Anti-Hindu hate speech: Muslim cleric threatens to “break the spine” of Hindutvadis and calls for removal of Hindu idols from Bangladesh
Bangladesh 
11 August, 2026
Case Summary
Hindus and their religious practices were targeted by Bangladeshi Islamic fundamentalist Enayatullah Abbasi, who delivered a speech before a gathering, which later went viral on social media. The remarks explicitly denigrated Hindu religious practices and called for the removal of Hindu religious idols from Bangladesh. In the video, the Muslim cleric, Enayatullah Abbasi, declared that “we will not allow any Murti (Hindu idols) to remain in Bangladesh” and threatened to throw Hindu idols from Bangladesh into India, while also declaring that Hindus would be forced to wander from house to house chanting “Hare Ram, Hare Ram.” He further disparaged Hindu idol worship and made hostile remarks against Hindutva supporters, saying, “We will break the spine of Hindutvadis,” and claiming that if Muslims entered India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi would flee. The escalation and calls for violence against Hindus and their places of worship in Bangladesh has unfolded in three distinct phases: first, following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s government in August 2024; second, after the death of Sharif Osman Bin Hadi in December 2025; and third, in the immediate aftermath of the 13th National Parliamentary Election 2026. Following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina, multiple reports documented attacks on Hindu homes, temples, and religious institutions, alongside intimidation campaigns, arson, and mob assaults targeting minority neighbourhoods. The Hinduphobia tracker has recorded 336 such incidents against the Hindu minority, underscoring the scale and persistence of anti-Hindu violence during this period. A further escalation occurred following the death of Sharif Osman Bin Hadi, a Muslim political activist and student leader known for his anti-Hindu and anti-India rhetoric. Hadi had been involved in political unrest after the fall of the Hasina government and was killed in Dhaka on 18 December 2025 during clashes. In the aftermath of his death, Hindu communities were blamed and subsequently targeted in retaliatory violence. Hindu homes were selectively set ablaze in multiple localities, forcing families to flee and leaving many displaced. The attacks appeared patterned rather than sporadic, with Muslim mobs focusing on Hindu neighbourhoods, properties, and religious symbols. Among the victims was Dipu Chandra Das, who was lynched to death and his body was set ablaze by a Muslim mob over false blasphemy allegations. The Hinduphobia tracker documented 51 incidents of anti-Hindu violence in the period following Hadi’s death alone. Such incidents underscore the vulnerability of the Hindu minority amid rising communal hostility and the weaponisation of religious accusations. Reports further indicated that posters and written materials calling for the extermination of Hindus were displayed in public spaces, signalling an alarming normalisation of genocidal rhetoric. When combined with acts of arson, vandalism, assault, and targeted intimidation, these developments suggest a coordinated environment of hostility aimed at terrorising the Hindu community and reinforcing majoritarian dominance. The third phase of violence was unleashed after the 13th National Parliamentary Election 2026. Within days of the announcement of results, Hindu families in districts such as Noakhali, Rangpur, Nilphamari, Sylhet, Thakurgaon, and Dinajpur reported coordinated attacks involving arson, looting, assault, and vandalism of temples and homes. In several instances, Hindu homes were selectively targeted, looted, and families were threatened with displacement.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
his case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected here 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 sub-category selected here 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. This case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime because the statements were directed specifically at Hindus because of their religion and attacked both Hindu believers and the physical manifestations of their faith, idols of Hindu deities. The remarks did not merely express hostility towards a political ideology or political group; they identified Hindu religious identity and Hindu religious practices as objects of contempt and advocated their removal. The prime indicator of the religious dimension of the incident is the Abbasi's specific targeting of Hindu murtis (idols). Within Hinduism, murtis are not merely cultural artefacts, decorative objects, or political symbols; they occupy a central place in devotional practice and are used as focal points of worship, prayer, offerings, and religious observance. Temples and household shrines commonly contain murtis representing Hindu deities, making them an important and visible expression of Hindu faith and religious life. Consequently, calling for their removal or destruction is not simply a statement against an inanimate object but an attack on a tangible manifestation of Hindu religious belief and practice. The cleric’s demand that no murti should remain in Bangladesh therefore directly targets the continued public and physical presence of Hinduism in the country. It implies that Hindu religious symbols and places of worship should be removed from the social and physical landscape, rather than being allowed to exist alongside other faiths. This makes the religious motive particularly explicit: the hostility is directed at objects precisely because of their significance to Hindu worship. Moreover, extending the hostility from individual Hindus to their sacred religious representations demonstrates an attempt to delegitimise Hindu religious expression itself. The call to eliminate murtis therefore represents hostility not merely towards particular Hindus or their political affiliations, but towards a fundamental and visible component of Hindu religious practice and the community’s ability to openly observe and express its faith. In Islamic theology, idol worship, referred to as Shirk, is regarded as the gravest sin. The Qur'an strictly condemns it, and Islamic teachings emphasise the complete rejection of any practice associated with idol worship. Muslims are taught from a young age that idolatry is an unforgivable sin. While this belief is central to the Islamic faith, it has also led, historically and in contemporary times, to intolerance and hostility towards idol-worshipping religions, especially Hinduism. Thus, when Muslims target Hindu idols, it reflects more than personal disrespect. Its a manifestation of deep-seated theological contempt against Hindu practices, stemming from the Islamic doctrinal view that idol worship is impure and offensive. The remarks also demeaned the religious practice of idol worship and used the Hindu devotional chant “Hare Ram” in a mocking and derogatory manner. By presenting a distinctly Hindu form of worship as something that Hindus would be reduced to performing while being displaced from their normal lives, the Muslim cleric used religious practice as a means of humiliation. This establishes that Hindu religious identity, rather than an unrelated personal characteristic, was central to the hostility expressed. The broader context further reinforces the religious character of the statements. The cleric contrasted Muslims with Hindus and framed the removal of Hindu religious symbols as something Muslims should accomplish. This constructed a clear religious “us versus them” distinction, in which Muslims were portrayed as the group capable of eliminating Hindu religious presence. Such framing transforms the remarks from ordinary political rhetoric into sectarian hostility directed at a religious community. Importantly, the statements also targeted the religious presence of Hindus in Bangladesh. Calling for their elimination therefore contributed to an environment in which Hindu religious expression is treated as illegitimate or unwelcome. The fact that the remarks were delivered publicly before a gathering further amplified their communal character and gave the message a collective dimension. This incident was not an isolated instance of anti-Hindu rhetoric by Abbasi. In an earlier incident documented by the Hinduphobia Tracker, Abbasi had also threatened Hindu minorities in Bangladesh with retaliation and violence in response to political developments in neighbouring West Bengal. He warned that Hindus in Bangladesh would not be allowed to live safely if Muslims in West Bengal were considered unsafe, effectively treating the Hindu minority as a community that could be collectively punished for political developments across the border. The earlier case similarly involved the use of Hindu religious identity as the basis for threats and demonstrated a recurring pattern in Abbasi’s rhetoric of portraying Hindus as legitimate targets of communal retaliation. The repetition is significant in establishing that the anti-Hindu hostility expressed in the present case was not an isolated or incidental statement but formed part of a broader pattern of rhetoric in which Abbasi has singled out Hindus and threatened their safety on the basis of their religious identity. The combination of these remarks shows that the hostility was directed at Hinduism itself and sought to portray the presence and expression of the faith as something that should be eliminated. By attacking sacred Hindu symbols, ridiculing Hindu religious practices, and advocating the removal of Hindu religious representations, the cleric moved beyond political criticism into explicit religious hostility. The statements therefore demonstrated an ideological rejection of Hindu religious presence and contribute to an environment in which Hindus and their faith are portrayed as unwelcome. This makes the religious nature of the hostility clear and establishes that Hindu identity and religious practice were central to the animosity expressed. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the Abbasi made the speech. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 13 August 2026.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
