Some comment by Ambedkar on the supposed egalitarian nature of Muslim society:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Take the caste system. 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./2/ 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 /3/:â
". . .rather, while lightening, lie riveted the fetter. . . .There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves. . . ."
  But if slavery has gone, <span style='color:red'> caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal</span> records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :â
"The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribesâ Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathanâhas very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>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.</span>
"Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.
I. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.
(1) Saiads.
(2) Sheikhs.
(3) Pathans.
(4) Moghul.
(5) Mallik.
(6) Mirza.
II. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.
(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who 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) Barhi, Bhalhiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhal, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nal,Panwaria, Madaria, Tunlia.
III. Arzal or degraded class.
Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar."
  The Census Superintendent mentions another feature of the Muslim social system, namely, the prevalence of the "panchayat system." He states :â
"The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and. . .marriage with people of' other communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends to higher as well as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat and ejected ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood. . . .thousands of Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas."
  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 <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.</span>
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritche...tition/410.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In medieval chronicles there are no mentions about lower caste Hindus converting to Islam to gain "equality" because there was no such thing in Muslim society, the only references I saw for such a thing come from a few references to the improvements in condition of those who joined the Khalsa Panth.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that sati must have contributed to widows converting to Islam when infact the favorite past time of Muslims was to abduct Hindu women and put them in harems, that is not a knight in shining armour rescuing the wretched Hindu woman but a rapist doing what rapists do under the sanction of a "religion".
Talking about this supposed Muslim sense of equality, then how do we explain the complete lack of references for any of this "equality" in the poetry of Sants like Namdev or Kabir, infact Kabir was as much a critic of the mullahs as he criticised the Hindu pandits and he referred to none of this mythical "Muslim equality".
Even among foreign Muslims there was no equality, in the Deccan Sultanates there was periodic bloodshed between the East African Muslims (now called Siddis) and the Persians and other Deccani nobles who looked down upon the Africans as inferior.
Furthermore none of the jihadists ever claimed that they were improving the lot of the lower castes by converting them to a religion of "equality", on the contrary they despised the lower caste converts and kept them as far away as possible, they only say that they converted so many kaffirs and thus spread the true religion, nothing whatsoever about equality.
In one of the Hadiths Muhammad himself is recorded to have said that the position of Caliph only belongs to people of the Quraish clan (his clan), this is quoted in Arun Shouries book about the Eminent Historians which I will give the exact reference for later, so where is the question of equality when the founder himself categorically stated that only his clan can occupy the position of a Caliph.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Take the caste system. 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./2/ 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 /3/:â
". . .rather, while lightening, lie riveted the fetter. . . .There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves. . . ."
  But if slavery has gone, <span style='color:red'> caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal</span> records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :â
"The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribesâ Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathanâhas very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>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.</span>
"Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.
I. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.
(1) Saiads.
(2) Sheikhs.
(3) Pathans.
(4) Moghul.
(5) Mallik.
(6) Mirza.
II. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.
(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who 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) Barhi, Bhalhiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhal, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nal,Panwaria, Madaria, Tunlia.
III. Arzal or degraded class.
Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar."
  The Census Superintendent mentions another feature of the Muslim social system, namely, the prevalence of the "panchayat system." He states :â
"The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and. . .marriage with people of' other communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends to higher as well as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat and ejected ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood. . . .thousands of Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas."
  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 <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.</span>
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritche...tition/410.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In medieval chronicles there are no mentions about lower caste Hindus converting to Islam to gain "equality" because there was no such thing in Muslim society, the only references I saw for such a thing come from a few references to the improvements in condition of those who joined the Khalsa Panth.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that sati must have contributed to widows converting to Islam when infact the favorite past time of Muslims was to abduct Hindu women and put them in harems, that is not a knight in shining armour rescuing the wretched Hindu woman but a rapist doing what rapists do under the sanction of a "religion".
Talking about this supposed Muslim sense of equality, then how do we explain the complete lack of references for any of this "equality" in the poetry of Sants like Namdev or Kabir, infact Kabir was as much a critic of the mullahs as he criticised the Hindu pandits and he referred to none of this mythical "Muslim equality".
Even among foreign Muslims there was no equality, in the Deccan Sultanates there was periodic bloodshed between the East African Muslims (now called Siddis) and the Persians and other Deccani nobles who looked down upon the Africans as inferior.
Furthermore none of the jihadists ever claimed that they were improving the lot of the lower castes by converting them to a religion of "equality", on the contrary they despised the lower caste converts and kept them as far away as possible, they only say that they converted so many kaffirs and thus spread the true religion, nothing whatsoever about equality.
In one of the Hadiths Muhammad himself is recorded to have said that the position of Caliph only belongs to people of the Quraish clan (his clan), this is quoted in Arun Shouries book about the Eminent Historians which I will give the exact reference for later, so where is the question of equality when the founder himself categorically stated that only his clan can occupy the position of a Caliph.