“I Love Muhammad’: Omar Abdullah calls the FIR against Kanpur procession organizers “mentally unwell,” highlighting growing tensions over religious expression in India’s diverse society.
By Navin Upadhyay
September 25, 2025: In a nation already navigating the delicate threads of religious pluralism and political polarization, a seemingly innocuous phrase—“I Love Muhammad”—has ignited a nationwide storm. What began as a simple expression of devotion during a religious procession in Uttar Pradesh has spiraled into a legal, social, and political maelstrom, drawing sharp rebukes from figures like Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. Branding the backlash as the work of a “mentally unwell” mindset, Abdullah’s unfiltered outrage has amplified the debate, thrusting questions of free speech, religious expression, and communal harmony into the spotlight. This article explores the origins, escalation, and broader implications of the controversy, revealing how three words have exposed deep fault lines in India’s secular fabric.
Origins: A Banner of Devotion Turns into a Battleground
The spark ignited on September 4, 2025, during the Barawafat (Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi) procession in Rawatpur, a bustling neighborhood in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi, commemorating the birth of Prophet Muhammad, is celebrated with processions, prayers, and public displays of faith.
During the festivities, organizers displayed banners reading “I Love Muhammad” along public roads—a heartfelt expression of reverence central to Islamic tradition. For many participants, the slogan was unremarkable, akin to devotional chants in other faiths.
However, it drew ire from local residents and Hindu nationalist groups, who alleged the display was provocative and infringed on public space. Protests erupted almost immediately, with clashes involving police and counter-demonstrators spilling into surrounding areas.
By September 9, the Kanpur police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups) and 295A (outraging religious feelings). Nine individuals were named, with 15 unidentified persons accused of affixing the banners without permission. While no arrests occurred immediately, the FIR transformed a local grievance into a pan-India flashpoint.
Escalation: From Streets to Social Media and the Courts
The FIR acted as fuel on dry tinder. Within hours, the story spread across social media, with hashtags like #ILoveMuhammad and #ReligiousFreedom trending nationwide. Muslim organizations, including All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), mobilized in defense. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi declared on X (formerly Twitter): “Expressing ‘I Love Muhammad’ is not a crime—it’s the essence of our faith.” His post received over 500,000 engagements, sparking solidarity processions in cities like Lucknow, Delhi, Mumbai, and Hyderabad.
Some rallies, intended as peaceful affirmations of faith, turned tense. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, police used lathi charges, resulting in minor injuries and 20+ arrests. In Maharashtra, counter-protests by Hindu groups chanting “Jai Shri Ram” led to clashes and internet shutdowns in affected districts. Reports of vandalism—banners torn down, vehicles damaged, and even a mosque defaced near Kanpur—surfaced.
The controversy invoked memories of prior flashpoints, including the 2022 Nupur Sharma remarks and the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Legal experts criticized the FIR as overreach. Constitutional lawyers contend that Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, including open expression. Criminalizing a devotional phrase sets a dangerous precedent—tomorrow, ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa’ could face similar scrutiny.
I Love Mohammad Mustafa ❤️
याद रखों
मोहब्बत ए रसूल दिलों की धड़कन है, इसे न कोई ज़ंजीर रोक सकती है और न ही कोई जेल।
ये मोहब्बत हर मुसलमान के खून में दौड़ती है और क़यामत तक ज़िंदा रहेगी।
I Love Mohammad ❤️ #ILoveMuhammad pic.twitter.com/HSe3Lk3J1T— urooj fatima (@urjfati) September 19, 2025
Petitions challenging the FIR reached the Allahabad High Court by September 23, with hearings slated for early October. Activists also cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 Shreya Singhal ruling on online speech restrictions to demand the case’s quashing.
Omar Abdullah Fumes: A Chief Minister’s Fiery Defense
Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah, on September 24, launched a blistering critique. “I cannot understand how writing these three words can lead to an arrest. It must mean someone is truly mentally unwell to file a case over these three words,” he said, his voice laced with incredulity.
Abdullah drew parallels with other faiths: “Our Hindu brothers display images and slogans of their Bhagwans; Sikhs honor their Gurus the same way. When does it become wrong for Muslims to express their faith by writing ‘I Love Muhammad’? It is a bankruptcy of mentality to react negatively.”
READ: Ladakh Violence: Centre Blames Wangchuk, Police Book Cong Councillor
As a leader from India’s only Muslim-majority state, Abdullah framed the issue as a litmus test for national tolerance, urging courts to “quickly set this right.” Videos of his press briefing went viral, garnering millions of views and endorsements from liberal and Muslim leaders alike.
As a leader from India’s only Muslim-majority state, Abdullah framed the issue as a litmus test for national tolerance, urging courts to “quickly set this right.” Videos of his press briefing went viral, garnering millions of views and endorsements from liberal and Muslim leaders alike.
READ:
#ILoveMuhammad [PBUH]……Omar Abdullah Reacts pic.twitter.com/PTT7MaoSuQ
— Kashmir News Trust༝ (@kntnewsagency) September 24, 2025
Broader Reactions: Allies, Rivals, and a Divided Discourse
Abdullah’s intervention resonated widely but also polarized opinion. PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti critiqued the BJP: “If making people chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ is not an offence, why the problem with ‘I Love Muhammad’? Politics thrives on playing the Hindu-Muslim card.”
Owaisi praised Abdullah as a “voice of reason,” while civil society groups like the People’s Union for Civil Liberties condemned the FIR as “fascist overreach.”
Conversely, BJP spokesperson Syed Zafar Islam argued: “Your faith is one thing, but displaying it openly on the road in this manner is inappropriate.” Hindu right-wing outfits, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), defended protests, claiming the banners were “deliberately provocative” in a Hindu-majority area. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s administration remained tight-lipped but reportedly filed the FIR to “maintain peace.”
Media and academia debated the controversy as a sign of “majoritarian bullying.” A Pew Research poll (September 24-25) showed the divide: 68% of Muslims saw the slogan as harmless devotion, while 52% of Hindus in UP viewed it as potentially inflammatory.
READ: From Robbery to Terror Trail: Why NIA Took Over Manipur Bank Heist Case
Implications: Testing India’s Secular Soul
At its core, the “I Love Muhammad” row is less about the words themselves than about the boundaries of religious expression in a diverse democracy. Hindu devotional slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” have been normalized—even enforced—while similar Muslim expressions face swift legal pushback. Critics argue this reflects an erosion of Article 25 protections, fueling minority alienation.
Politically, the controversy arms opposition parties ahead of local elections. For Abdullah, it offers a platform to burnish progressive credentials, though it risks alienating national allies. Societal fallout includes heightened vigilante patrols in mixed neighborhoods and renewed calls for a national dialogue on hate speech laws, which remain notoriously subjective.
As courts deliberate, the episode underscores a fundamental tension: in India’s kaleidoscope of beliefs, what one community hails as love, another may deem provocation. Omar Abdullah’s fury encapsulates the frustration—of a leader, a faith, and a nation at the crossroads. Will jurisprudence deliver justice, or merely douse the flames? Only time—and a swift verdict—will tell.
