Case Summary

A mentally ill Hindu youth was deceitfully taken to a mosque and coerced into offering namaz by a Muslim man in Tiwaripur Lehara village, Phaphamau, Uttar Pradesh. The accused, identified as Mohammad Hussain, who is a barber, manipulated the vulnerable youth and attempted to convert him to Islam. On October 21, 2025, Hussain dressed the youth, 20-year-old Saphal Tiwari, in Muslim attire, made him perform namaz multiple times, and recorded photos and videos of the act, which he later uploaded on social media. The victim’s brother, Sachin Tiwari, filed a complaint stating that Saphal had been suffering from mental illness and was easily influenced. Taking advantage of his condition, Hussain lured him to a mosque in Civil Lines and forced him into Islamic practices. When the family saw the viral videos, they were deeply disturbed and approached the police for action. Following the complaint, the police registered a case against Mohammad Hussain and arrested him. According to the FIR, Hussain also stated that Islam is more powerful and Hinduism is not. Inspector Kuldeep Singh Gunawat confirmed that an FIR was filed and legal proceedings were underway.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory under this is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to the existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. Another subcategory under this is: Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism. In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. This case has been added to the Hinduphobia Tracker because it exemplifies the deeply exploitative nature of predatory proselytisation, where a Hindu individual’s mental vulnerability was manipulated to impose upon him an alien religious identity. The perpetrator, Mohammad Hussain, deliberately targeted a mentally ill Hindu youth, Saphal Tiwari, who was incapable of giving informed consent or understanding the implications of the religious practices forced upon him. The act of deceitfully taking him to a mosque, clothing him in Muslim attire, compelling him to perform namaz, and subsequently recording and publicising the act reflects a calculated attempt to humiliate, deracinate, and symbolically strip him of his Hindu identity. The offence transcends the boundaries of personal misconduct and enters the realm of religiously motivated malice. Hussain’s explicit assertion that Islam is “more powerful” and that “Hinduism is not” demonstrates a conscious attempt to denigrate the Hindu faith while elevating his own. Such a statement cannot be dismissed as casual rhetoric; it forms the ideological core of the offence. The act was not merely one of exploitation but of indoctrination through coercive persuasion, aimed at asserting the supposed superiority of one religion by undermining another. This incident falls within the primary category of Predatory Proselytisation and specifically within the subcategories of proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation, or subtle indoctrination and attempting to convert by denigrating Hinduism. The manner in which Hussain engaged with his victim aligns precisely with the patterns of religious grooming and coercive indoctrination described in this classification. He identified and preyed upon a person who was psychologically unfit to resist influence, thereby weaponising vulnerability to advance his religious objective. The case also illustrates how proselytisation may operate not through overt physical force but through psychological subjugation and manipulation. The victim’s inability to comprehend or resist the imposition of a contrasting faith renders the act inherently violent, albeit in a non-physical form. It was a violation of personal autonomy and religious identity, achieved through deceit, manipulation, and ideological coercion. The uploading of the recorded videos on social media further amplified the harm by turning the victim’s humiliation into a public spectacle, intended to project the supposed victory of one faith over another. Such conduct stems from religious animosity and functions as a hate crime against Hindus. It reflects a deliberate attempt to exploit a Hindu individual’s compromised mental state for the dual purpose of conversion and derision of Hinduism. The offender’s proclamation of the inferiority of Hinduism substantiates the underlying hostility that motivated his actions. The incident, therefore, is not an isolated case of personal misconduct but a manifestation of religiously driven contempt, where a member of the majority faith was demeaned and symbolically converted under the guise of religious supremacy. By targeting a mentally ill Hindu youth and coercing him into performing acts of another faith while denigrating his own, the perpetrator enacted both spiritual violence and social humiliation. It underscores how predatory proselytisation often operates through the exploitation of weakness, emotional or cognitive dependence, and misplaced trust. The case stands as a stark reminder that religiously motivated manipulation of the vulnerable is not only a moral transgression but a direct assault on the dignity and sanctity of the Hindu faith and its adherents.