A lynching is not “religious zeal.” It is the collapse of religion into rage.

If Bangladesh has recently seen Hindus beaten or killed by mobs, that is not just a crime against a minority community—it is a crime against the moral core of Islam itself. The Qur’an makes the sanctity of life explicit: killing the innocent is a grave sin, and justice is not optional. It also states plainly that belief cannot be coerced (“no compulsion in religion”). When a Muslim participates in mob violence, especially against a vulnerable minority, he is not acting from divine guidance; he is acting from fear, rumor, grievance, factional loyalty, or the intoxicating anonymity of the crowd. What we are seeing is not “Islam vs. Hindus.” We are seeing politics, social breakdown, and impunity using religious language as cover.

Hindus in Bangladesh: a large minority, often politically exposed

Bangladesh is overwhelmingly Muslim, but it is also home to one of the world’s largest Hindu populations outside India. The 2022 Bangladesh census places Hindus at roughly 13.1 million people, about 7.95% of the population. The U.S. State Department similarly cites the government census and estimates Hindus at about 8%.  Hindus are not concentrated in one place; they live across the country, with significant populations in multiple divisions. That dispersion is part of the problem: it often means communities are locally outnumbered, dependent on police protection and local political will, and vulnerable when law-and-order weakens.

What “recent lynchings” show about the machinery of mob violence

Recent reporting in Bangladesh has described mob killings framed by blasphemy allegations or other accusations that spread quickly and become a license for cruelty. In one widely reported case in Bhaluka (Mymensingh), Bangladeshi reporting described a young worker being beaten, tied, and burned after accusations about “insulting religion,” with later discussion that evidence for the allegation was contested.  In another case in Rajbari, Bangladesh’s The Daily Star reported a man killed in a mob beating over an extortion allegation, as described by police.

Two realities can be true at once. A lynching is never justified, even if the victim were guilty of something. These incidents are sometimes politicized after the fact—reframed as purely communal (or purely criminal)—depending on who wants to mobilize outrage or deny minority fear. This matters because minorities often experience violence as a pattern, while officials sometimes treat each event as an isolated dispute. In fragile times, both narratives can become weapons.

The regional political temperature that makes minorities less safe

Bangladesh’s minority security rises and falls with political stability and enforcement capacity. International reporting has documented episodes of communal violence and fear among Hindus during periods of unrest, with minority organizations warning that many districts were affected during particular spikes in violence. Human-rights reporting after the 2024 upheaval highlighted broader abuses and instability, including abuses affecting Hindus and other minorities, and emphasized accountability gaps.  USCIRF has also described persistent minority fears and reported attacks and intimidation in the wake of the 2024 turmoil.  When police are overrun, politicized, or hesitant, mobs learn a simple lesson: we can do this and get away with it. That is how lynching becomes contagious.

Where India–Bangladesh rivalry enters: suspicion, propaganda, and scapegoats

Bangladesh sits in a tight strategic corridor: India to the west and north, Myanmar to the east, and a history of war and national trauma. In that environment, every internal rupture gets externalized. That’s where allegations about India’s intelligence agency, RAW (R&AW), often appear: after a riot, after a temple attack, after a murder, after a protest. The pattern is familiar across the region: when a society is burning, people look for an arsonist who is not “us.”

What can be said responsibly about RAW “in these cases.” There is no publicly verified, case-specific evidence (in mainstream credible reporting) showing RAW orchestrated the particular lynchings you referenced. Claims blaming RAW frequently circulate online during Bangladesh crises and are often tied to disinformation ecosystems that aim to inflame public anger or redirect blame. Reporting has documented how narratives blaming “Indian spies/RAW” spread online amid Bangladesh violence and temple-vandalism claims, often without substantiation.  That does not mean intelligence competition never exists in South Asia. It does. But an “intelligence lens” should not become a substitute for evidence. The more common, documentable drivers of lynching are painfully local: rumor, especially blasphemy rumor, political protection for perpetrators, policing failures, economic and workplace disputes morphing into identity violence, organized extremist networks exploiting moments of chaos In short: RAW is often a story people tell; impunity is often the reality that kills.

The religious truth that should be said plainly

A Muslim who claims the Qur’an as guidance cannot claim righteousness while joining a mob. The Qur’an commands justice even against those we dislike. It forbids transgression and condemns فساد (corruption) and ظلم (oppression). It denies coercion in matters of faith.

So, when someone lynches a Hindu (or anyone) and shouts religious slogans, this is not “faith in action.” It is religion captured by tribalism—used to justify power, revenge, or the thrill of domination. And the moral injury spreads: it does not only terrify Hindus; it also hollows out Islam’s ethical credibility in public life. A constructive way to frame responsibility (without denying geopolitics)

If we want no lynchings, the most effective focus is not distant intelligence agencies, but immediate accountability: Rapid arrests and transparent prosecutions. Clear government messaging that lynching is murder—no exceptions. Protection for witnesses and minority complainants. Counter-rumor mechanisms (especially for blasphemy allegations). Depoliticized policing during election or transition periods. Religious leadership speaking in one voice: mob violence is haram Geopolitics matters—but law enforcement and moral clarity matter more in stopping the next mob.