Ambedkar and Gandhi’s perspectives on Islam represent a fundamental clash of ideologies. While Gandhi is often criticized for his appeasement of Muslims and his support for their global agenda beyond India, Ambedkar took a starkly different stance. He viewed both Islam and Christianity as potentially detrimental to the cohesiveness of Indian society, fearing that their adoption might further fragment the social fabric.
Islam Has only Contempt & Enmity for Non-Muslims
“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 a universal brotherhood of man. It is not a brotherhood for Muslims and 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.”
Pakistan or The Partition of India- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.
Though Ambedkar is widely recognized for his rejection of Hinduism, there exists a common misconception that he held a favorable or at least neutral view of Islam. This belief has been co-opted in contemporary discussions to bolster the Global Left’s alliance with Islam. Today, the Dalit movement is increasingly aligned with both the Black rights movement in America and Muslim communities worldwide, finding common ground in new Marxist frameworks, including various Critical Theories.
In an era where criticisms of Islam are often stifled, it is crucial to revisit Ambedkar’s critiques, which may now be labeled as “Islamophobic.” He pointedly observes that while the social issues within Hindu society are frequently analyzed and discussed, a similar level of scrutiny is rarely applied to Islam. To address this imbalance, Ambedkar devotes a significant portion of his extensive work, “Pakistan: The Partition of India,” to a rigorous point-by-point critique of Islam. His candidness and forthrightness in addressing these issues are striking and deserve more attention than they have historically received.
Despite the explicit and often harsh nature of his criticisms, this aspect of Ambedkar’s scholarship has been largely sidelined in mainstream academic discourse. Thus, it is essential to highlight his perspectives to encourage a more balanced conversation about religion, society, and their implications in contemporary India.
Ambedkar his scathing analysis by saying: ‘One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims’. He then says, ‘Take child-marriage’, and using a table of statistics he makes the case that Islam suffers from this scourge worse than Hinduism.
Ambedkar’s examination of women’s rights leads him to a stark conclusion about the status of Muslim women, whom he characterizes as “the most helpless individuals in the world.” To illustrate his point, he references a prominent Muslim leader, asserting that Islam has institutionalized inferiority for women, thereby legitimizing social customs that significantly restrict their opportunities for self-expression and personal development.
In his extensive analysis, Ambedkar delves into the pervasive issues stemming from practices such as polygamy and concubinage, particularly highlighting the unique suffering they impose on Muslim women. He emphasizes that no words can fully capture the profound evils associated with these practices, which contribute significantly to the plight of women in these contexts. His critique serves not only as an indictment of specific social structures but also as a call to recognize and address the systemic inequalities faced by women in society.
He then takes up slavery in Islam and writes:
”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 highlights the persistence of a caste system within Islam, drawing attention to its alarming implications. To substantiate his argument, he references census data and various sources that reveal how the religion categorizes a significant portion of its followers as belonging to low castes or even as untouchables. This examination exposes the contradictions within a faith that preaches equality while simultaneously reinforcing social hierarchies that mirror those found in other cultural contexts. Ambedkar’s insights prompt a critical reflection on the intersection of religion and social stratification in Muslim communities.
“The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans 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.”
Ambedkar provides an in-depth analysis of the caste classifications within Islam, detailing the three main categories: Ashraf, Ajlaf, and Arzal. Within these classifications, he identifies specific sub-castes, with the Saids, Sheikhs, Pathans, and Moghuls occupying the highest status as Ashraf. In contrast, a significant majority of Muslims belong to the lower castes, which Ambedkar points out as being equally tied to societal hierarchies.
He also addresses the communities within Islam that are marginalized and labeled as untouchables, further illuminating the social stratification present in Muslim society. Ambedkar expresses particular concern over the purdah system, he argues that the purdah system, which imposes strict regulations on the visibility and participation of Muslim women in society, represents an additional layer of oppression. Ambedkar writes:
“As a consequence of the purdah system, a segregation of the Muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to visit the outer rooms, verandahs, or gardens; their quarters are in the back-yard. … young and old, are confined in the same room. No male servant can work in their presence. A woman is allowed to see only her sons, brothers, father, uncles, and husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to a position of trust. She cannot go even to the mosque to pray and must wear burka (veil) whenever she has to go out. These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis, and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world, they engage their minds in petty family quarrels, … they become narrow and restricted in their outlook. They lag behind their sisters from other communities, cannot take part in any outdoor activity and are weighed down by a slavish mentality and an inferiority complex. They have no desire for knowledge, because they are taught not to be interested in anything outside the four walls of the house. Purdah women in particular become helpless, timid, and unfit for any fight in life.“
Ambedkar argues that the purdah system contributes significantly to the immorality of Muslim men by restricting their social interactions with women. He posits that this enforced isolation fosters unhealthy behaviors and sexual excesses among these men, as the lack of normal social contact deprives them of the opportunity to engage in healthy, respectful relationships. Ambedkar suggests that such conditions breed not only misunderstandings and mistrust between genders but also encourage moral shortcomings that can stem from an inability to relate to women in a balanced and equitable manner. He says:
The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared with its effects on morals. The origin of purdah lies of course in the deep-rooted suspicion of sexual appetites in both sexes and the purpose is to check them by segregating the sexes. … purdah has adversely affected the morals of Muslim men. … a Muslim has no contact with any woman outside those who belong to his own household. Even with them his contact extends only to occasional conversation. For a male there is no company of, and no commingling with, the females, except those who are children or aged. This isolation … is sure to produce bad effects on the morals of men. It requires no psychoanalyst to say that a social system which cuts off all contact between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways.
Ambedkar contends that the social isolation enforced by the purdah system not only affects the dynamics within the Muslim community but also fosters a broader segregation between Muslims and other religious groups, particularly Hindus. He argues that this separation extends beyond personal interactions, leading to a significant disconnect that renders Muslims apathetic towards the larger political and social welfare of the nation.
He states,
“The evil consequences of purdah are not confined to the Muslim community only. It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims, which is the bane of public life in India.”
This perspective underscores the detrimental impact of purdah on societal cohesion and public life, suggesting that the lack of interaction between communities contributes to misunderstandings and divisions that hinder progress and unity in a diverse nation like India.
Ambedkar critiques the political awareness of Muslims, asserting that there is a notable deficiency in their engagement with broader societal issues. He accuses members of the community of being overly focused on immediate, self-serving interests, rather than cultivating a sense of political sensibility that considers the greater good of society. This narrow perspective, according to Ambedkar, limits their ability to address critical national concerns and to engage constructively in the political landscape. By prioritizing personal grievances and communal emotions over collective welfare, he argues that Muslims risk further marginalization and alienation within India’s diverse socio-political framework.
“The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate … does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. … he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. … a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast, and in other[s] if he agrees to buy votes for so much apiece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money, and is very seldom a matter of [a] social programme … . Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. (it) is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community; and if they do find a place—and they must, because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.”
Ambedkar delves into the underpinnings of Muslim Canon Law, arguing that it fundamentally divides the world into territories governed by Muslims and those ruled by non-Muslims, whom he refers to as infidels. This bifurcation, he asserts, inherently contradicts the principles of true democracy, as it promotes a hierarchical worldview where political and social systems are dictated by religious affiliations rather than equitable governance.
According to Ambedkar, such a framework undermines the possibility of democratic ideals, as it prioritizes the interests of one group over another, fostering an environment where the rights of non-Muslims are marginalized. He critiques this aspect of Islamic law for perpetuating divisions and inhibiting the kind of inclusive political engagement essential for a functioning democracy. According to Ambedkar
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.
When Muslim-ruled countries cannot defeat non-Muslim countries, he says they resort to ‘the extremist concept of Islamic Jihad’. He summarizes this as follows:
“There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) … 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-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.”
On the issue of a Muslim’s loyalty to his country vis-a-vis his loyalty to Islam, Ambedkar exposes the potential duplicity:
“… 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 explains that Hindus, being non-believers in Islam, are classified as “kafirs,” a term that designates them as outsiders within the Islamic framework. This categorization leads to a fundamental lack of respect for Hindus among Muslims, which, according to Ambedkar, has profound implications for governance and societal relationships in India.
He argues that this entrenched mindset makes it virtually impossible for Muslims to accept any government led by Hindus, regardless of whether it operates under a democratic system or not. The perception of Hindus as unworthy of respect fosters significant political distrust and social division, as Muslims may see a government comprised of Hindu leaders as inherently biased against their interests. Ambedkar’s critique highlights the challenges posed by such religiously defined perceptions in achieving a cohesive and functional political landscape in a diverse nation, emphasizing the need for reforms that promote mutual respect and understanding among different communities.
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. … 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.
Contrary to the prevailing view in mainstream discourse, Ambedkar firmly argues that Islam is fundamentally divisive and tribalistic in nature. He contends that religion promotes a strong sense of in-group identity that often supersedes national or societal unity, fostering divisions based on religious affiliation. This tribalism inherently limits the potential for harmony and cooperation among diverse communities within a nation, as it prioritizes loyalty to one’s faith over shared citizenship or collective well-being.
Ambedkar’s perspective challenges the notion of Islam as a unifying force and instead highlights how its structures can lead to social fragmentation. By emphasizing the importance of group identity, he raises concerns about the implications this has for communal relations and political stability in multi-religious societies. Ambedkar writes:
“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 … there is nothing but contempt and enmity.”
After extensively detailing the myriad challenges posed by Islam, Ambedkar poses a provocative question: “Why are Muslims opposed to social reform?” To explore this issue, he examines the various explanations offered for the perceived backwardness of Muslims around the world. He highlights a widespread consensus that identifies Muslims as “an unprogressive people,” suggesting that their adherence to Islamic tenets has effectively immobilized them “in their native barbarism.”
Ambedkar argues that Islamic principles create a rigid framework, likening it to a crystallized state that is “inert and impenetrable.” He emphasizes that such rigidity renders Islam unchangeable, meaning that political, social, or economic advancements fail to penetrate this deeply entrenched belief system.
To support his argument, he cites the observations of French orientalist Joseph Renan, who pointed out a notable distrust among Muslims towards science and rational inquiry. This connection emphasizes how a rejection of progressive values and scientific understanding can hinder societal advancement, further explaining the resistance to change within the Muslim community.
What is … essentially distinctive of the Musalman is his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous, almost impious—the natural sciences, because they are attempts at rivalry with God.
Ambedkar further scrutinizes the dynamics of the Muslim community in India, observing that Muslims primarily identify themselves as opponents of Hindus. He argues that their political and social energies are consumed by relentless competition against Hindus, particularly for political representation and access to positions of power. As a result, there is little time, thought, or willingness to engage with issues related to social reform.
He notes a reluctance among Muslims to collaborate with Hindus, even in shared struggles for social justice. For instance, Ambedkar points out that impoverished Muslims often do not unite with their Hindu counterparts to challenge the wealthiest individuals across all religious lines. Instead, they may avoid confronting wealthy Muslim landlords, demonstrating that communal loyalty often takes precedence over broader economic justice.
This prioritization of Muslim solidarity over social equity is reflected in the way the community mobilizes against governments led by Hindus while remaining relatively quiet about injustices in Muslim-majority states—even when similar issues arise.
