Saudi Arabia’s Sharia Court Sentences Sri Lankan Hindu to Death on Blasphemy Charges

A 24-year-old Sri Lankan Tamil man is facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia after a court convicted him over a Facebook comment allegedly insulting Islam and the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The case involving Anojan Sivarasa, a migrant worker from Narpittimunai in Kalmunai in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, has triggered diplomatic efforts from Colombo, appeals from religious leaders, and calls for clemency.

It began with an online dispute in Sri Lanka after an incident involving a stray dog that accompanied Hindu pilgrims during the annual Pada Yatra pilgrimage to the Kataragama Murugan temple. The dog, which devotees reportedly named Subramani, became known on social media after traveling with the pilgrims. In June, a video appeared to show a Muslim man kicking the dog in Kalmunai, prompting widespread anger and a heated online exchange between users from different religious communities.

According to reports based on accounts from Sivarasa’s family and people involved in the case, a social media user, who many internet users claimed was a Muslim, subsequently posted a derogatory remark about a Hindu deity. Sivarasa responded in Tamil with a comment that allegedly insulted Muhammad. He later deleted the comment and posted a video apologizing for what he had written. However, someone had already taken a screenshot of the Facebook comment.

The screenshot eventually reached Sivarasa’s employer in Saudi Arabia. His employer then informed Saudi authorities, leading to his arrest on July 1, though some media reports suggested that he was arrested on July 2. Saudi authorities seized his electronic devices, and his social media accounts were deleted.

Saudi authorities initially prosecuted Sivarasa under the country’s cybercrime framework under Article 6 of Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Cybercrime Law. The Al-Ahsa Criminal Court sentenced him to five years in prison and imposed a fine of three million Saudi riyals (approximately $800,000) on July 27.

The case, however, took a dramatic turn when Saudi prosecutors appealed to have the offense considered under Sharia, rather than solely under the cybercrime provisions. On September 17, an appellate court in Saudi Arabia increased Sivarasa’s punishment from five years in prison to a death sentence, imposed as a “hadd” punishment, which it says constitutes a fixed punishment under the interpretation of Sharia that the court applied. Sivarasa has since appealed the death sentence.

Sri Lanka’s government initially avoided publicly confirming the death sentence while it awaited the formal written judgment from Saudi judicial authorities. On September 18, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry said it was closely following Sivarasa’s judicial proceedings through the Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh, and engaging Saudi authorities through diplomatic channels. Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake also met Sivarasa’s parents and pledged to seek clemency from the Saudi ruler. Opposition politicians have urged President Dissanayake to seek Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assistance, citing India’s close relations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The case has also drawn intervention from Hindu organizations and religious leaders. The Kandyan Hindu Priests’ Association and other Hindu representatives submitted memoranda to the Sri Lankan president, seeking government intervention to secure Sivarasa’s release. Buddhist leaders have separately urged the government to act on the case.

Sri Lanka has now stepped up its legal response. A four-member legal delegation comprising senior Sri Lankan lawyers traveled to Saudi Arabia in October to coordinate Sivarasa’s appeal with two Saudi law firms that the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry retained. The delegation planned meetings with the lawyers on October 7 and 8, along with discussions with Saudi officials, before finalizing the documents for an appeal before the Saudi Supreme Court. Sivarasa’s family has also appealed for mercy. Sivarasa’s family has also appealed for mercy and raised concerns about his treatment in prison, claiming that the victim has been attacked with a sharp weapon while in custody and sustained six head injuries. His brother, Hamsidan, has said the family has struggled to get updates on Sivarasa, and has not heard from him since September 28.

Although Sivarasa is alive now, the case is subject to further legal proceedings, with no future promised to him yet. That this is happening in 2026 is immensely disturbing. The reaction to this case exposes a glaring double standard in how religious insult is treated when it’s done by a Muslim versus a non-Muslim.

In India, there have been numerous instances in which Muslims have mocked, insulted, or degraded Hindu gods and goddesses. And every time, they shamelessly defended their deplorable acts in the name of freedom of expression, artistic liberty, and comedy. While the examples are numerous, let’s highlight two for now. M.F. Husain rose to enormous prominence while producing controversial and explicitly nude portrayals of Hindu deities, particularly Hindu goddesses. But the Indian courts rushed to his rescue and dismissed all cases filed against him. Comedian Munawar Faruqui, too, attracted widespread support and sympathy from sections of India’s liberal and left-leaning establishment after making derogatory jokes about Hindu gods and goddesses, including Goddess Sita, and performing a stand-up routine about the deaths of victims of the 2002 Godhra train burning. These victims were Hindu pilgrims, men, women and children, charred to death by a Muslim terror mob.  The examples are plentiful. Yet the same principle of freedom of expression appears t o take on an entirely different meaning when the circumstances are reversed.

In countries where Muslims constitute a minority, Muslim voices and their sympathizers invoke freedom of expression to justify mocking or denigrating other religions; but in Islamic countries, a minor remark on Islam or Muhammad can lead to the death penalty. There, no one has the luxury of hiding behind freedom of speech or expression.