Why did Saudi Arabia execute a Bangladeshi couple over an ‘obscene act’ at Mecca mosque? Why Dhaka is seeking answers

Saudi Arabia executed Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar, both Bangladeshi nationals, on October 14. A court convicted them of committing “indecent acts” inside a mosque in Mecca and imposed death sentences under ta’zir. The case matters because Bangladesh says it received no advance notice.

The Bangladesh Consulate General in Jeddah said it had not been informed before the executions. It submitted a diplomatic note asking Saudi authorities to formally acknowledge the matter. Bangladesh’s foreign affairs adviser, Humayun Kabir, also expressed disappointment and said Dhaka was seeking an explanation.

Saudi Arabia has not publicly identified the mosque, described the alleged conduct, or explained the specific legal reasoning. It also has not disclosed whether the two had legal representation. Bangladesh is therefore seeking details about the case and the circumstances surrounding the executions, while public information remains limited.

The executions involved two people, not a larger group. The Saudi Interior Ministry reportedly identified them as Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar, and both were Bangladeshi nationals. Several outlets called them a couple, but The Week noted that their marital status was not confirmed.

The court convicted them of “indecent acts” inside a mosque in Mecca. Saudi authorities did not specify what those alleged acts were. They also did not identify the mosque or state when the arrests occurred. The ministry said the court considered the offence, the mosque’s sanctity and the circumstances serious enough to impose death sentences.

The lack of detail makes the case difficult to assess independently. Saudi authorities have not publicly explained the precise legal reasoning or said whether the two had legal representation. Bangladesh is seeking information about the case and the executions.

Ta’zir refers to offences whose punishments are not fixed in advance under traditional Islamic-law rules. Instead, judges use their discretion to determine the penalty. This matters because the same broad category can involve different punishments depending on the court’s interpretation of the conduct and circumstances.

In this case, Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry said the court sentenced the two Bangladeshi nationals to death under ta’zir. The ministry said the court considered the offence’s seriousness, the sanctity of the mosque and the circumstances in which the acts occurred. It did not identify a specific statutory provision or explain the detailed legal reasoning.

Saudi Arabia does not have a fully codified penal code, according to MENA Rights Group cited by The Indian Express. That leaves judges significant discretion in interpreting Islamic law and setting penalties. The limited disclosure therefore makes the decision difficult to independently evaluate.

Saudi authorities considered the alleged conduct especially serious because it reportedly occurred inside a mosque in Mecca. The Interior Ministry said the court cited the seriousness of the offence, the sanctity of the mosque and the circumstances in which the acts took place. The location was therefore central to the court’s stated reasoning.

The ministry did not identify the specific mosque or explain what the “indecent acts” involved. It also did not disclose when the two people were arrested. The available account establishes only that the court linked the death sentences to conduct inside a mosque and treated that setting as a significant factor.

This emphasis shows why the case has drawn attention beyond the executions themselves. Saudi Arabia warned that people who violate the sanctity of mosques or commit similar offences would face punishment under Saudi law. However, the missing details prevent an independent assessment of proportionality or procedure.

Saudi Arabia’s failure to notify Bangladesh beforehand has created a diplomatic dispute over communication and transparency. Bangladesh’s consulate in Jeddah said it had not been informed and submitted a diplomatic note seeking formal acknowledgement. The country’s foreign affairs adviser, Humayun Kabir, also publicly expressed disappointment.

The immediate consequence has been a request for explanations and information. Bangladesh wants details about the case and the circumstances surrounding the executions. Saudi authorities have not publicly disclosed the alleged acts, the mosque’s identity, the arrest date, the legal reasoning or whether the two had representation.

The article does not report a formal escalation beyond the diplomatic note and statements of disappointment. Further exchanges could focus on why Bangladesh was not informed and whether established communication procedures were followed. The limited public record means the dispute may remain centered on unanswered questions unless Saudi authorities release more information.

Saudi Arabia does not have a fully codified penal code, according to MENA Rights Group cited by The Indian Express. Judges therefore have significant discretion when interpreting Islamic law and determining criminal penalties. This differs from a system where detailed statutes and binding earlier rulings closely guide every decision.

The two Bangladeshi nationals were sentenced under ta’zir, which already permits judicial discretion. The Interior Ministry did not identify a specific statutory provision or explain the detailed reasoning for the death sentences. Human Rights Watch reported in 2008 that ta’zir offences made up most criminal cases in Saudi Arabia and that judges were not bound by earlier rulings in the same way as under binding precedent.

That structure can make public scrutiny difficult. In this case, authorities also withheld details about the alleged conduct, mosque and legal representation. The limited information prevents independent assessment of how the court reached its decision.

The article describes three broad categories in Islamic criminal law. Hadd covers offences for which traditional interpretations prescribe specific punishments. Qisas means retributive justice and generally concerns offences such as murder or bodily injury. Ta’zir covers offences where punishment is determined through judicial discretion rather than fixed in advance.

The Saudi Interior Ministry classified the two Bangladeshi nationals’ sentences as ta’zir. That meant the court determined the punishment rather than applying a penalty identified in advance under traditional rules. The court cited the offence’s seriousness, the mosque’s sanctity and the circumstances of the alleged acts.

These categories help explain why the legal basis matters in this case. The ministry did not disclose a specific statutory provision or its detailed reasoning. Since Saudi Arabia lacks a fully codified penal code, the ta’zir classification leaves the public with limited information about how the court selected a death sentence.