Married Hindu woman lured into relationship, forced to eat beef and converted to Islam along with minor son by Muslim man
North Delhi, Delhi, India 
24 July, 2025
Case Summary
A married Hindu woman named Neha was lured into a relationship and converted to Islam, along with her 5-year-old son, by a Muslim man who initially hid his religious identity. Mohammad Irshad Saifi began the communication with simple greetings that gradually deepened into a friendship, ultimately ensnaring her in an affair. The Muslim man disclosed their interactions to her husband and family, which sparked frequent arguments at home and led them to repeatedly ask her to leave. The accused exploited this turmoil, suggesting she join him since her husband kept abandoning her. Neha left her home with her son and met Irshad in Nanpur, Moradabad, where, on 25th July 2025, he coerced her into converting to Islam by making her recite the Kalma, drink religious water, and accept a Nikah under the name Zeenat Saifi, retaining possession of all related documents. Afterwards, he arranged a flat, where they resided for three to four months. The Muslim man, who had two prior marriages, started pressuring the victim (now his third wife) to convert her son too. One day, Irshad informed Neha that he was leaving for work—possibly to Jaipur—and wouldn't be able to communicate. When she objected, Irshad assured brief communications, but contact ceased abruptly, leaving the victim distressed and isolated. She contacted Irshad’s brother, who urged that she should go to a relative's place where he might come. There she was coerced into staying overnight with promises of his imminent arrival, but she waited until noon the next day without him appearing. When she finally returned to her flat, she discovered that all her belongings, including her marksheet and jewellery, had vanished. 10 days after Irshad’s departure, his brother-in-laws, Mahboob Saifi and Wajid Saifi, bombarded the victim with threatening calls. Neha stated that his entire village, colony, and in-laws knew of his third marriage, still he abandoned her. She was being trained in Islamic practices, reciting the first Kalma partially, as her son studied at a mosque in Khure Khass and attended prayers twice daily. Despite her reluctance to convert, citing 25 years of Hindu devotion and requesting at least 25 months to adjust, Irshad insisted on immediate compliance, teaching her Wuzu, Namaz, and commanding Burqa and Pardah outdoors. He provided Urdu books and lectured her relentlessly, resorting to physical violence once, which caused significant nasal bleeding. He pressured her to consume beef to fully "become Muslim," dismissing her reverence for cows, labelling her a Kafir if she adhered to Hinduism and declaring only Allah is relevant now. When she resisted, he once deceived her with beef misrepresented as soybean, though she pretended to eat it while abstaining. Even after going through all this trouble, she was left alone with no one to turn to or anywhere to go. Neha attempted to file an FIR at the Krishna Nagar Police Station twice but was turned away. She stated that despite multiple attempts, no police officer was willing to take the complaint seriously.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the first primary category- Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The first subcategory selected is: Forced conversion before marriage. The tertiary categories selected are- Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices, Forced to eat beef, Forced to wear Hijab. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. 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, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. 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 change her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurising the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. The second sub-category selected 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 pressurising 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 a part of the hate tracker, even though it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. The second primary category selected in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, the first sub-category selected 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. The second sub-category selected is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category selected is: Conversion of Minor. 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 that 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. In this case, a married Hindu woman, Neha, was subjected to emotional manipulation and religious coercion by a Muslim man, Irshad, who initially hid his religious identity. The accused lured the victim into an affair and cunningly exposed the fact to her husband and family, effectively making her a pariah and alienating her from any social support system. With the Hindu woman at his mercy, Irshad forced her to convert to Islam and marry him through a Nikah ceremony. The victim was explicitly targeted for her Hindu identity and pressured to abandon her faith, revealing deep-rooted religious hostility. Forced conversions are a violation of a victim’s religious autonomy and freedom and are motivated by deep-seated antagonism towards the victim and her Hindu identity. The intention behind this coercion went beyond marriage; it aimed to erase the woman’s Hindu identity and replace it with a Muslim one, turning the Nikah into an act of religious domination. The entire dynamic of control and force reflected a hate-driven attempt to strip the Hindu victim of her faith and impose a different religious identity upon her, making this a clear case of a religiously motivated crime rooted in anti-Hindu prejudice. The accused also forced the Hindu victim to recite the Kalma (the Islamic declaration of faith) and to perform Namaz (Islamic prayers) and wear Hijab. These practices were imposed not as voluntary expressions of belief but as tools designed to alienate her gradually from her Hindu roots and to strip away her original faith entirely. This methodical imposition of Islamic rituals under duress constitutes a severe infringement on the victim’s religious freedom and highlights the religiously motivated nature of this crime. The Muslim man assaulted the victim whenever she tried to resist his impositions for "complete" conversion. The violence was intended to break her spirit and to force submission to his demands of religious conversion. Also, when Neha tried to look for support, she was deceived by Irshad's brother and threatened by his brother-in-laws. This behaviour reflects that the Hindu identity of the victim was completely unacceptable to the Muslim man and his family, owing to the malicious Islamic indoctrination, where hatred for Hinduism is emphasised. Irshad also forced Neha to eat beef, calling her a "Kafir" and stating that to become a complete Muslim, she needs to consume cow meat. To compel a Hindu to consume beef is not merely an act of physical violation but one of spiritual desecration. It represents an attempt to defile the religious identity of the victim, to break her will through sacrilege, and to assert dominance by desecrating that which her faith considers holy. The act, therefore, transcends the boundaries of a personal dispute and becomes a crime explicitly designed to humiliate and subjugate the victim for her Hindu identity. Also, Neha's 5-year-old son, a minor, was converted to Islam. He was given a Muslim name and was trained to follow Islamic rituals at a mosque. It is important to note here that the victim was a minor, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the Muslim perpetrators purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Additionally, any supposed consent given in such cases is already considered invalid under the POCSO Act. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of religious hate, which is why it has been documented here in the hate tracker. Such acts are not merely criminal in nature; they are ideologically charged, revealing religious prejudice and a calculated intent to alter the religious identity of a minor without her volition. 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 victim was lured into relationship. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the conversion happened: 25 July 2025.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 2
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
