Hindu sentiments violated by fabricating offensive remarks on Shivalinga by Muslim cleric during a public address
India 
29 July, 2026
Case Summary
Hindu religious sentiments were hurt by a Muslim cleric, Maulana Jargis Ansari, after he made obscene and derogatory remarks about revered Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma during a public address. While addressing the gathering, the accused fabricated offensive stories about Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma, and Lord Vishnu, and made vulgar remarks about the Shivling, one of the most sacred symbols in Hinduism. According to reports, the incident came to light after a video of the speech went viral on social media. Addressing the gathering, Maulana Jargis Ansari claimed that Lord Brahma gave birth to Lord Shiva and Lord Shiva was the first God who underwent circumcision. He further claimed that Lord Brahma circumcised him and that is why Hindus worship the Shiva linga of Lord Shiva because it was circumcised and fell off at a pandit's house. He said, “In your (Hindu) religion, there are Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Brahma creates the universe, Vishnu sustains it, and Shiva destroys it. Your gods are all different. He further said, "If Brahma Ji had not circumcised Shankar Ji, then how would the Shivling be worshipped? Why is Shankar Ji's organ separately worshipped and not Shankar Ji himself worshipped?" The accused then proceeded to narrate the fabricated story about Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma. He claimed, "Brahma Ji created Shankar Ji. When Shankar Ji grew up, he assigned Brahma Ji the task of measuring his organ. Brahma Ji kept measuring it for 50,000 years, but it never came to an end. Brahma Ji became angry." He went on to say that "Whatever had been measured in those 50,000 years remained there, and whatever was left after that, Brahma Ji bit it off with his teeth and spat it out…What he spat from above fell on a priest. The priest looked at it and said, 'Oh Jai! Om Namah Shivaya!' Since that day, people have been worshipping Shankar Ji's organ." Through these fabricated and sexually explicit remarks, the accused mocked one of Hinduism's holiest religious symbols and ridiculed core Hindu beliefs before a public gathering. This was not the first instance in which Maulana Jargis Ansari made objectionable remarks against Hindu deities. He had previously stated during another public address that "Lord Krishna offered Namaz five times a day." His repeated statements targeting revered Hindu deities demonstrated a continuing pattern of making provocative and offensive remarks directed at the Hindu faith. The video of the speech circulated widely on social media and drew strong criticism from Hindu devotees as an insult to their religious beliefs, and they demanded strict legal action against the accused.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Hate speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected for this case 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 from 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 sub-category selected is: Subversion of scriptures. Subverting the religious scriptures of Hindus has particularly devastating consequences. Subversion of the scriptures of Hindus is often done to justify or promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against specific individuals or groups of Hindus. Religious scriptures are often nuanced and those who harbour religious animosity towards Hindus often misquote or misrepresent the scripture to legitimise their animosity and hate towards the faith and its adherents. Any such misquoting of scriptures or subversion to justify hate, violence and discrimination against Hindus owing to religious animosity is hate speech and is categorised as such. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because a Muslim cleric publicly made obscene, derogatory, and blasphemous remarks about revered Hindu deities and one of Hinduism's holiest religious symbols. His speech did not constitute criticism, theological disagreement, or comparative religious discourse. Instead, he fabricated vulgar stories about Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma, Lord Vishnu, and the Shivling to ridicule Hindu beliefs before a public audience. Such conduct directly mocked the Hindu faith, denigrated its sacred figures, and deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. The blasphemous nature of the speech becomes even clearer when the actual meaning of the Shivling is understood. The accused deliberately reduced the Shivling to a human sexual organ and built an obscene fictional narrative around it. This bears no resemblance to Hindu theology. In Hinduism, the Shivling (Shiva Linga) is one of the holiest symbols of Lord Shiva. The word Linga in Sanskrit means "mark", "sign", or "symbol". It represents the infinite, formless, eternal reality of Lord Shiva rather than a physical body part. The Shivling is characteristically an ellipsoid (elliptical) form, symbolising the boundless cosmic principle from which creation emerges and into which it ultimately dissolves. Its ellipsoid form symbolises the uninterrupted flow of cosmic energy and the cyclical nature of existence. The same cyclical principle is reflected throughout the cosmos, from the orbital and rotational movement of planets and stars to the recurring cycles of creation, preservation, and dissolution described in Hindu philosophy. For millions of Hindus, the Shivling is therefore an object of profound spiritual reverence, embodying creation, preservation, dissolution, and the transcendental reality that exists beyond material form. Hindu scriptures consistently describe Lord Shiva as Anadi (without beginning) and Ananta (without end), existing beyond birth and death. Unlike ordinary beings, Shiva is not regarded as having a father or mother or as taking birth in the conventional sense. Rather, he is understood to be Swayambhu, self-manifested and eternal. Hindu traditions further describe Shiva as emerging from the primordial Nada (cosmic sound), the eternal vibration from which creation itself unfolds. This understanding is reflected in traditional scriptural narratives, including Sage Narada's explanation to Goddess Parvati before her marriage to Lord Shiva regarding Shiva's transcendental and self-existent nature. The accused's attempt to portray Lord Shiva as an ordinary human being who underwent circumcision or was subjected to obscene bodily acts fundamentally contradicted these foundational Hindu beliefs. The fabricated story narrated by the accused also stood in direct contradiction to one of Hinduism's most significant scriptural episodes concerning Lord Shiva. According to the Lingodbhava narrative found in the Shiva Purana and other Hindu traditions, Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu once argued over who was supreme. To end their pride, Lord Shiva manifested as an infinite pillar of divine fire and challenged both deities to find either its beginning or its end. Lord Vishnu travelled downward while Lord Brahma journeyed upward, yet neither could discover the limits of the infinite flame. The episode established Shiva's immeasurable, eternal, and transcendental nature, demonstrating that the Supreme cannot be measured or comprehended through material means. The Shivling is intimately associated with this manifestation of the infinite pillar of light and symbolises the limitless nature of the Divine. In a separate scriptural episode, Lord Shiva severed Lord Brahma's fifth head as a consequence of Brahma's arrogance and falsehood, an act carrying profound theological symbolism regarding the destruction of ego and untruth. Neither of these scriptural accounts bears any resemblance whatsoever to the vulgar narrative advanced by the accused. By replacing established Hindu scripture with an obscene fabrication, the accused deliberately sought to ridicule one of the most sacred symbols of Hinduism and misrepresent the religion before his audience. The speech was also overtly blasphemous because the accused did not merely mock Hindu beliefs but completely rewrote fundamental aspects of Hindu theology to suit his own religious narrative. He falsely claimed that Lord Shiva underwent circumcision, fabricated a story that Lord Brahma measured and severed Lord Shiva's genitalia, and falsely connected these fabricated events with the origin of Shivling worship. None of these claims has any basis whatsoever in Hindu scriptures, traditions, or theology. They were entirely fictional narratives constructed solely to demean Hindu beliefs and present them as absurd before a public gathering. The deliberate twisting of another religion's sacred beliefs into vulgar caricatures demonstrates not ignorance but conscious contempt for that religion and its adherents. Equally significant, this was not an isolated lapse in judgment but part of a continuing pattern of conduct. The same cleric had previously fabricated stories about Lord Krishna, falsely claiming that the Hindu deity offered Namaz five times a day. In both instances, the objective remained the same: to reinterpret revered Hindu deities through an Islamic lens while simultaneously ridiculing core Hindu beliefs. Such repeated conduct demonstrates a sustained pattern of targeting Hinduism and its sacred figures rather than engaging in any genuine theological discussion. The speech also carried a deeper element of religious supremacy. By distorting Hindu theology and presenting fabricated stories as though they reflected Hindu beliefs, the accused sought not only to mock Hindus but also to portray their religion as irrational and inferior. Such narratives are capable of misleading uninformed audiences regarding Hinduism while simultaneously humiliating Hindu devotees by ridiculing the deities they worship. The speech therefore went beyond mere insult; it attempted to undermine the legitimacy and dignity of the Hindu faith itself while implicitly advancing the superiority of his own religious worldview. Throughout history, such speeches have often been employed by supremacist preachers to ridicule indigenous faiths, weaken the confidence of their followers in their own traditions, and create an impression that they should abandon their ancestral beliefs in favour of the preacher's religion. The accused's speech reflected precisely this pattern by replacing authentic Hindu theology with fabricated narratives intended to demean the faith and mislead both Hindu and non-Hindu audiences. Taken together, the obscene fabrication of stories about Lord Shiva, the mockery of the Shivling, the repeated targeting of revered Hindu deities, the deliberate distortion of Hindu theology, and the attempt to replace established Hindu scriptural understanding with vulgar falsehoods demonstrated clear hostility towards Hinduism rather than legitimate religious commentary. The accused deliberately selected some of the most sacred figures and symbols of the Hindu faith and subjected them to obscene ridicule to demean Hindu beliefs before a public audience. Such conduct squarely falls within the category of anti-Hindu hate speech and warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker as a religiously motivated hate incident. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the offending act first occurred rather than the date on which it was subsequently reported or gained wider public attention. In the present case, the exact date on which Maulana Jargis Ansari delivered the speech containing the derogatory and blasphemous remarks about Hindu deities is not available in the public domain. Since the incident came to light through media reports and the viral circulation of the video on 30 July 2026, that date has been recorded as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes. This date has been adopted solely due to the absence of a verifiable date for the original speech and should not be construed as the confirmed date on which the remarks were made.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
