Hindu community abused, subjected to threats by Muslims wielding weapons and flaunting “I Love Muhammad” on social media
Yamunanagar, Haryana, India 
5 October, 2025
Case Summary
In Amadalpur village of Yamunanagar in Haryana, the Hindu community was subjected to derogatory remarks, abuses, and violent threats by three Muslim youths on social media. According to media reports, the three Muslim perpetrators shared an Instagram post showing them holding weapons with the caption “I Love Muhammad.” They also made offensive remarks targeting the Hindu community. As the post went viral, tension spread across the area, and members of the Hindu community launched a protest outside the Budhiya police station. Locals said they sat outside the station for nearly two hours, but the police did not take any immediate action. In protest, people gathered at the police station gate and raised slogans demanding justice. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Rajiv Miglani, who reached the scene, assured the protesters that the accused would be arrested soon. Additional police forces were later deployed to the village. However, by the time the police arrived, the accused had already fled. A First Information Report (FIR) was subsequently registered, and a search operation was launched to nab the culprits. The administration appealed to residents to maintain peace in the area. This incident did not emerge in isolation but forms part of a larger pattern of organised agitation by Muslims across India, centred on the “I Love Muhammad” campaign. The campaign itself arose from a controversy deliberately misrepresented by Muslim groups. On 5th September 2025, violence broke out in Rawatpur, Kanpur, during a Barawafat procession, when Muslims attacked and defaced Hindu posters. This was following a complaint by Hindus, where police removed an “I Love Muhammad” poster that had been fixed on the Ram Navami gate on 4th September 2025. An FIR was then lodged against Muslims for vandalising Hindu posters, but they twisted the narrative, claiming that the police action was taken against Muslims for merely putting up “I Love Muhammad” posters. This distortion became the rallying cry for Muslims to organise protests and violence across several districts. Slogans of “Sar Tan Se Juda” were raised in rallies, and Hindus, as well as police personnel, were attacked. Therefore, this case is not an isolated outburst but a continuation of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation and violence, openly challenging law and order while asserting Islamic supremacy.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected 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. Another subcategory selected 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 cannot be examined in isolation; it belongs to a wider sequence of events that began with anti-Hindu aggression. The backdrop of this controversy lies in the incident of 4–5 September 2025, when, during a Barawafat procession in Rawatpur, Kanpur, Muslims vandalised Hindu posters and banners. Following this, a complaint was filed by Hindus, and action was taken against rioting Muslims. A day earlier, police had removed an “I Love Muhammad” poster that had been illegally fixed on the Ram Navami gate. The FIR was lodged against Muslims for vandalising Hindu religious posters. However, this straightforward case of vandalism was deliberately distorted by Muslims, who portrayed themselves as victims and claimed that police action had been taken only because they displayed “I Love Muhammad” posters. This misrepresentation was not incidental but calculated, for it became the rallying point for widespread mobilisation across Uttar Pradesh and beyond. In the weeks that followed, Muslims organised rallies and agitations where lethal slogans such as “Sar Tan Se Juda” were openly raised. These slogans are not symbolic protests but direct calls for beheading, a form of religiously sanctioned violence. Hindus were attacked in several places, temples were desecrated, and even police attempting to maintain order were assaulted. The incident in Amadalpur village of Yamunanagar in Haryana amounted to a clear case of hate speech directed against Hindus. The Hindu community was subjected to derogatory and abusive remarks by Muslim youths on social media, which constituted anti-Hindu slurs. Such language and expression reflected deep-seated religious animosity towards the Hindu community, as the perpetrators deliberately insulted Hindu identity, dignity, and faith. The intent behind these remarks was not casual or personal—it was rooted in targeting the community as a whole, making it a clear expression of religious hatred. The Muslim perpetrators were seen brandishing weapons while abusing Hindus online. This act not only represented intimidation but also amounted to issuing violent threats against members of the Hindu community. Wielding weapons in such a provocative manner while hurling communal abuses publicly demonstrated a desire to instil fear and assert intimidation based on religion. Such behaviour is characteristic of hate-motivated speech, where symbols of aggression, like weapons, are used to reinforce hostility and dominance against a specific group—here, the Hindu community. The act clearly reflected violent anti-Hindu intent meant to dehumanise and terrorise Hindus. At the same time, given the wider backdrop of the “I Love Muhammad” controversy, the conduct of the Muslim perpetrators in this case—posting images with the “I Love Muhammad” caption while abusing Hindus and issuing threats—further exposed the religious hostility underlying the act. Their deliberate invocation of a religious slogan while threatening another faith group showcased ideological animosity directed specifically against Hindus. The use of the caption in such a combative context revealed that the incident was not isolated but aligned with the recurring pattern of aggressive expressions linked to religious branding. Thus, the entire premise of the “I Love Muhammad” controversy, as reflected in this act, was rooted in anti-Hindu sentiment, making it more explicit and threatening. Given that this case meets all parameters of religiously motivated hate speech—targeted verbal abuse, communal intimidation, and public threats based on religion—it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of an incident based on when the crime occurred rather than when it was reported by the media. However, in this case, as media reports did not specify the exact date when the accused posted the derogatory remarks and threats against Hindus, the precise occurrence date remains unclear. Therefore, the date on which the report was published by the media—6th October 2025—is being recorded as the indicative date of the incident.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
