American historian Eric Louis Beverly informs us in his book Hyderabad, British India, and the World that the Nizam of Hyderabad had offered Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Rs. 75 million if he and his community members converted to Islam. He said: "The brotherhood in Islam is confined to the believers; that is, only to Muslims. It cannot promote universal brotherhood. I will not convert to islam". He saw conversion to Islam as a factor contributing to the 'denationalisation' of Dalits.
According to Dr Ambedkar, 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 within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
..... 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 deprived from Islam and Islamic countries".
He argues that Islam can never allow 'a true Muslim' to adopt India as his motherland. He says the religion tells faithful to treat non-Muslims (Kafirs) as enemies. A kafir is inferior and without status. 'That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohammad Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.'
According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (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 Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and 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 authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.
It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent 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 (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abodr the 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 tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. Not only can they proclaim jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.
In Pakistan and Partition of India, Dr Ambedkar writes:
The existence of social evils among the Muslims is distressing enough . But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organised movement of social reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication . . . they oppose any change in the existing practices.
Islam is a system of social self- government and is incompatible with local self - government , because tie allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in this country which is his but on the faith to which the belongs To the Muslims ibi bene ibi patria ( Where it is well with me, there is my country ) is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.
According to Dr Ambedkar, 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 within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
..... 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 deprived from Islam and Islamic countries".
He argues that Islam can never allow 'a true Muslim' to adopt India as his motherland. He says the religion tells faithful to treat non-Muslims (Kafirs) as enemies. A kafir is inferior and without status. 'That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohammad Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.'
According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (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 Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and 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 authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.
It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent 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 (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abodr the 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 tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. Not only can they proclaim jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.
In Pakistan and Partition of India, Dr Ambedkar writes:
The existence of social evils among the Muslims is distressing enough . But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organised movement of social reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication . . . they oppose any change in the existing practices.
Islam is a system of social self- government and is incompatible with local self - government , because tie allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in this country which is his but on the faith to which the belongs To the Muslims ibi bene ibi patria ( Where it is well with me, there is my country ) is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.
No comments:
Post a Comment