Hindu woman lured into relationship by Muslim man who concealed his identity and forced religious conversion on victim

Case ID : 30a9d6f | Location : Thane, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Tue, 11 August, 2026

Case ID : 30a9d6f

Thane, Maharashtra, India

11 August, 2026

Hindu woman lured into relationship by Muslim man who concealed his identity and forced religious conversion on victim

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Man pretends to be Hindu

Name Changed

Pattern of targeting Hindu women

Forced conversion after marriage

Assault or threat upon refusal to convert

Case Summary

In Bhiwandi, Thane district, Maharashtra, a Hindu woman was lured into a relationship and marriage by a Muslim man named Mijanur Rahman, who masqueraded as a Hindu man named Rajveer Tare. After the marriage, she was assaulted and pressured to accept Islam. After the forced conversion, her name was changed to Zoya Mijanur Rahman. According to the complaint, Mijanur Rahman had contacted the woman through social media by sending her a friend request and had developed a relationship with her while presenting himself as Rajveer Tare. During the marriage discussions, she discovered that he was a Muslim and initially refused to marry him. He misled her by saying that he did not follow any religion and falsely assured her that she could continue practising her own religion after marriage. Upon this assurance, the victim agreed to marry the accused. The victim stated that soon after the marriage, Mijanur Rahman began pressuring her to embrace Islam and subjected her to continuous mental and physical abuse. She said that she was forcibly converted to Islam and that her name was changed to Zoya Mijanur Rahman. The couple later had a son. The victim further stated that while checking Mijanur Rahman's mobile phone one day, she discovered that he had been communicating with four other Hindu women. When she decided to approach the police and initiate legal action, Mijanur Rahman took their son and fled the house. She subsequently lodged a complaint against him at the Neral Police Station in Maharashtra.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is: Crime against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is: Man pretends to be Hindu. The tertiary categories selected in this case are: Name changed and pattern of targeting Hindu women. When a non-Hindu man pretends to be a Hindu to deceive a Hindu woman into a relationship, the act is seen as triggered by mala fide intentions. In some cases, the woman eventually accepts the man’s original religious identity and converts after the man’s identity is revealed. These cases could be argued as cases of religious brainwashing and a result of the pressure a woman feels after getting into a relationship with a man. The woman, it can be argued, also changed her religious identity because of the stigma she believes she might face if she chooses to walk out of a deceptive relationship. However, for the purpose of documenting hate crimes, the cases in this subcategory are limited to those where there is explicit violence aimed at religious conversion against the wishes of the victim (force-feeding beef, blackmailing with intimate videos, rape on refusal to convert, etc), or if the woman herself complains of the man’s religious deception. In such cases, it is established that the deception of the non-Hindu man had a specific aim of religious conversion or targeting of the victim due to her Hindu religious identity, therefore, making it a religiously motivated hate crime. The second subcategory selected in this case is: Forced conversion after marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert her religion after marriage. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man, pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, there is application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, being forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing; however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. The third subcategory selected in this case is: Assault or threat upon refusal to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual, with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressuring the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and, upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat are not considered part of the hate tracker, even though it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. This incident exhibits a clear pattern in which religious identity was central to the commission of the offence. The concealment of the accused's Muslim identity was not an incidental act of deception but the very mechanism through which the relationship was initiated. By assuming a Hindu identity and assuring the victim that her faith would be respected, the accused overcame a religious barrier that would otherwise have influenced her decision. The deception therefore specifically targeted the trust associated with the victim's Hindu identity and deprived her of the ability to make an informed choice. Equally significant is the shift in conduct after the marriage. The alleged pressure to embrace Islam, coupled with coercive methods employed when the victim resisted, demonstrates that the victim's religious identity became the focal point of the abuse. Rather than respecting her freedom to practise her own faith, the accused sought to replace it with another religious identity through intimidation and coercion. The victim's religion was therefore not incidental to the abuse but one of its principal targets. The alleged communication with multiple Hindu women also assumes significance because it indicates that the victim may not have been singled out solely due to personal circumstances. Instead, it points towards a recurring pattern in which Hindu women were specifically approached through religious deception. While each case must be assessed on its own facts, such conduct is consistent with a modus operandi in which concealment of religious identity is used to gain the confidence of Hindu women before subjecting them to coercion. Viewed in its entirety, the incident is not merely one of domestic abuse or matrimonial discord. It is characterised by a combination of religious identity concealment, interference with the victim's freedom of belief, and coercive attempts to alter her religious identity. It is this nexus between deception, coercion, and the targeting of a Hindu woman because of her faith that warrants its inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker. Interestingly, this is not an isolated incident; in fact, Hinduphobia Tracker has documented many such cases where Muslim men deliberately lure Hindu girls into romantic relationships by hiding their religious identity or pretending to be Hindu. Once trust is gained, they push for marriage and later compel the girl to convert to Islam. After the conversion is complete and the girl is fully isolated from her family, community, and original faith, the relationship is often abruptly broken off. These girls are not treated as genuine partners, but rather as instruments for fulfilling a religious agenda. The purpose in such incidents is not emotional or personal but strategic. The ultimate goal is to alienate the victim from her Hindu faith and assimilate her into a different religious identity. Once that goal is achieved, the victim is frequently abandoned, as her "use" in this ideological mission is considered complete. This pattern stems from a supremacist interpretation of Abrahamic religious doctrine, where those who do not follow the same faith are viewed as inferior, impure, or needing to be corrected. In such a worldview, conversion is not an invitation; it is an obligation. The non-believer is not respected as different, but is dehumanised until they conform. As a result, Hindus are often targeted not for personal reasons but because of their religious identity. The violence, manipulation, and betrayal involved in these cases are not isolated acts of cruelty—they are manifestations of an underlying ideological hostility towards Hinduism, its traditions, and its followers. This is why such cases must be recognised and documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The victims are not just exploited individuals; they are Hindus targeted for being Hindu. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of an incident based on when the crime occurred, or when the victim’s ordeal began, rather than when the media reported it. In this case, the exact date of the incident or the beginning of the victim’s ordeal was not specified in the available reports. Therefore, 12 August 2026, the date on which the incident was reported, has been used as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes.