He most certainly did. Quoted below is just one of the evidence taken from his book "Pakistan or Partition of India " that is available freely. You can search that site or you can get a summary from here :
https://www.opindia.com/2021/10/dr-...s-india-hindu-majority-jihad-dalits-buddhism/
Original website that lists Ambedkars work:
https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/412d.html
Here is just one of his many observations about how Islam treats non-muslims :
What is your definition ? And does Jaish-e-Mohammad qualify as a terror outfit per your definition ?
Well sadly the track record going back 1400 years very very clearly and absolutely refutes that. You may be right in theory but the reality as it stands is just the opposite.
The original context of this point here is that of violence ( see my post# 50) . So Ambedkar did not chose to leave Hinduism because of violence.
He most certainly did. Quoted below is just one of the evidence taken from his book "Pakistan or Partition of India " that is available freely. You can search that site or you can get a summary from here :
https://www.opindia.com/2021/10/dr-...s-india-hindu-majority-jihad-dalits-buddhism/
Original website that lists Ambedkars work:
https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/412d.html
Here is just one of his many observations about how Islam treats non-muslims :
What is your definition ? And does Jaish-e-Mohammad qualify as a terror outfit per your definition ?
Well sadly the track record going back 1400 years very very clearly and absolutely refutes that. You may be right in theory but the reality as it stands is just the opposite.
The original context of this point here is that of violence ( see my post# 50) . So Ambedkar did not chose to leave Hinduism because of violence.
I have not done any research about Jaish E Muhammad so I am not in a position to brand them with any name.
When I meant the definition of a terrorist , I meant that it depends upon which side you are. For example, the sinhalese LTTE was a terrorist organization , whereas for Tamils they were freedom fighters. No one is born as a terrorist , there are certain factors which lead to it.
1400 years or 14000 years , it does not matter , when you are talking about Islam , you need to show me where Islam encourages killing of innocent people .
If you show , then your point is valid.
For 1400 years there have been several Muslims who are having alcohol , cheating , doing various crimes etc . That does not mean Islam is promoting that.
In fact Islam is the only religion which has alive jurisprudence , which clearly mentions rights and wrong. None of its principles is against Humanity .
No, Abedkar did not leave Hinduism for violence , he left for discrimination.
Now coming to the comments made by Mr Ambedkar.
Islam distinguishes between humans on belief because in islamic jurisprudence there are certain things which only Muslims are required to follow , those who do not believe need not do those or get involved with that.
The Quran is the final message for the entire mankind , not only for Muslims.
Muhammad was send for the whole world , not restricted to nations like previous prophets before him.
The ummah is divided into two parts , one Ummah e Ijabat ( those who accepted the message ) , the second Ummat e dawat ( those to whom message will be shared or given)
In Islam distinction is not made because of birth but by faith.
Muslims worship Creator not Creation. Thus India or any other country is a piece of Land , it is the creation of God. A Muslim even does not worship Mecca as a land , so why should a Muslim worship India ? The question should be whether a Muslim respects His homeland , which he does .
, SK is happy 
