When “Merry Christmas” becomes a crime in the name of faith

LATELY, social media has been flooded with posts quoting Islamic clerics saying that Muslims should not even say “Merry Christmas” because Christmas celebrates the birth of the son of God. What is even more telling is not just the quote itself, but how many people are agreeing with it and sharing it as if this is some kind of moral victory.

Let’s be honest about what this really is. This is not about religious purity. This is not about personal belief. This is about a religious ideology that actively discourages coexistence. When a holy theology teaches its followers that they are forbidden from offering even basic goodwill to their neighbors, that theology is no longer just practising faith. It is training social separation. It is teaching people to emotionally and culturally withdraw from the society they live in. And when millions of people obey it, the consequences stop being private and start becoming public.

Every functioning society on earth runs on one simple rule: you don’t have to agree with your neighbour’s beliefs to respect their humanity. Saying “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Diwali,” or “Eid Mubarak” is not an act of worship. It is a gesture of coexistence. It is a signal that we recognise each other as part of the same community, even when our beliefs differ.

So when religious authorities instruct their followers that even this level of respect is forbidden, they are not protecting faith. They are undermining social harmony. The people who amplify this message online need to be called out for what they are doing. They are not defending religion. They are promoting a worldview where only one identity is considered legitimate and everyone else is treated as an outsider whose traditions should not even be acknowledged. That is not pluralism or tolerance or coexistence. It is ideological separation dressed up as devotion.

Now, inevitably, someone will respond with “But what about Hindu vandals?” And yes, if someone vandalises a church or a Christmas display, that is wrong. It should be condemned, and the people responsible should face consequences. There is no justification for vandalism, intimidation, or harassment, regardless of who does it. But here is the key difference people keep avoiding. When a Hindu commits such an act, it is a violation of Hindu philosophy, not an expression of it. Hindu scriptures do not teach that other religions are illegitimate, that their gods should be rejected, or that their festivals must not even be acknowledged. The core civilisational idea of Sanatan Dharma has always been that truth is vast, paths are many, and coexistence is natural.

By contrast, within Islamic theology, scriptures, holy books, there are long-standing doctrines of exclusivity that are repeatedly invoked by clerics and preachers to discourage recognition of other faiths, to delegitimise their beliefs, and to treat their traditions as invalid. Whether one agrees with those interpretations or not, they are part of a doctrinal framework that continues to shape how many followers are taught to see the world.

So when a Hindu vandalises something, it is an individual acting against his own tradition. When large numbers of Muslims are told not even to wish their neighbours well on a holy day, that behaviour is being produced and reinforced by theology itself. That distinction matters. One is a social problem that violates the religion’s own values. The other is a theological problem that trains people, from within the belief system, to reject coexistence.

What makes this especially dangerous is how this mindset quietly justifies deeper divisions. If your neighbour’s festival is “invalid,” then eventually your neighbor becomes “invalid.” If their beliefs are false, their customs are wrong, their traditions are corrupt, how long before their presence itself becomes unacceptable? This is exactly how societies fracture. Not through violence at first, but through doctrine that trains people to stop seeing each other as equals.

And before anyone says this is about targeting people, let’s be very clear that the target here is the ideology and the theology that produces this thinking. People deserve dignity. Doctrines deserve scrutiny. Coexistence is not built by governments. It is built by ordinary people choosing, every day, to live together with mutual respect. When a belief system forbids even that, the problem is not “misunderstanding.”

The problem is the belief system itself because the first step toward living together is the simplest one is being able to look at your neighbour and wish them well. When that is treated as disobedience, something is deeply broken.

Mitsu Chavda Patel is an international family lawyer, writer, and public speaker, known for her work at the intersection of law, culture, and global Hindu civilisational discourse. She holds a BA in English literature and a Bachelor of Laws from India, and earned her double masters of law in immigration and criminal law and policy from the University of California, Davis. Patel has also been awarded an honorary doctorate by California Public University. She regularly writes on legal issues for various platforms and speaks on Hindu civilisational topics from a global perspective, with a focus on identity, reform, and contemporary challenges. Patel believes that informed dialogue shapes stronger societies and that every voice matters in the pursuit of truth, justice, and cultural understanding.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. 

THE POST