Saudi Arabia has executed two Bangladeshi nationals following their conviction over an alleged indecent act inside a mosque in the holy city of Mecca. However, claims circulating online that the pair were newlyweds executed simply for sharing a kiss have not been established by the available evidence, while the man’s family has disputed that the two were married.
The executions were carried out on October 14, 2026, in the Mecca region, according to a statement issued by Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry and reported by the Saudi Press Agency.
The two individuals were identified by Saudi authorities as Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar. Bangladeshi media have also identified the woman as Sweety Akhtar, with variations in the spelling of her name across reports.
Saudi authorities said the pair had been arrested, investigated and brought before a competent court, which found them guilty of committing what the ministry described as an immoral act inside a mosque. The court imposed death sentences under ta’zir, a category of punishment in Islamic law that gives judges discretion in determining penalties for certain offences.
The ministry said the sentences were upheld by the relevant judicial authority and that a royal order was issued authorising their implementation.
However, the official statement did not describe the specific act, identify the mosque involved or establish that a kiss was the reason for the executions.
The case has attracted international attention not only because of the severity of the punishment but also because Bangladesh says it received no advance notification from Saudi authorities. The lack of detailed official information has raised questions about the proceedings, the legal assistance available to the accused and the circumstances leading to their deaths.
Viral claims about newlyweds and a mosque kiss
Following reports of the executions, social media posts described the two Bangladeshis as newlyweds who had travelled to Mecca for their honeymoon or an Umrah pilgrimage.
Some posts claimed that the man kissed his wife on the forehead inside a mosque as an expression of gratitude to Allah for their marriage. Other versions alleged that he kissed his pregnant wife’s belly.
These accounts spread rapidly, accompanied by photographs and videos purportedly connected to the incident.
However, the claims have not been substantiated by the Saudi Interior Ministry’s public statement. The authorities did not identify a kiss as the offence, and the relationship between the two individuals has been disputed by the man’s family.
Nazrul’s mother, Rahima Begum, told Bangladeshi media that her son was unmarried and that the family did not know Sweety Akhtar. She also questioned the circumstances of his arrest and said she believed he had not received adequate justice.
Her account directly challenges social media descriptions of the pair as a married couple travelling together on their honeymoon.
No publicly verified marriage documentation has been presented in the reports reviewed to establish that the two were newlyweds.
Consequently, describing them as a newly married couple executed for a kiss would present disputed claims as established facts. The confirmed information is that two Bangladeshi nationals were executed after being convicted of an offence Saudi authorities described as an immoral act inside a mosque.
What Bangladesh’s consular records reveal
Further details emerged through reporting by The Daily Star, which examined a confidential memorandum from the Bangladesh Consulate General in Jeddah.
According to the report, both individuals had been detained in Saudi Arabia since August 2023 over separate allegations.
The consular records reportedly showed that Nazrul was detained on August 1, 2023, in connection with an alleged offence under Saudi Arabia’s cybercrime law. Sweety was detained on August 2 over an allegation of adultery.
The records indicated that Nazrul was held at Jeddah Correctional Facility, while Sweety was detained at Jeddah Women’s Prison. Both reportedly worked as cleaners for a company identified as Al Majal.
The prisoner list received by the consulate on September 30, 2026, did not mention that either individual had been sentenced to death.
This has raised questions about how the allegations recorded in the consular documents relate to the offence cited in the Saudi announcement of the executions.
The records do not, by themselves, establish that the Saudi authorities’ case was invalid or explain the full course of the legal proceedings. However, they highlight the significant information gap between the detention records available to Bangladeshi officials and the subsequent announcement that the two individuals had been executed.
Bangladesh has requested official documentation, including details of the allegations, the court judgments and the circumstances surrounding the sentences.
Until those records are made available, the precise relationship between the earlier allegations and the offence described in the execution announcement remains unclear.
Bangladesh says it was not informed before the executions
The case has also become a diplomatic concern because Bangladesh says its authorities were not informed before the executions took place.
The Bangladesh Consulate General in Jeddah reportedly learnt of the deaths through Saudi media reports citing the Interior Ministry’s announcement.
The consulate subsequently submitted a diplomatic note, known as a note verbale, requesting formal information from the Saudi authorities.
On October 18, Bangladeshi officials also met Saudi Ambassador Abdullah bin Zafar H. Bin Abiyah in Dhaka to discuss the matter and seek clarification.
Bangladesh asked for details concerning the identities and nationality of the two individuals, the allegations against them and the legal proceedings that led to their execution.
The government has also sought copies of the relevant judgments and further information about whether the accused had access to legal representation.
The lack of advance notification has drawn attention to the role of consular protection when citizens are detained abroad.
Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, foreign nationals have specified rights concerning consular notification and access. The convention addresses notification when a detained person requests it, as well as certain obligations concerning information about a foreign national’s death. It does not expressly establish a universal requirement for advance notification of every execution.
The precise circumstances of the two cases, including whether consular access was requested or provided, remain matters requiring clarification.
Bangladeshi officials have indicated that they are awaiting a response from Saudi Arabia before determining the next steps.
What Saudi Arabia has said about the legal proceedings
Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry maintains that the two individuals were arrested by security authorities, investigated, charged and referred to a competent court.
According to the ministry, the court found the charges proven and imposed death sentences under ta’zir. The decision was subsequently upheld, and a royal order authorised the executions.
In Islamic jurisprudence, ta’zir generally refers to discretionary punishment for offences whose penalties are not fixed in the same manner as certain other categories of offences. The judge’s discretion operates within the applicable legal framework.
The Saudi statement cited the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the violation of the sanctity of the mosque as reasons for the severe punishment.
Nevertheless, the publicly reported statement did not disclose the evidence presented at trial, the exact conduct alleged, the full reasoning of the court or the details of the defence mounted by the accused.
Those omissions make it difficult for outside observers to independently assess the case using the public statement alone.
Saudi Arabia enforces its own criminal laws within its territory, including against foreign nationals. At the same time, the case has prompted renewed scrutiny of capital punishment, due process and the protection of migrant workers who may face language, financial and legal barriers while detained abroad.
Viral execution video is unrelated to the case
Another development in the controversy concerns a graphic execution video that circulated online after news of the deaths emerged.
Some social media posts presented the footage as evidence of the execution of Nazrul and Sweety.
However, fact-checking reports traced the widely circulated video to an earlier case from 2015 involving the execution of a Myanmar woman in Saudi Arabia.
The footage is therefore not evidence of the October 2026 executions involving the two Bangladeshi nationals.
The Saudi Interior Ministry’s statement did not specify the method used to execute them, so the viral footage cannot be used to establish how they died.
A photograph also circulated online purporting to show the alleged couple near the Kaaba. Fact-checkers found that a widely shared image of a man kissing a pregnant woman’s belly near the holy site was unrelated to the Bangladeshi case and had appeared before the executions.
These examples illustrate how genuine breaking news can become mixed with old footage, unrelated photographs and unverified claims.
Readers should therefore distinguish between the confirmed executions and claims about the alleged offence, relationship between the individuals and method of execution that have not been established by reliable evidence.
A wider debate over migrant workers and capital punishment
The case has raised concerns about the vulnerability of migrant workers who are arrested or prosecuted in countries where they live and work.
Bangladesh has a large overseas workforce, including many citizens employed in Saudi Arabia. Migrant workers contribute to their families through remittances but may face difficulties obtaining legal assistance, understanding unfamiliar judicial systems or communicating with their home-country representatives when detained.
The reported detention of the two individuals for more than three years has intensified questions about what their families knew, whether they were able to obtain effective legal support and how the cases progressed to capital sentences.
These questions remain particularly important because the consular records reportedly available to Bangladeshi officials did not identify the death sentences before the executions were announced.
Human rights organisations have repeatedly criticised the use of capital punishment and called for greater transparency in judicial proceedings. Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty has also attracted international attention in recent years.
However, the circumstances of this particular case must be assessed on the evidence available rather than on assumptions drawn from other cases or viral posts.
The most pressing unanswered questions concern the exact offence, the evidence considered by the court, the legal representation available to the accused and the communication between Saudi authorities and Bangladesh.
Bangladesh has sought official explanations and documents from Saudi Arabia, including the judgments that led to the executions.
The response could help clarify the allegations, the legal process and the apparent differences between the information recorded by Bangladeshi consular officials and the Saudi announcement.
The families also face the difficult task of seeking answers about the circumstances of the deaths. Nazrul’s mother has disputed the claims surrounding her son and called attention to what she considers a lack of justice.
At present, the executions themselves are confirmed, but the viral narrative that two newlyweds were put to death simply for sharing a kiss is not established by the publicly available evidence.
The Saudi government has described the offence as an immoral act inside a mosque. The precise conduct remains undisclosed in the official statement, and the relationship between the two individuals has been challenged by the man’s family.
The central issue now is obtaining a clear and documented account of the proceedings. Bangladesh’s request for the court judgments and official details will be important in determining what happened, how the sentences were reached and whether the questions raised by the consular records can be answered.
Until more information is released, responsible reporting must separate confirmed facts from online speculation.
The case highlights the importance of transparency in capital cases, access to legal representation, effective consular protection and careful verification of viral claims, particularly when the lives and reputations of real people are involved.
About the Author
