By P M Amza –

Diplomacy Beyond Official Statements

When world leaders gather for a state funeral, diplomats look beyond the solemnity of mourning. Every handshake, seating arrangement, gesture of respect, and informal exchange is read for its political meaning. Such occasions often create rare openings for discreet diplomacy—opportunities that formal summits, with their rigid protocols and public expectations, may not easily provide.

At the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader, however, Tehran appears to have adopted an even subtler language of diplomacy—not through speeches or official communiqués, but through carefully selected verses from the Holy Qur’an.

During more than three decades in Sri Lanka’s Foreign Service, including service in several Muslim-majority countries, I observed that religious symbolism often conveys political messages that formal diplomacy deliberately leaves unsaid. In societies where religion forms an integral part of national identity, sacred texts can become powerful instruments of statecraft. It is therefore unsurprising that Iran, whose political identity is deeply intertwined with Islamic history and tradition, should communicate through a language rooted in its own civilisation.

According to media reports and widely circulated video recordings, Iran reportedly assigned a different Qur’anic verse to each foreign delegation attending the funeral instead of a single recitation for all participants. The reported selections appear to have reflected Tehran’s assessment of its relationship with each country during one of the Middle East’s most challenging periods.

Whether every interpretation advanced in this article reflects Tehran’s precise intention is ultimately known only to those who selected the verses. Yet diplomacy has always depended as much upon perception as intention. Once a symbol is deliberately displayed, it inevitably becomes part of the diplomatic conversation.

This episode illustrates what may be described as scriptural diplomacy—the deliberate use of sacred texts to convey political, moral or diplomatic messages between states. While public, economic, cultural and digital diplomacy are well-established concepts, symbolic diplomacy remains comparatively underexplored. Iran’s reported use of Qur’anic verses appears to represent a distinctive extension of that tradition.

Its effectiveness lies in deliberate ambiguity. A carefully chosen symbol allows different audiences to derive different meanings simultaneously. The intended recipient may recognise appreciation or encouragement, domestic audiences may perceive affirmation of national policy, while external observers detect strategic signalling. It is precisely this ambiguity that gives symbolic diplomacy its enduring influence.

Different Messages for Different Nations

Media reports suggest that Iran assigned carefully selected Qur’anic verses to individual foreign delegations.

India reportedly received a verse from Surah Aal-e-Imran (3:173), recalling those believers who, despite warnings that powerful enemies had assembled against them, placed their trust in God rather than yielding to fear. Given India’s close strategic ties with Israel, viewed by Iran as the hostile power, the verse may reasonably be interpreted as a subtle reminder that Tehran values partners willing to pursue independent policies rather than allow external alliances to define their relationship with Iran.

Pakistan reportedly received the Prophet’s supplication from Surah Al-Isra (17:80): “My Lord! Grant me an honourable entrance and an honourable exit, and grant me from Yourself a supporting authority.” Considering Pakistan’s reported efforts to facilitate communication during the recent crisis, the verse appears consistent with Tehran’s appreciation of constructive mediation and responsible regional engagement.

China, Iran’s principal strategic and economic partner, reportedly received a verse emphasising that victory ultimately comes only through God. The selection may be understood as reaffirming an enduring partnership founded on mutual confidence rather than temporary geopolitical circumstances.

Qatar reportedly received a verse emphasising forgiveness, guidance and the completion of divine favour. Given Doha’s role as a trusted intermediary in regional diplomacy, including facilitating dialogue and humanitarian arrangements involving Iran, the verse may be interpreted as expressing Tehran’s appreciation for Qatar’s constructive engagement while encouraging continued reconciliation and regional stability.

By selecting verses that speak of humility, justice and steadfastness, Iran appeared to reassure Moscow that their partnership rests on shared resistance to external pressure while subtly affirming that, in the Islamic Republic’s worldview, political power must ultimately remain subordinate to divine justice and moral responsibility.

Turkey reportedly received a verse honouring those who strive actively in the cause of justice. Iraq was associated with sacrifice, while Egypt reportedly received a verse promising divine pleasure and eternal reward for the righteous. Each selection appears to have reflected Tehran’s assessment of the respective bilateral relationship.

Saudi Arabia: A Message Rooted in Shared Islamic History

Perhaps the most symbolically significant message was the one reportedly conveyed to Saudi Arabia.

According to media reports, the Saudi delegation received Surah Aal-e-Imran (3:13), recalling the Battle of Badr—the first decisive victory in Islamic history. The verse reminds believers that success depends not merely on numerical strength or military capability, but ultimately on steadfastness and divine support.

The choice of Badr is especially significant because it belongs to the shared heritage of both Sunni and Shia Muslims, symbolising unity rather than division. Viewed against the restoration of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023 after years of regional rivalry, the reported selection appears particularly meaningful. Rather than invoking contentious episodes of Islamic history, Tehran appears to have chosen a chapter that emphasises common origins and shared civilisational values.

Having had the privilege of serving as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the restoration of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations, I witnessed the cautious but determined efforts made by both countries to rebuild confidence. Against that background, the reported choice of the Battle of Badr appears particularly significant. It recalled a chapter of Islamic history that unites rather than divides, reinforcing the value of shared heritage in strengthening diplomatic relations.

Yet among all the reported Qur’anic messages assigned to foreign delegations, the one conveyed to Sri Lanka is perhaps the most intriguing. Unlike the verses reportedly selected for several other countries, Surah Al-Fath (48:26) is rooted not in military triumph but in one of history’s greatest diplomatic achievements—the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Hudaybiyyah: Islam’s Greatest Diplomatic Lesson

To appreciate the significance of Surah Al-Fath (48:26), it is first necessary to understand the historical context in which it was revealed.

In the sixth year after the Hijrah, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), accompanied by about 1,400 followers, set out from Madinah to perform Umrah in Makkah. Dressed in Ihram and carrying no offensive weapons, the pilgrims made clear that their mission was one of peace rather than confrontation. Yet the Quraysh, the ruling tribe of Makkah and the Prophet’s principal opponents at the time, denied them entry, and many of the Prophet’s companions regarded the proposed settlement as unfavourable.

The Prophet chose negotiation over confrontation, concluding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Although the agreement initially appeared to favour the Quraysh, the Qur’an described it as “a clear victory” (Surah Al-Fath 48:1). History vindicated that assessment. The treaty ushered in a period of peace that enabled dialogue to replace conflict, Islam to spread rapidly across Arabia and ultimately paved the way for the peaceful conquest of Makkah. For students of diplomacy, Hudaybiyyah remains one of history’s finest examples of strategic statecraft, demonstrating that patience, restraint and principled compromise often achieve what confrontation cannot.

Why Surah Al-Fath (48:26) for Sri Lanka?

Against this historical background, Iran’s reported decision to associate the Sri Lankan delegation with Surah Al-Fath (48:26) becomes particularly intriguing.

The verse states:

“When those who disbelieved had filled their hearts with arrogance—the arrogance of ignorance—Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and made them adhere to the word of righteousness, for they were more deserving of it and worthy of it…”

Three themes emerge from this verse. The first is Sakīnah—tranquillity, composure and calmness under intense pressure. The second is Kalimat al-Taqwa—steadfast adherence to righteousness, integrity and principled conduct. Together, they emphasise restraint, moral clarity and principled leadership rather than impulsive confrontation.

Reading Iran’s Message to Sri Lanka

Iran has not publicly explained why this verse was reportedly selected for Sri Lanka, and any interpretation must therefore remain analytical rather than definitive. Nevertheless, viewed against recent bilateral developments, particularly the IRIS Dena incident, the reported selection invites careful reflection.

One interpretation is that the verse acknowledged Sri Lanka’s commitment to restraint and balanced diplomacy. Faced with a sensitive maritime incident involving humanitarian, legal and geopolitical considerations, Sri Lanka sought to address the matter within the framework of international law and established diplomatic practice. In that context, the reference to Sakīnah may be understood as recognising composure under considerable external pressure.

An alternative interpretation is that the verse conveyed a gentle reminder that composure should be accompanied by timely and decisive action. If perceptions existed in Tehran that a more expeditious response by the Sri Lankan authorities might have reduced the human cost, the verse may have subtly underscored that Kalimat al-Taqwa—steadfast adherence to righteousness and principled conduct—requires not only restraint but also prompt and responsible action.

A broader interpretation is equally plausible. Sri Lanka has consistently pursued a foreign policy of friendship with all and enmity towards none. The verse may therefore also be understood as an affirmation of Sri Lanka’s commitment to an independent and principled foreign policy. In doing so, it reflects the Qur’anic preference for disciplined judgement over the arrogance and impulsiveness that often accompany geopolitical rivalry.

A Lesson for Small States

Whether or not these interpretations reflect Tehran’s precise intentions, the episode offers an important lesson for Sri Lanka and other small states. Their influence rests less on military or economic power than on credibility, consistency and adherence to international law. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah reminds us that successful diplomacy demands both patience and decisiveness. By exercising restraint while pursuing a clear strategic objective, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) demonstrated that lasting diplomatic success often belongs not to those who react most forcefully, but to those who combine wisdom with timely action.

The Quiet Language of Diplomacy

The reported allocation of Qur’anic verses reminds us that diplomacy is conducted not only through negotiations and official statements but also through symbols, protocol and carefully crafted gestures. During my diplomatic career, I found that some of the most enduring messages between states were conveyed through such subtle signals rather than formal communiqués. Iran’s reported use of sacred scripture appears to belong to this enduring tradition of symbolic statecraft.

Conclusion

Whether every interpretation advanced in this article reflects Tehran’s precise intention is ultimately known only to those who selected the verses. Yet once a symbol is deliberately communicated, it acquires a diplomatic life of its own.

If the reported allocation of Qur’anic verses is accurate, Iran demonstrated a sophisticated use of scriptural diplomacy, aligning sacred texts with the contemporary realities of its bilateral relationships. For Sri Lanka, the episode offers a timely reminder that successful diplomacy requires not only strategic judgement and adherence to international law but also an appreciation of the cultural, historical and religious languages through which nations communicate.

In an age of instant communication and geopolitical rivalry, Iran appears to have reminded the world that diplomacy’s most profound messages are often those left unspoken. They are conveyed through symbols, shared history and, on occasion, sacred scripture—inviting reflection long after the ceremony itself has ended. ENDS

*The author is a former Sri Lankan Ambassador to the European Union, Belgium, Türkiye, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia, and served as Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chief of Protocol.