Azeem Abdul Jabbar, who has been accused of cropping Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu Anojan Sivarasa’s comment and orchestrating an online campaign against him, has sought to frame the controversy around a simple argument: Subramani was just a dog, and people should have forgiven the person who kicked it. His remarks downplay the religious provocation that preceded Anojan’s response, while making no apparent acknowledgment of the allegations that he helped expose Anojan to retaliation.
In a video message, Azeem seemed to say Anojan deserved to die because Tamil people treated dog like a god as dogs are considered Haraam in Islam.
He argued, “A dog bit someone and (he kicked it) you don’t have the mind to forgive him. But you gave that dog God’s name and instead of seeing a dog as a dog, you made it a god. Why did you make it a god? You did it just because a Muslim kicked that dog. Why don’t you look at it as a dog? Think of it as some kid who kicked the dog. Why are you not letting it go?”
#SaveAnojon https://t.co/lRBjK6pQMt
— Citizen (@e409994550) October 13, 2026
Azeem’s remarks seemingly want to reduce the issue to the question of whether a dog should be revered, while sidestepping the wider chain of events: the animal’s mistreatment, the subsequent insult to a Hindu deity, Anojan’s retaliatory comment, and the alleged campaign that exposed him to consequences far beyond the original online dispute.
The Dog At The Centre Of The Controversy
The dog at the centre of the controversy was a stray named Subramani, named after the presiding Hindu deity of the shrine it was travelling towards. The animal had followed Hindu and Buddhist devotees for hundreds of kilometres during the annual Pada Yatra pilgrimage to the historic Kathirgamam (Kataragama) temple in southern Sri Lanka. Its loyalty had initially drawn affectionate attention within Sri Lankan Hindu social media circles.
In late June 2026, a young Muslim man from Kalmunai reportedly located the dog at the pilgrimage site, filmed himself kicking it and uploaded the footage online.
A dog used to follow pilgrims to a Hindu religious site in Sri Lanka, and videos of it were shared warmly in Sri Lankan Hindu circles.
In late June, offended by the videos, a Muslim man went to the pilgrimage site, located the dog, kicked it, and uploaded the video, sparking outrage. During one such argument, a Sri Lankan Muslim wrote a derogatory post against the Hindu deity.
Anojan Sivarasa, a Sri Lankan Hindu working as a laborer in Saudi Arabia, didn’t like the comment and responded with a reply that was allegedly derogatory to the Prophet.
Anojan’s well-wisher immediately warned him. He took down the comment and issued a video apology within five minutes in which he said he was responding to an insult to his faith. However, it was too late. Anojan’s fellow Sri Lankan Muslims had already taken a screenshot and emailed it to his employer in Saudi Arabia. His employer promptly reported it to the authorities, who arrested Anojan and put him on trial. He has been sentenced to death.
Saudi Arabia rarely reverses a decision once it has made one, but there should be global outrage over this. Blasphemy laws or whatever, the man was only responding to an insult to his faith, deleted the comment, and issued an apology within minutes, yet he will still have to pay with his life while those who provoked him are rejoicing in Sri Lanka. This is unacceptable. Anyone calling themselves a free speech supporter and not opposing this is a hypocrite of the highest order.
— THE SKIN DOCTOR (@theskindoctor13) October 7, 2026
The video triggered outrage over the animal’s mistreatment and a heated online dispute between members of different religious communities. During the exchanges, another Sri Lankan Muslim allegedly posted derogatory remarks about Lord Shiva.
Anojan, who was working in Saudi Arabia, responded with a comment reportedly insulting Prophet Muhammad. He deleted the comment within five minutes and subsequently posted an apology video. However, screenshots of his comment were circulated and sent to his employer, setting off a chain of events that ultimately led to his death sentence.
The allegations against Azeem Abdul Jabbar are particularly relevant here. As detailed in an earlier report by The Commune, he has been accused of circulating a cropped version of Anojan’s comment without the preceding exchange, translating it and helping mobilise an online campaign against him, including efforts to contact his workplace.
Against this backdrop, Azeem’s latest remarks shift attention away from the alleged online campaign and towards whether Hindus should have treated Subramani as an ordinary dog. His argument asks why people did not forgive the man who kicked the animal but does not address the allegations that Anojan’s comment was circulated without its original context or the consequences he has faced.
Azeem wants everyone to “look at it as a dog” and forgive the man who kicked it, while seemingly justifying Anojan’s death sentence and brushing aside allegations that he helped expose Anojan to a campaign of retaliation. He demands forgiveness for the man who kicked Subramani, but where is his demand for justice for Anojan? And what about accountability for those accused of doxxing him?
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
