“Ayoub Muhammad Nabil”: A Refugee from Guardhouse to “Moharebeh” and Death Sentence

Ayoub Muhammad Nabil, a 28-year-old Iraqi citizen and Sunni Muslim who legally resided in Iran, now faces an execution order in Lakan Prison in Rasht. The Revolutionary Court has accused him of “moharebeh” (enmity against God) through espionage for Saudi Arabia-backed proxy groups. Nabil has denied all charges and, according to human rights sources, was subjected to severe psychological torture during five months of detention at Rasht’s intelligence office before being transferred to prison. Human rights sources report that security charges against him were fabricated due to his religious identity and religious activities.

Ayoub Muhammad Nabil, a 28-year-old Iraqi citizen, is yet another foreign national facing an execution order in Iran. The first branch of Rasht’s Revolutionary Court issued the death sentence on charges of “moharebeh” in connection with alleged espionage for Saudi Arabia-backed proxy groups. Nabil is currently held in Rasht’s central prison, known as Lakan Prison.

The Iran Human Rights Organization, which independently investigated the case, reported that Nabil, a resident of Hadithah in Iraq, was arrested by the Ministry of Intelligence forces in Fouman on August 26, 2025. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a caretaker of a private villa. According to the report, he legally entered Iran with a passport and had no prior security issues before his arrest.

Based on available information, Nabil was held at Rasht’s intelligence detention facility for approximately five months before being transferred to Lakan Prison. The Iran Human Rights Organization, citing an informed source, claimed that during this period he was subjected to “severe psychological torture.” Hengaw also published similar allegations about his detention period.

The primary charge against him is “moharebeh” through espionage for Saudi Arabia-backed proxy groups—a very serious charge that can result in a death sentence under the Islamic Republic’s judicial system. However, Nabil has denied all alleged connections and cooperation with Saudi Arabia or groups affiliated with that country.

What makes this case even more sensitive is Nabil’s claim about the reason the case was opened. According to the Iran Human Rights Organization’s report, he stated that charges were brought against him because he is a Sunni Muslim with a beard who was active in teaching the Quran to local children and teenagers. He taught the Quran to children and teenagers in the guardhouse at his workplace and believes this religious activity played a role in the fabrication of security charges against him.

An informed source also told the Iran Human Rights Organization: “There was no evidence of his connection to political activities or Salafi Wahhabi groups, yet the court sentenced him to death.”

Of course, this claim was raised by a human rights source, and complete case documents are not publicly available for independent review. This very lack of public information about the evidence is one of the most significant points of ambiguity in Nabil’s case.

Ayoub Muhammad Nabil’s case cannot be examined separately from the broader conditions of the Islamic Republic’s judicial system in 2026. Human Rights Watch reported in September 2026 that during a five-month period from March 18 to the end of August, Islamic Republic authorities reported executing 29 people in connection with recent protests, with dozens of others still facing execution risk. The organization criticized the use of charges such as “moharebeh,” “corruption on earth,” “espionage,” and “operational activity in favor of hostile states” in these cases.

Human Rights Watch also reported that in many of these cases, judicial proceedings involved serious violations of fair trial guarantees, with security agency reports and confessions obtained during detention playing a role in issuing sentences.

This is particularly significant in Nabil’s case, as he was also held in a security detention facility for months according to human rights sources and has raised allegations of psychological torture.

The United Nations also expressed concern in Mordad 2026 in one of its communications regarding a law increasing penalties for espionage and cooperation with the “Zionist regime and hostile states”—a law that prescribes execution for certain behaviors related to these charges.

Human Rights Watch had previously warned that Islamic Republic authorities increased the use of capital punishment for security and espionage charges in the months following the onset of military conflicts.

Amnesty International also announced in May 2026 that Islamic Republic authorities, citing conditions they call a “state of war,” have increased widespread arrests, expedited judicial proceedings, and politically-motivated executions.

The organization reported that following the onset of military attacks in February 2026, more than 6,000 people have been arrested in Iran, and at least 39 have been executed on political charges. Among the charges are espionage for the United States or Israel and “armed rebellion against the government.”

Amnesty International has also warned about the use of “forced confessions” and concerns regarding torture and mistreatment during detention.

In such an atmosphere, the case of an Iraqi Sunni citizen who says espionage charges were fabricated against him because of his religious identity and Quranic activities does not appear to be an ordinary judicial case; rather, it is part of broader concerns about how the Islamic Republic’s security and judicial apparatus treats those accused in security cases.

Ayoub Muhammad Nabil has three characteristics that make his case more sensitive: he is a foreign national, he is a Sunni Muslim, and he faces espionage charges.

Human Rights Watch, in its annual report on Iran, also noted the continued pressure on ethnic and religious minorities and wrote that ethnic minorities, many of whom are Sunni Muslims, have in recent years been among groups increasingly affected by the use of capital punishment.

Nevertheless, regarding Nabil, conclusions should not be drawn beyond available information. No independent public document proving that the court issued the death sentence solely because of his Sunni faith has been published. What exists is Nabil’s own account and human rights sources’ narrative about the case—a narrative stating that his religious activity and religious appearance played a role in the fabrication of charges.

Yet the fundamental issue remains: if espionage charges against a person result in capital punishment, the public should be able to know exactly what evidence exists against him and whether this evidence has been examined in a fair and independent trial.

The Iran Human Rights Organization has stated that in 2026, at least 15 people have been executed on charges related to espionage; 13 of them had been accused of spying for Israel or the United States, and two Iraqi nationals were also executed on charges of espying for an Arab country.

This statistic places Nabil’s case within a pattern that has intensified in recent months in Iran: the use of security and espionage charges to issue death sentences. In such circumstances, the distance between accusation, proof of guilt, and execution of the sentence becomes critically important. Capital punishment is irreversible; if a case with forced confessions, incomplete evidence, or an unfair trial results in an execution order, after the sentence is carried out, there is no possibility of redress for the victim.

Now Ayoub Muhammad Nabil waits in Lakan Prison in Rasht for the fate of a case whose full details are not available to the public. Human rights reports say he denied charges related to Saudi Arabia, spoke of psychological torture during his detention period, and claimed that his religious identity and Quranic activities were used in this case.

Nabil’s case once again raises the question of how much opportunity exists within the Islamic Republic’s judicial structure for an accused to access a lawyer, have evidence independently reviewed, refute charges, and receive a genuinely fair trial when a security case results in capital punishment.

For a man who, according to human rights sources, legally resided in Iran before his arrest and worked as a caretaker of a private villa, a security charge can now cost him his life. Ayoub Muhammad is still alive, but he has been placed on the list of those sentenced to death, and any day could prove decisive for him.