After Pahalgam Hindu massacre, UK-based Islamic preacher amplifies anti-Hindu sentiment, urges Muslims to betray India and support jihad
United Kingdom 
26 April, 2025
Case Summary
A UK-based Islamic preacher named Mohammed Hijab made controversial statements urging Indian Muslims to prioritise their allegiance to the Ummah over their loyalty to India. These remarks should be viewed in the context of the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, a violent attack targeting Hindus in the Pahalgam region of Kashmir, and the ongoing tensions surrounding India’s stance on the terror attack. Hijab, who has been previously accused of inciting anti-Hindu violence during the 2022 Leicester riots, posted a tweet that suggested any Indian Muslim who supports India’s stance on Kashmir is betraying the Ummah. He further stated that those who desire the success of Hindutva over Muslims are guilty of disbelief, framing their loyalty to India as a form of betrayal of the Muslim community. Hijab referenced the Quranic verse Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:51, stating that true Muslims cannot align with non-Muslim powers, emphasising that such allegiance to India is incompatible with Islamic principles. His remarks have stirred considerable controversy, as they not only challenge the loyalty of Indian Muslims to their country but also promote divisive rhetoric that undermines national unity.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category being selected is: Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimising the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. This case has been added to the tracker because Mohammed Hijab’s comments effectively called on Indian Muslims to betray their own country in favour of transnational religious allegiance. His remarks should be viewed in the context of the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, where Hindu tourists were identified and selectively targeted. His comments must therefore be understood within the broader pattern of Islamist justification or minimisation of violence against Hindus, particularly in the aftermath of India's strong stance against Pakistan and Islamic terrorism. Hijab’s statements not only dismissed the gravity of the massacre but also implicitly justified the actions of Islamic terrorists by suggesting that Muslims should side with other Muslims, regardless of their involvement in terrorism or violence. By framing loyalty to the Indian state as a betrayal of Islam, Hijab attempted to delegitimise India's national response to terrorism and reinforce a religiously exclusive narrative that justifies even extremist violence if committed by Muslims against non-Muslims. His message aligns with the ideology of the Ummah, which promotes a transnational Muslim identity that supersedes allegiance to individual nation-states. Within this framework, Muslim loyalty lies with the global Muslim community rather than a Hindu majority country like India. It is pertinent to note that Muslim extremists harbour specific animosity towards Hindus and their faith and also view India as a Hindu collectivity. The very basis of the partition of India was that the Muslims believed that Islam was a nation unto itself, which could not survive with a Hindu collectivity like India. Therefore, when people like Hijab ask Indian Muslims to choose loyalty to the global Muslim community or Ummah over their own country, they are not just talking about religious unity—they are promoting an idea that sees Hindus and the Indian nation as outsiders or enemies. For that reason, any speech which expresses transnational loyalty, faith in the Ummah, is automatically a slogan against Hindus and the Hindu collectivity. By implicitly supporting perpetrators of religiously motivated violence and encouraging Indian Muslims to identify with global Islamic causes over their own nation, Hijab’s comments contribute to the denial and justification of the persecution of Hindus. This falls squarely under the category of hate speech as it seeks to distort and legitimise religiously motivated atrocities, paving the way for further dehumanisation and incitement against Hindus.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
