The Makkah Mosque Incident – A moment for scholars to reflect on justice, repentance and Ta’zir

By Haroon-Ishola Balogun

The facts are now clearer than the fiction that went viral. The two Bangladeshi migrant workers, Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar, were not newlyweds on honeymoon. They were not executed for a kiss on the forehead. According to the Saudi Ministry of Interior and the official dispatch to the Bangladeshi Foreign Ministry, they were convicted of committing an explicit sexual act inside a mosque in the Makkah region – an act of desecration of a holy place, tried as adultery and immoral conduct, and sentenced under Ta’zir after judicial review.
Correcting the false narrative is necessary. But correcting the narrative does not end the conversation – it should begin a deeper one.
We call on the League of Muftis, the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, Al-Azhar, and Islamic scholars and jurists worldwide to reflect openly on this painful incident through the full lens of Shariah: justice, mercy, repentance and proportionality.
Three principles demand reflection:

1. On Justice and the Sanctity of Place
   To intentionally violate a mosque with fahisha is a grave sin and a crime against the sanctity that all Muslims revere. No school of thought trivializes it. The need for deterrence is real.
   But Shariah also places immense sanctity on process. Justice in Islam is not only about the verdict, but about how we arrive at it. Was there adequate consular access? Were alternatives of proof, confession, privacy and rehabilitation weighed? The Bangladeshi government’s query about lack of prior notification raises a legitimate procedural question that scholars of siyasa shar’iyya must address.
2. On Repentance – The Door That Must Never Be Closed
   Our greatest concern is the place of Tawbah in Ta’zir punishments.
   In Hudud, the Prophet, peace be upon him, turned away from those who confessed, giving them room to withdraw. He said to Ma’iz: “Woe to you, go back and seek forgiveness.” Islamic jurisprudence has a rich tradition of Satr – covering sins – and encouraging private repentance for sins committed in private.
   While this offence, because it was committed in a public sacred place, moved beyond private sin to public violation, the question remains: In cases of Ta’zir where the judge has discretion, how central should repentance, remorse, and the possibility of reform be? Did the sinners show remorse? Were they given opportunity for Istighfar and Tawbah Nasuha before the ultimate penalty?
   The Quran balances justice with mercy: “But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed Allah will turn to him in forgiveness.” [5:39].
   If Ta’zir means discretion, discretion must include the Prophetic mercy that sought to avert the harshest punishment where possible.
3. On Ta’zir and Proportionality
   This was not a Hadd punishment for Zina, which requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act. It was Ta’zir – discretionary punishment for a grave act that the court deemed deserving of death for violating the holiness of Makkah.
   And that is precisely where the global scholarly debate is needed.
   Ta’zir, by its classical definition, is meant to be corrective, deterrent, and proportionate to the offence and offender – lashes, imprisonment, exile, fines, according to many jurists, with death as Ta’zir being the most disputed and restricted application. The majority of classical scholars, including the Hanafis and Shafi’is, permit death as Ta’zir only for incorrigible offenders whose continued existence poses a direct danger to public order, and even then with extreme caution.
   Can a single, albeit deeply offensive and immoral act inside a mosque, by two migrant workers, fall into that category of incorrigibility that necessitates execution? Or would a severe but non-lethal Ta’zir – long imprisonment, deportation after punishment, public repentance – have served both justice for the sanctity of the Haram and mercy for flawed humans?
   These are not questions to be answered by social media outrage or by state press releases. They are questions for qualified fuqaha.
   We do not call for condoning fahisha in the House of Allah. We call for scholarly ijtihad that shows the world that Islamic law is not bloodthirsty, but profound – that it defends sanctity while preserving life, that it punishes desecration while leaving the door of Tawbah open.
   The viral lies about a “kiss” insulted our intelligence. But a routine acceptance of death for every grave Ta’zir without scholarly debate insults our fiqh.
   Let the League of Muftis convene. Let them issue a contemporary, reasoned guidance on Ta’zir death penalties, on repentance in public morality offences, and on the ethics of desecration cases – so that justice is done, is seen to be done, and is seen to be merciful. Because in Islam, justice without mercy is incomplete, and mercy without justice is hollow.