims, they would not be returned, but their prices would be paid (to the pagans). Sahih al-Bukhari 5286
Also Read–
- Equality in Islam: Quran and Prophetic Sayings
- Labour Rights in Islam: Quran and Hadith Quotes
- Are Arab Muslims superior to non-Arab Muslims?
Is there caste system in Muslims?
Dr. Ambedkar was a vehement critic of the caste system, and the disabilities and discriminations resulting from it.
With respect to Islam, he noted that while Islam in theory provided for a just, fair and egalitarian social system based on principles of equality and brotherhood, at least some classes of Indian Muslim still adhered to hierarchies and differentiations resembling caste system even if it is not as intense and rigid as it is in Hindu-Brahmanism.
Yet, he noted, that Islam provided for a flexible interclass social mobility to different social groups regardless of the tribal, ethnic or racial composition of the ruling class.
“There was no derogating distinction between the Turk and the Arab, and there was nothing to prevent the Arab from rising to the highest rank in the Ottoman services. Not only politically but even socially the Arab was treated as his equal by the Turk and Arabs married Turkish wives and Turks married Arab wives”- he observed in his book Pakistan or Partition of India.
“O people, verily your Lord is One and your father is one. Verily, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” Prophet Muhammad PBUH (Sahih at-Tirmidhi, Ahmad (22978)
Islam’s Progressive Elements: Alignment with Ambedkar’s Vision
Beyond critique, Ambedkar acknowledged the progressive aspects of Islam that resonated with his vision of social justice. He found common ground between his ideals and certain principles within Islamic teachings.
From concepts of social welfare to economic justice, Ambedkar recognized the potential synergy between Islamic tenets and his vision for a more equitable and inclusive society.
Read More| Equality in Islam: Quran and Prophetic Sayings
Who is responsible for Hindu-Muslim Communal Tensions?
In his book Pakistan or Partition of India, Dr. Ambedkar squarely blamed Congress, Brahmins and upper caste Hindus for provoking Muslims sentiments and for the resulting riots and violence in which backward and lower castes also suffered.
“Though the year 1922-23 was a peaceful year the relations between the two communities were strained throughout 1923-24. But in no locality did this tension produce such tragic consequences as in the city of Kohat. The immediate cause of the trouble was the publication and circulation of a pamphlet containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem.”
“The years 1930–31 saw the eruption of the Civil Disobedience Movement. It gave rise to riots and disturbances all over the country. They were mostly of a political character, and the parties involved in them were the police and the Congress volunteers. But, as it always happens in India, the political disturbances took a communal twist.
This was due to the fact that the Muslims refused to submit to the coercive methods used by Congress volunteers to compel them to join in Civil Disobedience. The result was that although the year began with political riots it ended in numerous and quite serious communal riots.“, he said.
Even Mahatma Gandhi held caste Hindus responsible for Hindu-Muslim riots as he wrote in 1924 “I have heard, that in some places, [Upper Caste] Hindus purposely, and with the deliberate intention of irritating Muslims, perform arati just when the Mussalman prayers commence.”
Achievements of Muslim Invaders
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar has also discussed certain achievements of Muslim invaders in India.
In his book “Pakistan or Partition of India”, he wrote that Muslim invaders beside destroying Brahmanical temples also did some positive acts like planting the seeds of Islam in India which has now remarkably grown into a strong tree with branches spread all over the subcontinent.
“The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result.”
“They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oke. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India.
The successive invasions have deposited their ‘silt’ more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners.”
Read More| Babur’s Insights on India: Excerpts from Baburnama
Are Muslims against Social Reforms?
Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar vehemently disagreed with Western-Christian scholar Renan who claimed that Muslim hate science, research, and rational thinking.
“This answer, though obvious, cannot be the true answer. If it were the true answer, how are we to account for the stir and ferment that is going on in all Muslim countries outside India, where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change, and the desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of life. Indeed, the social reforms that have taken place in Turkey have been of the most revolutionary character.
While Dr. Ambedkar praised the spirit of inquiry and reform in Muslim countries all over the world, he also pondered as why the same spirit is missing in some Indian Muslims.
In his book “Pakistan or Partition of India, he asks if Islam has not come in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why should it come in the way of the Muslims of India?
“There must be some special reason for the social and political stagnation of the Muslim community in India,” he says. Elaborating further on this, he says-
“It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment that is predominantly Hindu.
“That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanazing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away, he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society.“
“Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment that is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class.“
“It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform.”
“Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought, and no room for questions relating to social reform.”
“And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by the pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India.”
Bahujan-Muslims: Muslim and SCF Partnership
Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, a prominent figure in India’s struggle for social justice and a champion of the rights of the “Depressed Classes” (now referred to as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), envisioned a meaningful and decisive partnership with the Muslim League in the 1930s to counter the influence of the upper-caste dominated Indian National Congress.
He recognized that both the Depressed Classes and the Muslims faced various socio-political challenges in a predominantly Hindu upper-caste dominated Congress-led freedom movement.
He believed that by collaborating with the Muslim League, the two marginalized communities could better protect their rights and secure political representation, especially in regions with significant Muslim and Scheduled Caste populations.
This partnership, while strategically motivated, aimed to create a platform for the empowerment of historically oppressed and underrepresented groups, seeking a stronger political voice in the pre-independence era of India.
“There are many lower orders in the Hindu society whose economic, political, and social needs are the same as those of the majority of Muslims, and they would be far more ready to make a common cause with the Muslims for achieving common ends than they would with the high caste of Hindus who have denied and deprived them of ordinary human rights for centuries.“
“To pursue such a course cannot be called an adventure. The path along that line is a well-trodden path. Is it not a fact that under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in most provinces, if not in all, the Muslims, the Non-Brahmins, and the Depressed Classes united together and worked on the reforms as members of one team from 1920 to 1937? Herein lay the most fruitful method of achieving communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims and of destroying the danger of a Hindu Raj.”
“Mr. Jinnah could have easily pursued this line. Nor was it difficult for Mr. Jinnah to succeed in it. Indeed, Mr. Jinnah is the one person who had all the chances of success on his side if he had tried to form such a united non-communal party.”
“He has the ability to organize. He had the reputation of a nationalist. Even many Hindus who were opposed to the Congress would have flocked to him if he had only sent out a call for a united party of like-minded Hindus and Muslims”.
Though Ambedkar’s vision did not succeed due to partition of India, Dalit and backward class leaders in post-partition India have well utilized the idea of Bahujan-Muslim unity at least electorally to come to political power in many states across India.
Also Read| Bahujan, Mandal, and Kamandal Politics in India
Common Concerns: Fear of Hindu-Brahmin Raj
Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar is often quoted or misquoted by people from various political spectrums on varied socio-political issues including religion.
For instance, Hindu-Brahmanical groups often misquote him to legitmize their Islamophobic diatribes against Muslims and to woo Bahujan votebank.
However, they often forget that Dr. Ambedkar was a far greater critic of Hindu-Brahmanism not Islam as can be evidenced from his 22 vows against Hinduism.
Occasionally, even if he criticised the rigid attitude of some Indian Muslims, he never questioned the authenticity of Islam as such or its egalitarian principles.
But with respect to Hindu-Brahmanism, he explicetely warned Indians that “if Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country. No matter what the [upper caste] Hindus say, Hinduism is a menace to liberty, equality, and fraternity. On that account, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost“.
Why Ambedkar did not convert to Islam?
Having elaborated views of Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar on Islam and Indian Muslims, a pertinent question arises as to why he did not convert to Islam despite holding such progressive and positive views about Islam.
It is well known that Dr. BR Ambedkar converted to Buddhism with his followers later in life.
However, what is not much known is that he was also impressed by Islam a lot. So much that in pre-partition period, he encouraged depressed and backward classes to accept Islam. And he himself considered converting to Islam and he gave the following reasons in this regard-
“By becoming Buddhist or Arya Samajist, there is not going to be any significant impact on the prejudices of the people who call themselves as belonging to upper varna (upper castes) and therefore we do not see much sense in accepting that path.”
“If we want to successfully confront the prejudices of Hindus, we have to convert to either Christianity or Islam in order to secure the backing of some rebellious community. It is only then that the blot of untouchability on Dalits will be washed away,“- said Dr. Ambedkar.
Given below is an excerpt from Anand Teltumbde’s book “Ambedkar on Muslims” (2003) succinctly explaining Ambedkar’s view on Islam and Muslims.
“Ambedkar was certainly impressed by the egalitarian principles of Islam and was pained to see it degenerate in India by absorbing the evils of native Hinduism.” He spoke out against this degeneration in a number of places, but eventually blamed Hinduism for it.
Even at the practical level, he tends to praise it for its spirit of solidarity. He appears overwhelmed by the spirit of cohesiveness among Muslims and tendentiously prefers it for conversion.
When he had declared in Yeole in 1935 that he would leave the Hindu fold and accept a new religion before his death, some of his disciples decided to change their religion and approached him. His advice to them was to accept Islam.
His Bahishkrit Bharat (15 March 1929) also exhorts people to convert to Islam if they are willing to change their religion. It is only after the in-depth studies of various religions vis-à-vis the goals that he decided on Buddha’s Dhamma. Thus, it is purely mischievous to say that he was against Muslims“.
Thus as per Ambedkarite scholars, Babasaheb Ambedkar generally held balanced, progressive, and positive views about Islam and Muslims even though on occasions he criticised some acts of Indian Muslims.
He even considered converting to Islam. However, due to political compulsions after the weakened position of Muslims in post-partition India, he aborted this idea and converted to neo-Buddhism instead.
After the influential Muslim leadership migrated to Pakistan, the position of Muslims, remaining in India had become weak.
In such a changed situation, Ambedkar thought that converting to Islam would further marginalize the already oppressed Dalit-Bahujan communities.
Ambedkar believed that if they were to convert to Islam, they would not only be subject to double discrimination on account of being Muslims and Dalits but might also be deprived of affirmative actions like reservations that he had bargained for after immense efforts and struggles.
Also Read| 22 Vows of Ambedkar on Hinduism and Buddhism
Conclusion
In conclusion, Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar’s views on religion, particularly his perspectives on Hindu-Brahmanism and Islam, reveal a complex and nuanced approach.
While he is widely recognized for his unwavering criticism of Hindu-Brahmanism and his advocacy for the rights of the oppressed, his thoughts on Islam and Muslims are often less explored.
Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar held balanced, progressive, and positive views about Islam and Muslims even though on occasions he criticised the rash and hasty political decisions of Indian Muslim leadership.
He acknowledged the strong religious bonds among Muslims and their historical contributions but also raised concerns about certain aspects.
Further, he highlighted the unity among Muslims and praised their solidarity, emphasizing the strength of the Islamic brotherhood.
He also discussed the historical actions of Muslim invaders in India, acknowledging both negative and positive impacts. However, he questioned why the spirit of inquiry and reform that existed in other Muslim-majority countries seemed less pronounced among Indian Muslims.
Ambedkar’s considerations about conversion are especially noteworthy, as he initially saw Islam as a potential option for his followers before ultimately choosing Buddhism.
His reasons for considering converting to Islam were rooted in the desire to confront the prejudices of the upper-caste Hindus and secure a sense of rebellion and unity.
Ultimately, political considerations in post-partition India led him to abandon the idea of conversion to Islam in favor of Buddhism.
Nevertheless, Ambedkar’s views on Islam and Muslims, as well as his evolving perspective on religion, underscore his commitment to social justice and equality.
His legacy continues to inspire discussions on religious pluralism, social reform, and the struggle for marginalized communities in India.
In this article, we delved into the nuanced contours of Ambedkar’s thoughts on Islam, exploring the intersections between religion, caste, and social dynamics as perceived by the stalwart leader.
Understanding his multifaceted views on religion especially Islam enriches our appreciation of his contributions to the socio-political landscape of India.
It also provides valuable insights into the ongoing discourse on religious pluralism, equality, and the role of religion in shaping the socio-political landscape.
Read more Subaltern Articles–