Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Religion & belief fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about religion & belief. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

3,371 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYReligion & belief

Jesus photo printed on the Andhra Pradesh ration cards.

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerned a card shown in a social-media post and described as an Andhra Pradesh government ration card bearing Jesus’ photo. The review’s central finding is that the pictured card was not an official card issued by the state. It says a local ration dealer in Vadlamuru village printed and sold it to customers for recording the ration products they received: “The card in the photo is not the Government’s ration card, it is a card printed by the local ration dealer to note the ration products given to the consumer.” The review describes checking the post and reports finding a video uploaded by ABN Telugu on YouTube. It says that video showed the card was not the government-issued official card, and that the dealer sold the printed cards to customers for five rupees. The review also recounts a statement to ABN-Andhrajyothy from Satya Sai Ram, identified as the ration dealer’s husband: he said they printed these cards each year with a religious image, using Hindu gods in earlier years and Jesus that year. That distinction resolves the key implication in the claim: a Jesus image did appear on a card used in connection with ration purchases, but the review says it was on an unofficial dealer-printed record card, not on the state government’s official ration card. The review also notes that an Andhra Pradesh government-issued ration-card sample was available in a Sakshi article, and concludes that the government did not print the Jesus image on official ration cards.

FACTLYReligion & belief

Amit Shah touching the feet of Swami Nithyananda.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a photo said to show Amit Shah touching Swami Nithyananda’s feet. FACTLY identifies the man in that image as Jagdishwar Goburdhun, then the High Commissioner of Mauritius in India, rather than Shah. The review therefore concludes that the image does not support the claim about Shah. To check the image, FACTLY reports using Google reverse image search. It found the same photo in a Nithyananda.org gallery dated July 9, 2017, among photos showing Nithyananda with Goburdhun. That image provenance ties the pictured man to the Mauritius High Commissioner, not to the identity asserted in the claim. FACTLY also says another article showed the same photo and that information in that article corroborated Goburdhun’s identity. The excerpt does not provide the other article’s title or details, so the specific corroborating material cannot be assessed from the supplied evidence. The identification and the review’s conclusion are supported here by FACTLY’s account of the image search and its findings.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturReligion & belief

Der «Christbaum stelle für Muslime Provokation dar», heißt es in der Überschrift eines Artikels, der in sozialen Netzwerken geteilt wird. Darunter wird erklärend behauptet: «Der Christbaum muss weg. Gerade weil in letzter Zeit häufiger leicht reizbare Islamisten das Krankenhaus besuchen würden, um nach Messerunfällen eine Bluttransfusion zu empfangen und die Begleiter dieser sich beim Anblick dieser Christbäume unnötig provoziert fühlen würden.» Das Foto dazu zeigt einen Screenshot eines Beitrags der «Augsburger Allgemeinen»

Publisher’s rating: Der Christbaum im Uniklinikum wurde in diesem Jahr nicht - wie suggeriert - entfernt. Er durfte gar nicht erst aufgestellt werden. Ursache des Verbots sind nicht religiöse Gründe, sondern Auflagen der ansässigen Feuerwehr.

The post presents the University Hospital’s Christmas tree as having been removed because it supposedly provoked Muslims. The dpa review traces the viral screenshot to an article in the Augsburger Allgemeine, but identifies that article’s actual headline as “Uniklinik darf Christbaum in Empfangshalle nicht mehr aufstellen”—the hospital may no longer put a tree in its entrance hall. That is a different account from the post’s claim that a tree was taken down for religious reasons. The reported reason was fire safety. The review says the fire department had prohibited a natural Christmas tree in the central reception hall, and quotes an Augsburg fire-department spokesperson explaining that the hall is a main escape route. It also reports that the hospital had not asked the fire department before, which explains why the tree had not been prohibited earlier. The review adds important nuance: the tree was not removed that year; it had not been allowed to be put up. The fire department’s restriction concerned a natural tree, and a hospital spokesperson said an artificial, flame-retardant tree could still be placed in the hall. The evidence cited in the review therefore supports a fire-safety explanation, not the post’s suggestion that the restriction was prompted by Muslim patients or visitors.

NewtralReligion & belief

Una asociación musulmana se ha quejado del decorado navideño en Málaga

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerns a circulating post alleging that a Muslim association in Málaga objected to religious motifs in the Christmas decorations on Calle Larios. The post also attributed to the mayor a response that he did not ask for religious symbols to be removed when visiting “their countries,” and that anyone unable to tolerate the decorations should leave. The article says the content was circulating again, having appeared the previous year. The investigation reports that Málaga City Council sources had already told Diario Sur in 2018 that the story was a hoax. According to the article, no one complained about the decorations, and the council said the mayor had not made the quoted remarks. Newtral says it contacted the council again to check whether the story had recurred that year; the council described it as a “replica” of the 2018 claim and said it had already been debunked then. This account directly addresses both parts of the allegation: the supposed complaint about Calle Larios decorations and the supposed mayoral response. The article’s stated evidence is the council’s denial, including its earlier comments to Diario Sur and its confirmation to Newtral that the renewed post repeated the old story.