Hindu community subjected to verbal abuse by Islamic cleric in Gujarat; accused also incites Muslim crowd against Hindus
Junagadh, Gujarat, India 
30 January, 2024
Case Summary
In Junagadh, Gujarat, an anti-Hindu speech was delivered by an Islamic cleric named Mufti Salman Azhari, who referred to Hindus as dogs. According to reports, a video of the speech from a Muslim community event on 31st January 2024 went viral on social media, showing Azhari making inflammatory remarks inciting Muslims against Hindus. In the video, Azhari spoke about a forthcoming final battle, using phrases like “The final battle of Karbala is yet to come… a moment of silence, then there will be noise again. Today is the time of the dogs (referring to Hindus), tomorrow will be our time,” followed by Islamic chanting with the crowd. At the start of his speech, Azhari referenced Junagadh’s history, urging Muslims not to submit to anyone but only to the servitude of Tajdar-e-Madinah, the Islamic authority. He and the crowd chanted slogans proclaiming themselves as devoted servants of the Prophet. He further claimed Muslims suffered atrocities across the globe but lacked leadership to unite them, and he condemned modern distractions such as the internet and young Muslims’ behaviour. Azhari glorified Islamic tyrant Muhammad bin Qasim’s historic military campaign and called for an Islamic revolution, warning that faith was being tested but promising divine aid to survivors. Throughout the speech, Azhari demeaned Hindus and invoked sectarian loyalty, demanding submission only to Islamic authority, and strongly criticised perceived laxity among Muslims in religious observance and morality. At the time of writing this report, the police have taken cognisance of the video and plan to issue a statement, but no action has yet been taken.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. The other subcategory selected is- Violent Threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. In this case, the speech delivered by the accused, Mufti Salman Azhari, stands as a stark and unambiguous instance of anti-Hindu hate speech. By derogatorily referring to Hindus as “dogs,” he profoundly demeaned an entire religious community. This is not mere rhetoric; it is a deeply ingrained expression of religious animosity aimed explicitly at humiliating and dehumanising Hindus. Such blatant deprecation fuels hatred and violence by undermining the dignity of a community, legitimising prejudice, and fostering an environment of hostility and intolerance. This choice of language reveals a deliberate and malicious attempt to sow division and fan communal flames against Hindus. Moreover, Azhari did not stop at demeaning Hindus alone; he actively incited the Muslim audience against them by fostering a sense of collective grievance and brotherhood among Muslims. He painted Hindus and other non-Muslims as oppressors engaged in global injustices, thereby constructing a narrative of Muslim victimhood that legitimises division and conflict. Through emotionally charged rhetoric and calls for religious loyalty, he mobilised his followers to view Hindus as adversaries, intensifying social discord and communal hatred. This conduct unmistakably constitutes hate speech aimed at provoking enmity and disrupting social harmony. Additionally, the speech contains clear elements of incitement and threats against the Hindu community, while glorifying Islamic invaders and championing the establishment of Islam in India. This further exposes his unabated hostility towards Hindus, cementing this speech as a definitive act of anti-Hindu hate speech. The advocacy of violence and historical glorification underscores a dangerous agenda to undermine the communal fabric by promoting religious supremacy. Such actions are a result of deep-seated religious animosity towards Hindus and their faith. Given that this case meets multiple criteria of religiously motivated hate speech, it is being formally recorded in the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Perpetrators not caught
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
