Hindus targeted with 'Allah Hu Akbar' and 'Sar Tan Se Juda' slogans by Muslim mob, under guise of 'I love Mohammad' campaign
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India 
25 September, 2025
Case Summary
In Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, Hindus were targeted by a Muslim mob that raised Islamic supremacist slogans such as “Allahu Akbar” and violent beheading chants like "Sar Tan Se Juda." The mob pelted stones, vandalised property, and attacked police forces. The slogans and subsequent violence supported the “I Love Muhammad” campaign, which was a demonstration of Islamic supremacy over Hindu spaces. The unrest was sparked after Muslims deliberately tore down Hindu religious posters in Kanpur. Major unrest erupted in Bareilly after Jummah prayers on 26th September 2025, when supporters of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, president of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council, gathered following Friday prayers. Carrying “I Love Muhammad” banners and posters, they attempted to march towards Islamia Maidan to submit a memorandum, but turned violent, spreading chaos across the city. Hundreds flooded the streets across multiple areas, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and “Sar Tan Se Juda,” vandalising property and pelting stones, including from rooftops. Police officers who intervened were also attacked. The situation rapidly escalated, forcing police to resort to lathi charges to disperse rioters. Several people were injured in the clashes, including at least ten police personnel. Violence spread to surrounding areas such as Baradari and Premnagar, prompting market closures and heightened security measures. Large numbers of police were deployed, with senior officials leading flag marches through sensitive zones to restore order. Numerous rioters were detained and interrogated at the Kotwali police station for their roles in inciting violence. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan was taken into custody. Authorities noted his involvement in earlier riots in Bareilly in 2010, a case which remains pending in court. This is not an isolated incident but forms part of a larger pattern of organised agitation by Muslims across the state and beyond, centred on the “I Love Muhammad” campaign. The campaign itself arose from a controversy deliberately misrepresented by Muslim groups. This incident came in the aftermath of another communal flashpoint in Uttar Pradesh. On 5th September 2025, during a Barawafat procession in Rawatpur, Kanpur, Muslim youths used sticks to deliberately damage Hindu posters displayed in a local neighbourhood. The act followed a dispute the previous day, when an “I Love Muhammad” poster was installed in front of Zafar Wali Gali for the Barawafat observance. Residents objected, leading police to relocate the board. Despite the police clarifying that the FIR in Kanpur was filed specifically for the destruction of Hindu posters, and not for removing the “I Love Muhammad” board, a distorted narrative spread across the country that the FIR was linked to the “I Love Muhammad” banner. This falsehood fuelled nationwide protests, where Sar Tan Se Juda slogans were raised, the Palestinian flag was unfurled, and police, Hindus and their place of worship were violently attacked and vandalised.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the 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 is categorised as a hate crime because it represents a deliberate and targeted expression of Islamic supremacy and hostility toward Hindus and their religious identity. The unrest in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, under the larger “I Love Muhammad” campaign was not a spontaneous expression of devotion but a calculated display of Islamic supremacy over Hindu spaces. The Muslim mob raised slogans of “Allahu Akbar” and "Sar Tan Se Juda". Following this, they attacked police personnel, vandalised property, and engaged in stone-pelting, reflecting the scale and organised nature of the aggression. The Bareilly incident, in isolation, may appear as communal unrest, but when viewed in the context of prior anti-Hindu provocations, the slogans and violence take on the character of a hate crime. This case qualifies as a hate crime because the violence in Bareilly under the “I Love Muhammad” protest cannot be seen in isolation but must be understood as part of a larger campaign of Islamic supremacy and hostility against Hindus and their religious identity. The unrest was not a spontaneous act of devotion but a calculated mobilisation designed to dominate Hindu spaces. The Muslim mob that gathered after Jummah prayers raised chants of “Allahu Akbar,” vandalised property, pelted stones (including from rooftops), and attacked police personnel, reflecting deliberate and organised aggression rather than incidental unrest. The Bareilly incident was directly tied to an earlier flashpoint in Kanpur on 4–5 September 2025, when Muslim youths deliberately tore down Hindu religious posters during a Barawafat procession. The police FIR clearly identified vandalism of Hindu symbols as the offence, yet Islamist groups distorted this, spreading the false claim that authorities had acted against “I Love Muhammad” banners. This misrepresentation became the rallying point for mobilisation, sparking a wave of agitation far beyond Kanpur. Violent demonstrations were reported across Uttar Pradesh and other states, where mobs took to the streets under the same slogan, raised “sar tan se juda” threats, unfurled Palestinian flags, attacked police, and vandalised Hindu temples and properties. Bareilly was one of the most severe flashpoints in this chain, but it formed part of a larger, coordinated pattern of anti-Hindu mobilisation across the country. The chanting of “Allahu Akbar” played a central role in this violence. While it is traditionally a religious chant of glorification, Muslim extremists have repeatedly weaponised it as a battle cry to intimidate Hindus and project Islamic supremacy. It is not incidental that mobs raise this slogan at the very moment they launch attacks, pelt stones, or vandalise property. This pattern has been observed repeatedly: during the Delhi riots of 2020, when Hindu homes and temples were attacked, during the Karauli violence in Rajasthan in 2022, when Hindu shops were set ablaze, and during the Jahangirpuri riots in Delhi, where Muslim mobs assaulted Hindu processions while chanting the same slogan. In Bareilly too, the slogan functioned as both justification and intimidation, sanctifying the violence for the Muslim rioters while instilling fear in Hindu communities. Additionally, the Muslim mob also raised ''Sar Tan Se Juda" slogans. The use of this slogan constitutes an explicit and religiously motivated threat directed at Hindus. “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 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. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against their Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined this slogan, it has gained popularity among Islamists in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence against Hindus, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their 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 aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. The appearance of this slogan in Bareilly demonstrates how deeply this violent rhetoric has permeated. The repetition of it in public settings functions as a call for execution and sends a chilling warning to anyone, particularly Hindus, who might be perceived as dissenting or unwilling to submit to Islamist diktats. The very utterance of the slogan transforms public space into a theatre of intimidation, where Hindus are reminded that their lives could be taken for resisting Islamist assertions in civic disputes. The slogan’s danger lies not merely in its verbal content but in its historical and contemporary consequences. Across South Asia, including India, there are multiple recorded cases where individuals accused of blasphemy have been murdered after such chants were raised by Muslim crowds. From school teachers to political leaders, victims have been executed in acts directly linked to the “Sar Tan Se Juda” call. It therefore serves as a bridge between verbal incitement and physical violence, collapsing the distance between threat and action. The slogan is not a matter of community pride or protest; it is an explicit incitement to religiously motivated killing. Its use in Bareilly, in connection with a false narrative that Hindus had insulted Islam, underscores the vulnerability of Hindu communities to targeted intimidation. It also illustrates the broader pattern where Islamist groups use blasphemy allegations, fabricated or exaggerated, as tools to victimise Hindus and silence expressions of Hindu identity in public life. By documenting this case, the Hinduphobia Tracker records both the local incident and its wider ideological lineage. It demonstrates how a slogan that originated in Pakistan’s radical Islamist circles has now become a transnational chant of intimidation against Hindus. It highlights the continuity between speech and violence, reminding us that words that openly prescribe beheading cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. They are violent threats in their most direct form, and their repetition in Bareilly places Hindus under the shadow of potential physical harm solely for their religious identity. Given that this case meets the parameters of a religiously motivated crime, it is being added to the hate crime database in the Hinduphobia Tracker. It is important to highlight here that despite the flawed narrative peddled in the aftermath, the incident in Kanpur was clearly anti-Hindu in nature. At the same time, while several attacks on police officials have also occurred, these are not being documented as individual cases in the Hinduphobia Tracker. The violence against law enforcement arose because the FIR named members of the Muslim community for desecrating Hindu posters, which made the police appear as indirectly siding with Hindus. In this sense, the attacks on authorities can also be seen as an extension of the same hostility that was originally directed against Hindus. However, since the assaults were aimed at state authority rather than Hindus themselves, and because the tracker follows extremely strict parameters, we are not adding these incidents as individual entries in the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
