Dalits will never forget that they were wiped out from Afganistan-Bihar by the cruel Muslim invaders. Dr. Ambedkar reminded us who is our brother
FOLLOWING ARE THE QUOTES BY DR AMBEDKAR ON ISLAM
All quotations are from pakistan or the parition of india by Dr B.R.Ambedkar,
3rd edition ,1946 BAWS Vol. 8,1990 , govt of maharastra publication; previous
name of the book: Thoughts on Pakistan
Hindu is a Kafir-Not worthy of respect-
"To the muslims, a Hindu (and any non-muslim) is a Kafir. A Kafir
(non-believer in islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without
status. That is why a country ruled by the Kafir (Non-muslim) is a Dar-ul-Harb
(i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for
the muslims and turned into Dar-ul-Islam (i.e. land of muslims alone). Given
this, no further evidence seems necessary to prove that the muslims will not
obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non- muslim) government "
Ref-page 301
Brotherhood of
muslims for the muslims only-
"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
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 defect of islam is that it is a system
of social 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 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.'
(Ref-page 330-331)
Difficult to see difference between a communal and
nationalist muslim:
"It is difficult to see any real difference
between the communal muslims who form the Muslim league and the nationalist
muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the nationalist musalmans have any
real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the congress which mark them
off from the muslim league. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the
view that there is no different between the two and that the nationalist muslim
inside the congress are only an outpost of the communal muslims"
ref- page 408
Muslim
invaders planted the seeds of Islam in India.
"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 stronger as an
oak. Its growth is thickest in northern india. The successive invasions have
deposited their 'silt' served as watering exercises of devoted gardners, its growth
is so thick in northern india that the remnants of hindu and buddhist culture
are just shurbs. Even the sikh axe could not fell this oak"
Ref page- 65
Muslim's strategy in politics:
"The third thing that is noticeable is teh
adoption by the muslims of the gangster's method in politics. The riots are a
sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a setteled part of their
strategy in poliics"
Ref page- 269
Murderers are religious martyrs
"But whether the number of prominent hindus
killed by fanatic muslims is large or small mattes little. What matters is the
attitude of those who count towards these murderes. The murderers paid the
penalty of law where law is enforced. The leading moslems, however , never
condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious
martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them.As an illustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Ali
, a barrister of lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the
length of saying that qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his
act was justificable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the moslems is
quite understandable.what is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi '
Ref page 157
Hindus and muslims are two distinct spritual
species from aspritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two
classes or two sects such as protestants and catholics or Shaivas and
Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species.
page 193
Islam and Castism
"Everybody infers that islam must be free
from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands
aboloshed 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, as an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the
bengal muslims. The superitendent of the census for 1901 for the province of
Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the muslims of
bengal:-
The conventional division of the Mahomedans into
four tribes- sheikh, saiad, moghul and pathan- has very little application to
this province (bengal). the mahomedans themselves recognize two main social
divisions, (1) ashraf or sharaf and (2) ajlaf. ashraf means noble and includes
all undoubted descendents of foreigners and converts from high castes hindus.
all other mahamedans including the occupational groups and all converts of
lower ranks ,a re known by the contemptous-terms. 'ajlab', '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 mohomedan would associate, and they are
forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.
"within these groups there are castes with
sovial precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the
hindus."
1.
ashraf or better class mahomedans.
(1) saiads (2) sheikhs (3) pathans (4) moghul (5)
malik and (6) mirza
2. ajlaf or lower class mahomedans.
(1) cultivating sheikhs, and other who were
originally hindus but do not belong to any functional group, and have not
gained admittance to the ashraf community e.g. pirali and thakrai
(2) darzi, jolaha, fakir and rangrez
(3) brahi, bhathiara, cluk, chrihar, dai, dhawa, dhunia,
gaddi, kalal, kasai, kula, kunjara, laheri, mahifarosh, mallah, naliya, nikari.
(4) abdal, bako, bediya, bhat , chamba,
dafali,dhobi, hallam, mucho, nagarchi, nat, panwari, madaria,tuntia.
3. arzal or degraded class.
bhanar, halalkhor, hijra, kasbi, lalbegi, mougtra,
mehtar.
similar facts from other provinces of india could
be gathered from their respective census reports and those who are curious may
refer to them. but the facts for bengal are enough to show that the mahamoedans
observed not only caste but also untouchability
page- 228-230
Muslim canon oppose social reform
The existance of these evils among the muslims is
distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no
organized movement of social reform among the musalmans of india on a scale
sufficient to bring about their eradication. The hindus have their social
evils. But there is relieving feature about them namely, that some of them are
conscious of their existance and a few of them are actively agitating for their
removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices. it is
noteworthy that the muslims opposed the child marriage bill brought in the
central assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl was raised to
14 and for a boy to 18 on the ground that it was opposed to the muslim canon
law. Not only did they oppose the bill at every stage but that when it became
law they started a campaign of civil disobedience against that act
Ref page-233
Muslim politicians oppose secular categories: "muslim
politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their
politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in it fight
against the hindus. The poor muslims will not join the poor hindus to get
justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join hindu tenants to prevent
the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join hindu labourers in
the fight of labour against the capitalist. Why? the answer is simple. The poor
muslims sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may
be fighting against a rich muslim. the muslim labourer feels that if he joins
in the onslaught of labour against capitalist he will be injuring a muslim
mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich muslim, to a muslim
landlord or to a muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the muslim community,
for it is thereby weakened in ots struggle against the hindu community "
Ref page -236
India cannot be common motherland of the hindus
and muslims as per muslim laws:
According to muslim canon law the world is divided
into two camps, dar-ul-islam (abode of islam) and dar-ul-harb (adobe 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 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 become
subject to the authoritynof a non-muslim power, it ceases to be the lnd of the
muslims. instead of being dar-ul-islam it becomes dar-ul-harb.
I 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.
Ref- page 294
Jihad to transform dar-ul-harb india to
dar-ul-islam
It might also be mentioned that hijrat is not the
only way of escape to muslims who find themselves in adar-ul-harb. there is
another injunction of muslim canon law called jihad (crusade) by which it
beomes incument on a muslim ruler to extend the rules of islam until the whole
world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two
camps, dar-ul-islam (adobe of islam) , dar-ul-harb (adobe 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.
The fact remains that india, if not exclusively
under muslim rule, is a dar-ul-harb and the musalmans, according to the tenents
of islam are justified in procaliming a jihad.
The fact remains that india, if not exclusively
under muslim rule, is a dar-ul-harb and the muslamns, according to the tenets
of islam are justified in proclaiming a jihad.
not only can they proclaim jihad but they can call
the aid of a foriegn muslim power to make jihad success, or if the foreign
muslim power intents to proclaim a jihad, help that power in making its
endeavour a succs.
Ref-page 295-296
Why is hindu-muslim unity a failure?
"the real explanation of this failure of
hindu-muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the
hindus and muslims is not a mere matter of difference , and that this
antagonism is not to be attributed to material cause. it is formed by causes
which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social
antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection."
Ref- page 329
Hindu-muslim unity is out of sight
Nothing i could say can so well show the futility
of any hope of hindu-muslim unity. Hindu -Muslim unity upto now was at least in
sight although it was like a mirage. today it is out of sight and also out of
mind. even mr gandhi has given up what, he perheps now realizes,is an
impossible task.
Ref- page 187
Transfer of minorities is the only remedy for
communal peace.
"the transfer of minorities is the only lasting
remedy for communal peace, is beyond doubt. if that is so, there is no reason
why the hindus and the muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have
proved so unsafe. if small countries, with limited resources like greece,
turkey and bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking there is no reason to
suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by indians"
The problem of majority-minority will continue
"the musalmans are scattered all over
hindustan-though they are mostly congregated in towns and no ingenuity in the
matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogenous. the only way to make
hindustan homogenous, is to arrange for exchange of polulation. until that is
done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of pakistan , the problem
of majority vs minority will remain in hindustan asbefore and will continue to
produce disharmony in the body politic of hindustan
