 Print
Crackdown Over “I Love Muhammad” PBUH Slogan Sparks Alarm Across India
11-24-2025
A recent fact-finding report by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has alleged widespread and disproportionate police action against Muslims in several Indian states following peaceful expressions of the phrase “I Love Muhammad.” The crackdown—ranging from arrests and criminal cases to demolition of homes and sealing of markets—has intensified concerns over selective law enforcement and the shrinking space for religious expression among India’s Muslim minority.
ThousandsBooked Nationwide;Arrests Continue
According to APCR, more than 4,500 Muslims have been booked across India, and at least 265 have been arrested as of 7 October. In Bareilly, a city in Uttar Pradesh, APCR documented 89 arrests, many made in the days after a peaceful demonstration led by prominent Muslim cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan.
These numbers align with APCR’s national tracking of cases since early September, when multiple Indian states—predominantly those governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—began registering cases against Muslims who displayed the phrase “I Love Muhammad” on banners, clothing, or social media.
How the Crackdown Began
The controversy began on 4 September in Kanpur, where local Muslims displayed an illuminated sign reading “I Love Muhammad” during Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi, the annual celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birth. Some Hindu residents objected, claiming it violated state restrictions on introducing “new elements” into public religious displays.
However, police subsequently filed far more serious charges, including promoting enmity on religious grounds, which carries a prison term of up to five years. Muslim political leaders condemned the escalation, and peaceful protests spread to multiple states.
Bareilly Becomes a Flashpoint
On 26 September, Bareilly witnessed a peaceful march called by Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan in solidarity with those arrested in Kanpur. APCR’s fact-finding report asserts:
The demonstration was peaceful, involving the submission of a memorandum.
No inflammatory slogans, vandalism, or violence were reported by the team.
Police allegedly carried out a sudden lathi charge without warning.
Subsequent arrests and property seizures were conducted without due legal process.
Following the protest, authorities deployed paramilitary units and additional forces (PAC, RRF) to Muslim-majority neighbourhoods. Internet services were suspended for 48 hours, causing economic disruption and heightening public anxiety.
Sealing of Waqf Market
Two days later, on 29 September, the district administration sealed 32 shops in Mazaar Pehalwaan Market, a registered Waqf property (Waqf No. 383). APCR states that:
Shopkeepers received no prior notice.
The sealing allegedly violated a standing stay order issued by the Waqf Tribunal.
The action appeared punitive, as many affected tenants had participated in the protest.
Shopkeepers said they had been paying regular rent to the Waqf Board and described the operation—conducted under heavy police presence—as an attempt to intimidate the community.
Due Process Concerns and Alleged Illegal Detentions
Lawyers interviewed by APCR reported:
Arrest memos were not issued in many cases.
Families were not informed of where detainees were taken.
Copies of FIRs were often withheld.
Several minors were allegedly detained, and their access to legal aid remains unclear.
Local activists said lawyers were frequently denied case papers, preventing them from filing timely bail applications.
Demolitions and Selective Administrative Action
The report documents several incidents of demolitions and property seizures involving associates of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, including the arrest of Dr. Nafis Khan, a member of the local Waqf Management Committee. Many of these actions occurred when the internet was suspended, a pattern critics say is designed to obstruct documentation and resistance.
In Bareilly, APCR observed a visible disparity:
Muslim-majority areas were heavily patrolled, subdued, and economically impacted by shutdowns.
Neighbouring Hindu-majority areas continued unaffected and active, even during curfews.
The team concluded that the state response resembled a “collective punishment” model rather than standard law enforcement.
Is Saying “I Love Muhammad” pbuh Illegal?
Legal experts say no.
Under the Indian Constitution:
Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Authorities have not criminalised the phrase itself. Instead, police have invoked:
Sections related to unlawful assembly,
Mischief,
Provoking religious tensions, and
Promoting enmity.
However, these provisions have been applied even to individuals posting the phrase on social media or wearing it on T-shirts, a move legal analysts call constitutionally unsound.
Human rights experts, including Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel, argue that using such laws against peaceful religious expression “does not meet the threshold for criminal restriction under Indian or international human rights law.”
A Pattern of Targeting
Human rights organizations have for several years documented a rise in anti-Muslim hate speech, discriminatory policing, and summary demolitions—especially in BJP-ruled states. India’s own Supreme Court has stated that demolitions cannot be used as extra-legal punishment, yet reports show that this continues without proper notice or procedure.
Political analysts argue that local incidents increasingly become national flashpoints, magnified by partisan media ecosystems. In Varanasi—Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s constituency—BJP workers even erected signs reading “I Love Bulldozer,” celebrating the bulldozing of Muslim properties after the Kanpur protests.
Impact on Muslim Youth
APCR data indicates that many of those arrested in the recent crackdown are young Muslim men, including those detained for social media posts. Analysts warn that such actions could deepen alienation among Muslim youth who already feel disproportionately targeted in matters of cultural identity and public expression.
“It creates an atmosphere where simply existing as a Muslim in public life feels criminalised,” one Delhi-based political commentator noted. “The message is that any expression of Islamic identity, no matter how benign, can be interpreted as a provocation.”
APCR’s Recommendations
APCR’s report calls for:
A judicial inquiry into the police action in Bareilly.
Review and reversal of illegal arrests, demolitions, and sealing orders.
NHRC intervention to investigate human rights violations.
Dialogue between authorities, civil society, and the Muslim community.
Disciplinary action against officials who ordered or carried out excessive force.
Safeguards to prevent the criminalisation of peaceful religious expression.
A Growing National Debate
Across India, the phrase “I Love Muhammad” has now become symbolic—representing for some Muslims not only devotion, but resistance against what they see as selective policing and the erosion of constitutional protections.
As protests continue and legal challenges mount, the situation in Bareilly and elsewhere remains tense. Community leaders insist on transparency, due process, and accountability, while human rights groups warn that the crackdown sets a troubling precedent for religious freedom and civil liberties in the world’s largest democracy.
Footnotes:
|