A Sri Lankan man is no longer facing a death sentence in Saudi Arabia for comments made on Facebook. Anojan Sivarasa, a Sri Lankan migrant worker from Kalumani, faced the death penalty in September for blasphemy when a comment he made on Facebook reached his Saudi employer.
The BBC reported that the online dispute surrounded a video from late June, in which footage showed a young Muslim man kicking a dog following Hindus during a religious pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. The video and the subsequent comments went viral.
A user posted derogatory comments about a Hindu deity, to which Sivarasa responded on June 28, insulting the Prophet Muhammad. His comment quickly spread online. Sivarasa later deleted the comment and apologized, but his comment reached his Saudi employer and later Saudi officials. This led to a July arrest.
The Criminal Court of Al-Ahsa convicted Sivarasa under Article 6 of the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, which carries a five-year prison sentence and a 3 million Saudi riyal (about $800,000) fine. The court also ordered confiscation of his electronic device and deletion of his Facebook account.
“Article 6: Any person who commits one of the following cybercrimes shall be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding three million riyals or to either punishment: Production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material [impacting] public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy, through the information network or computers…”
The death sentence came about September 17. Saudi prosecutors filed an appeal for Sivarasa’s charges to be tried under Sharia law instead of the government’s cybercrime legislation. The appellate court approved the request, which increased his sentence to death.
Human Rights Watch reported they obtained court documents, providing sections of Siravasa’s charges. The Al-Ahsa Public Prosecution charged him with “verbally insulting and offending our Prophet Muhammad” and “producing and disseminating, through the information network, material prejudicial to religious values and public morals, by publishing a comment on a social media program containing words contrary to religious values and public morals.”
Joey Shea, Senior Saudi Arabia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said, “Sentencing a migrant worker to death over a Facebook comment that he has publicly apologized for is an outrageous overreaction from Saudi authorities…No one should face execution for a comment on religion.”
The U.S. Department of State reports on the current state of international religious freedom for multiple countries, including those with limited freedoms like Saudi Arabia. In both its 2021 and 2026 International Religious Freedom Reports, they highlight the severity of blasphemy and other religion-based offenses.
The 2021 Report explained, “[The Saudi Arabian government] continues to enforce laws that systematically restrict religious freedom, including through the prohibition of public non-Muslim worship and the criminalization of blasphemy and other religious-based offenses.”
2026’s Report was not much different. “Courts have not sentenced individuals to death for blasphemy since 1992. Punishments for blasphemy may include lengthy prison sentences. Criticism of Islam, including expression deemed offensive to Muslims, is forbidden on the grounds of preserving social stability.”
After his blasphemy conviction in September, Sri Lankan citizens responded passionately, calling on diplomats and politicians to grant Sivarasa clemency.
Sivarasa lived in Saudi Arabia for about 10 months, working in construction and serving as the sole breadwinner for his family.
According to The Independent, a four-person legal team traveled to Riyadh to file a clemency appeal on Sivarasa’s behalf.
Sri Lanka’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Arun Hemachandra announced Anojan Sivarasa’s clemency on October 14 via Facebook and X.
Faizer Mustafa, a Sri Lankan lawmaker involved in Sivarasa’s case, confirmed to the BBC that Saudi Arabia overturned the death sentence. Further legal details regarding Sivarasa’s detention and release are unknown.
Users online are split on Sivarasa’s actions, the severity of his punishment, and whether he deserved legal punishment.
Compared to places like the US or the UK, this case highlights differences in religious freedoms. Some users argue that regardless of Sivarasa’s views, respecting a country’s customs and laws should be common practice. Others see this whole case as unnecessarily cruel and extreme.
What's Your Reaction?
