Anojan Comes from a Society Where Hate Predominantly ‘Ignored’ and ‘Allowed’

Sivarasa Anojan is a young Sri Lankan migrant worker from Natpiddimunai in Kalmunai. He travelled to Saudi Arabia for employment, as thousands of Sri Lankans have done in search of a better life for themselves and their families. Today, he is on death row, over a social-media post insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. It was a grave mistake. There is no justification for insulting another person’s faith or deliberately degrading what millions of people hold sacred. But today, after all the legal battles, the Sri Lankans overall plead clemency for Anojan.

Anojan was initially sentenced by the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals under Saudi Arabia’s cybercrime provisions. Following an appeal, the Saudi prosecution sought a harsher punishment under Sharia principles, and the sentence was subsequently increased to death. Sri Lanka is now pursuing legal and diplomatic avenues to have the sentence commuted. The latest information is that he has been assaulted inside the prison cell by inmates.

This is not an argument that Anojan did nothing wrong. He did. But a terrible mistake in criticising a religion that is predominantly practised in the country where he was working should not necessarily mean the end of a young man’s life. What is particularly troubling is the context in which this happened.

Anojan comes from Sri Lanka, a country where religious and ethnic abuse on social media has, over the years, become disturbingly normalised. Words that would once have shocked society are now routinely thrown around on Facebook, TikTok and other platforms. There are some who really stir violence and hate speech. Buddhists are insulted and, many times, made to feel insecure.

Muslims are vilified. Christians are branded with offensive stereotypes. Hindus are mocked. Tamils are subjected to derogatory language. Up-Country Tamils are not spared either. Religion and ethnicity have increasingly become material for online provocation and, most of the time, are left unchecked by law enforcement. There are some priests who assaulted the police and still let free to continue their hate speech. There are some catholic priests assaulted too. Blasphemy of all kinds continue in Sri Lanka. Only a few prominent cases have been dealt with. People write something inflammatory, others share it, someone translates it, another person adds a more vicious comment, and before long the original post has travelled far beyond the control of the person who wrote it.

Sri Lanka has seen this dangerous culture grow after the Easter Sunday attacks as well. While the perpetrators and those who aided and abetted terrorism were rightly convicted, the anger that followed was sometimes directed at an entire religious community. Muslims were subjected to sweeping abuse because of the crimes of extremists who did not represent the faith or the vast majority of its followers.

That is the danger of collective hatred. Sri Lanka has experienced this phenomenon repeatedly, a trend that has become far too prevalent across South Asia. There is hate growing in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and in Myanmar too. Sri Lanka has housed many of them when they fled from these regional countries. But Sri Lankans are overall are the friendliest people, without a doubt.

The case of popular monk Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero is another reminder of how seriously inflammatory religious speech can be treated. In March 2024, the Colombo High Court sentenced the Bodu Bala Sena general secretary to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.100,000 over statements concerning Islam and Muslims. The court found that the remarks were deliberate and had the potential to damage religious harmony.

Yet despite laws, prosecutions and public condemnation, hateful speech continues to circulate. This is the environment from which Anojan emerged. The crucial difference is that he made his mistake while living in Saudi Arabia. He may have thought he could do it the way Sri Lankans do wherever they are.
Saudi Arabia is not Sri Lanka. It has its own religious traditions, laws and social boundaries. Islam occupies a central place in the kingdom, and those living and working there are expected to understand and respect those laws. Anojan should have understood that. But did he understand the full gravity of what he had written?

Reports surrounding the case indicate that he realised within a short period that his Facebook comment had become serious. He deleted it and apologised. The matter, however, had already begun spreading. Screenshots were circulating, the remarks were translated into Arabic and the information reportedly reached Saudi authorities. What may have started as one reckless social-media exchange in Sri Lanka’s online culture suddenly had consequences in a country where insulting the Prophet is treated with extraordinary seriousness.

Sri Lanka is now appealing to Saudi Arabia, not to question its sovereignty or its right to enforce its laws, but to ask for compassion. The government has been pursuing legal, diplomatic and humanitarian avenues, while a Sri Lankan legal delegation is travelling to Saudi Arabia to work on the case and pursue an appeal. A separate parliamentary delegation is also expected to carry a clemency appeal from President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

This appeal has also taken on a significance beyond politics. Muslims in Sri Lanka have joined others in asking Saudi Arabia to forgive Anojan. They are not saying his words were right. They are saying that a wrong can be acknowledged without demanding a human life in return. Islam is deeply respected by millions of Sri Lankans. The Muslim community knows the pain caused when its faith is insulted. Yet Muslims who are pleading for Anojan’s life are demonstrating that compassion can coexist with condemnation.

Saudi Arabia has been a longstanding friend of Sri Lanka. Thousands of Sri Lankans have worked in the kingdom and supported their families through their earnings. The relationship between the two countries extends well beyond this tragic case. Clemency would not mean that Saudi Arabia approves of blasphemy. It would not diminish Islam. It would not weaken the authority of Saudi law. It would demonstrate that justice can leave room for mercy.

Sri Lanka, too, must learn from Anojan’s tragedy. We cannot plead for mercy when one of our citizens is punished overseas while tolerating religious hatred at home. We cannot condemn insults against Islam while ignoring insults against Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism. We cannot demand respect for Sri Lankans abroad while allowing communities within Sri Lanka to be humiliated online. Respect must be universal.
But a young man’s worst ten minutes need not become his final ten minutes. Show mercy, please!
______________________________________________
The writer is an award-winning journalist. She can be reached at [email protected]