Hinduphobia on display: Muslims mock Hindu man sentenced to death over response to derogatory remarks against Lord Shiva, issue beheading threats

Case ID : 30aacfa | Location : Sri Lanka | Date of Incident : Tue, 6 October, 2026

Case ID : 30aacfa

Sri Lanka

6 October, 2026

Hinduphobia on display: Muslims mock Hindu man sentenced to death over response to derogatory remarks against Lord Shiva, issue beheading threats

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Case Summary

Hindu man Sivarasa Anojan, sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia over blasphemy allegations, was subjected to further humiliation as Sri Lankan Muslims mocked his ordeal on social media. The Muslims celebrated the prospect of his execution and made threatening references to his beheading. Anojan had been sentenced to death over a social media comment he made about Prophet Muhammad in response to derogatory remarks by Muslim users targeting Lord Shiva. In a video circulated on social media on 7 October 2026, Sri Lankan Muslims mocked Anojan’s death sentence, with one individual making graphic references to his beheading and stating that he would return to Sri Lanka in two boxes, one containing his head and the other his body. Another individual described the prospect of his execution as being “like a festival”, expressing enjoyment at the prospect of seeing him killed and beheaded. They treated the impending execution of Anojan, who faced capital punishment, as a source of amusement, ridiculing his ordeal and celebrating the prospect of his death. Notably, Hinduphobia Tracker had previously documented the case of Sivarasa Anojan, who was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia over a social media comment about Prophet Muhammad. The controversy began during the annual Pada Yatra pilgrimage to the Kataragama Murugan Temple in Sri Lanka, when a Muslim man was filmed kicking a dog named Subramani that had accompanied Hindu pilgrims on their approximately 450-kilometre journey. The incident triggered an online exchange after a Muslim Facebook user, identified as Nafeesa M Mafas, posted derogatory remarks in Tamil targeting Lord Shiva and the Shivalingam. Anojan, who was working in Saudi Arabia, responded with a comment about Prophet Muhammad, which he later deleted before issuing a public apology. However, the comment was translated into Arabic and brought to the attention of Saudi authorities. On 15 July 2026, Anojan was sentenced to five years in prison and fined three million Saudi riyals. Following an appeal by the Saudi prosecution seeking punishment under Sharia law, his sentence was enhanced to the death penalty on 17 September 2026. The authorities took no comparable action against the Muslim user whose remarks about Lord Shiva had triggered the exchange. Following the death sentence, Anojan’s family sought intervention from the Sri Lankan government. Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake met his parents on 21 September 2026 and assured them that legal and diplomatic channels would be pursued. The government also planned to seek clemency from the Saudi King and offered support for further legal proceedings. Members of Hindu Munnani separately submitted a petition at the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai, seeking the withdrawal of the death sentence. Meanwhile, Anojan’s ordeal became the subject of online mockery, with Sri Lankan Muslims circulating videos celebrating his possible execution and making graphic references to his beheading.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is being added to the tracker under the first primary category: Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is: Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second primary category selected is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is: Violent Threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. This case represents clear religiously driven hate, as Sri Lankan Muslims mocked Hindu man Sivarasa Anojan’s death sentence in Saudi Arabia, celebrated his possible execution and made graphic beheading threats. Anojan had commented on Prophet Muhammad in response to derogatory remarks targeting Lord Shiva. One perpetrator threatened that Anojan would return to Sri Lanka in two boxes, one containing his head and the other his body, treating the suffering and possible death of a Hindu man as a source of amusement. In this entire controversy, Anojan was not the initial aggressor. He had responded to derogatory remarks posted by a Muslim user targeting Lord Shiva and the Shivalingam. However, the Saudi Arabian court proceedings focused on his comment about Prophet Muhammad, ultimately resulting in a death sentence, while no comparable action against the Muslim user who had originally insulted Hindu religious beliefs was reported. This stark disparity demonstrated religious bias and prejudice against Hinduism, as the denigration of Hindu sacred symbols attracted no comparable accountability, while a Hindu man who responded to the insult against his faith faced the ultimate punishment. The judgment demonstrated how blasphemy laws are applied in a selective manner that disproportionately penalises Hindus for responding to insults against their religion, while any denigration of Hindu beliefs goes unaddressed. By imposing the death penalty on Anojan without any comparable action against the Muslim user who initiated the exchange with derogatory remarks against Hindu deities, the proceedings exposed the unequal protection afforded to religious sentiments and the severe consequences a Hindu man faced for defending his faith. The reaction of the Sri Lankan Muslims who mocked Anojan’s ordeal further demonstrated the communal hostility directed towards Hindus and their religious identity. By celebrating his possible execution and ridiculing his suffering, they displayed contempt for a Hindu man facing death after responding to insults against his faith. While the original denigration of Lord Shiva and the Shivalingam attracted no comparable condemnation from those mocking him, Anojan’s response became a reason to celebrate his possible death and threaten his beheading. Their conduct went beyond ridicule over a social media exchange; it reflected an attitude in which insults against Hindu religious beliefs were dismissed, while a Hindu who defended his faith was treated as deserving of extreme punishment. The celebration of his possible execution and the graphic threats against him exposed the depth of the communal hatred directed towards him as a Hindu. The threat that Anojan would return to Sri Lanka in two boxes, one containing his head and the other his body, carried a particularly disturbing significance. The graphic reference to separating his head from his body evoked the slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda”, associated with calls for beheading over perceived blasphemy against Islam. In this context, the threat was not merely an expression of mockery; it invoked a form of violence associated with punishing those accused of insulting the Prophet. Notably, the slogan “Gustakh-e-Rasool/Nabi ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets, running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against the Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined the slogan, it has gained popularity among Muslims in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Muslims chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader Hindu community. Muslim extremists use this tactic to settle personal scores with non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. In the present case, the threat that Anojan would return to Sri Lanka in two boxes, one containing his head and the other his body, reflected the same violent logic associated with the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan. The Muslims mocking his ordeal invoked the prospect of beheading while celebrating his possible execution, turning a Hindu man’s suffering into an occasion for expressing violent religious hostility. The threat reinforced the communal nature of the abuse and demonstrated how accusations of blasphemy and hostility towards those accused of it are used to intimidate and victimise the Hindu community. This is not an isolated incident involving threats of beheading against a Hindu man. Hinduphobia Tracker has previously documented 63 incidents in which “Sar Tan Se Juda” threats were issued against Hindus in the context of their religious identity and allegations of ‘blasphemy’ against Islam. These incidents demonstrate a recurring pattern in which threats of separating a person’s head from their torso and explicit “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogans are used to intimidate Hindus, punish those accused of ‘blasphemy ’, and silence those who speak out against the denigration of their faith. Such threats extend beyond the individuals directly targeted, serving as a means of instilling fear within the wider Hindu community and deterring Hindus from expressing or defending their religious beliefs. Overall, since this case meets the parameters of a religiously driven hate crime, it is being added to the Hinduphobia Tracker’s hate-crime database. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. However, in the present case, the exact date on which the Muslim perpetrators mocked Anojan’s ordeal was not revealed. The only available date was 7 October 2026, when the video went viral on social media. Hence, 7 October 2026 has been recorded as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only. In this case, since the perpetrators mocking Anojan’s ordeal were Sri Lankan Muslims, the incident location has been recorded as 'Sri Lanka'. Although the reports did not specify the total number of perpetrators, five Muslim men were seen mocking Anojan’s possible death in the video that was circulated on social media. Therefore, the perpetrator count has been recorded as five for documentation purposes.