Hindus threatened to convert to Islam or get beheaded by Muslim men on social media
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
24 November, 2025
Case Summary
In Dhaulana town, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, Hindus were threatened with beheading (Sar Tan Se Juda) by three Muslim men. A video of the accused, which circulated on Instagram, showed the men warning that Hindus must “accept Islam or have their necks cut.” According to reports, this incident came to light when the Sub Inspector Arun Kumar spotted the video while patrolling and immediately reported it. The video had been uploaded from an Instagram account named “Tayyab ch Sahab 01.” Police quickly identified two of the accused. The first was Tayyab Chaudhary, son of Taj Mohammad, from Mohalla Mirchiyan Dehra under Dhaulana police station. The second was Sufiyan, son of Samsuddin, from Mohalla Qaziwara in Dhaulana. The third individual seen in the video was unidentified, and police were searching for him. In regard to this incident, the police registered a case and began an investigation with support from the cyber cell. Officials stated that the video’s content was inflammatory and capable of provoking religious hatred, which resulted in fear and anger among Hindus in the area. The authorities appealed to residents not to believe rumours and to maintain calm. The administration said that law and order would not be allowed to deteriorate and that strict legal action would be taken promptly against the accused.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory under this is: Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The second primary category in this case is: Hate speech against Hindus. The subcategory in this case 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 has been added to the tracker because the threat recorded in the video is not an isolated instance of online bravado but a direct invocation of a violent religious slogan that has historically placed Hindus at immediate risk of physical harm. The statement “accept Islam or have your neck cut” carries a well-documented lineage within contemporary Islamist mobilisation, where calls for beheading have repeatedly preceded actual killings of Hindus, particularly those accused of 'blasphemy' or targeted as symbols of resistance. The video does not merely express hostility but communicates an explicit condition of survival tied to the abandonment of one’s Hindu identity. Such an ultimatum transforms the threat from a generalised expression of anger into a coercive demand for religious submission. This is precisely the kind of environment that constitutes predatory proselytisation, where fear, intimidation, and the promise of violence are deployed to force the victimised community into compliance or silence. The case becomes even more significant because the threats were issued publicly on Instagram, using an account identifiable with the primary accused. By placing the threat in a public domain rather than a private exchange, the perpetrators intended it to reach a wider audience and to create a broader climate of fear among Hindus, not just one individual. The recorded statement is structured in a way that eliminates ambiguity about its motive: the Muslim men are not threatening violence for personal grievances but for a religious demand. Such a statement directly targets Hindus collectively, reducing them to objects of coercion whose continued safety is made contingent upon conversion. This renders the threat not only communal in nature but ideological, drawing on established patterns in which Islamists have attempted to assert dominance over public space and discourse by deploying violence as a tool of religious enforcement. Another reason this case requires documentation is the context in which similar slogans have been used in India. The Islamic beheading slogan, “Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Nabi/Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), that is beheading.” This is not an ordinary chant but an Islamist clarion call that has become a staple feature of violent protests, which have already claimed the lives of at least six Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. Another point to note is that although the “sar tan se juda” slogan originated with a radical Islamist group in Pakistan, it has spread beyond its geographical origins and is now often used by Muslims in violent demonstrations in India. The slogan constitutes an explicit call for execution based on religious identity and communicates a direct threat not only to the targeted individual but also to the wider Hindu community, aiming to suppress dissent, silence expression, and instil communal fear. This tactic has been repeatedly employed by Islamist actors to enforce compliance, intimidate non-Muslims, and amplify religious hostility, often through fabricated blasphemy claims against non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, thereby legitimising violence under the guise of religious offence. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a demand for execution by beheading, based explicitly on religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It seeks to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists have used this tactic to settle personal scores with Hindus by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which creates outrage and paints a target on their backs. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive such false accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. The invocation of a slogan historically associated with punishment for perceived disrespect toward Islamic figures is a deliberate attempt to broaden the scope of threat to non Muslim communities. It creates a climate where Hindus may feel they must self-censor their identity, expressions, or even presence in public spaces to avoid becoming targets of such violence. This fear, once instilled, operates as a powerful means of religious control. The behaviour documented also fits within the category of threats issued to pressure Hindus to abandon their religious identity. Threatening someone with death unless they accept another religion is among the clearest examples of coercive proselytisation. It forcibly nullifies the freedom of belief by creating a false binary: convert or die. Such intimidation strips its victims of agency, reduces their existence to a conditional state, and attempts to reorder their religious identity under the shadow of terror. These threats meet the criteria for a hate crime because the hostility arises directly from the victim's identity as a Hindu. The threat would not have existed had the target not belonged to a non Muslim community; the religious identity is the entire basis for the ultimatum. The public nature of the threat further enhances its gravity. A public call for beheading is not merely an attack on one Hindu but on all Hindus who may view the content or hear of it. It sends a message that they are collectively vulnerable and that their religious identity places them at risk. This effect is precisely why hate speech of this nature is dangerous: it conditions a community into anticipating violence and erodes their capacity to feel safe in their surroundings. The administration’s rapid assurances cannot erase the emotional and psychological impact of hearing such threats delivered with confidence and recorded as proof of intent. Such violent threats stem from deep-rooted hatred towards Hindus for their religious identity, making it a clear instance of an anti-Hindu hate crime. For these reasons, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of an incident based on when the crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. However, it is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case have specified the exact date on which the hate speech against Hindus was made. The viral video clip in question is also undated. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 25th November 2025.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
