Mohammed Taha was put on trial for blasphemy after his pro-government paper reprinted an article questioning the parentage of the prophet Muhammad.

Today, the beheaded body of Mohammed Taha has been found on the outskirts of the capital, Khartoum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5321368.stm

What do you think of this incident?

What are the limits of Freedom of Expression in Western world and in Islamic World?

Can westerners repeat another episode of 'Danish cartoons'? Can they do movies like Davinci code in Islamic world

YES....

Its about time we used our freedom to expose the darkness of the life of Mohamed to the world, before we are overtaken by that darkness.

Before small 1.5% minorities close every legal door by their influence in marginal seats to the truth being told.

The mind boggles at the amazingly contradictory life of Mohamed.
I dont' care about his parentage, but I DO care about his use of 'revelation' to pander to his own carnal appetite.

In the case of Zaid, his adopted son. Mohamed wished to have the wife.
There is a bit of spin from the Islamic world, suggesting that 'loving' mohamed took the poor divorced wife of his adopted son in and cared for her. But the evidence exists that Mohamed noticed her beauty and simply desired her.
The events unfold like this:

1/ Mohamed wants Zaids wife
2/ Zaid divorces his wife.
3/ Mohamed marries her.
4/ Mohamed SUDDENLY recieves a 'revelation' that 'its all good'
5/ The revelation includes this gem "We allowed you to marry her to SHOW BY PRECEDENT that its ok for a man to marry the wife of his adopted sons" (Surah 33:30 and following)

Now.. does this not mean that what mohamed 'DID' is in reality 'precedent' for others to learn from ?

So, clearly, his
-genocide of the Banu Qurayza
-marraige to a 6 yr old girl
-Arranging of a 'hit' on Kaab the poet he did not like
-Murder of Abu Jaal
-Threat of "Islam or death" to Prince Ukaydir of Duma
-His domestic violence on Ayesha his wife
-His torture of a man to find the town treasury
-His marraige to unlimited women..OOPS..wait.. no.. there was a revelation about this.. (very convenient) which said in effect:

"Mohamed.. YOU can have any believing woman who presents herself to you, but this is a privilege ONLY FOR YOU not for the believers"

We have just as much responsibility to expose child abuse in churches as we do the evils of Islam.

A question to a muslim:

" Who is your role-model? "

Answer:

" Mohammed (pbuh)is the perfect role-model. He is the perfect man who has ever lived on this earth. We follow him. If you blaspheme our prophet, we will slit your throats. We respect him and love him so much. "

"Ok. Till now, How many murders and rapes have you done

BOAZ: I don't put as much stock in the power of Islam as you do. All this notion of a clash of civilisations is misplaced I think. If we really want to get on that track, we should be looking at China.

Islam can't and won't be anything more than an annoyance. As a world-view, it's essentially stuck in the Dark Ages and it's backward looking. There's also the issue that the Islamic world generally doesn't have any resources (other than oil, which will become obsolete some time this century anyway) and doesn't produce anything. Physically and economically, it can't be a major player. I believe a large part of this is directly the result of the world view, and it's also why we've essentially seen almost nothing in terms of science or culture to come out of the Islamic world in half a millennium, whereas the west has gone ahead in leaps and bounds, and China and India have seemingly come out of nowhere to become very relevant and important on the world stage. This is precisely because for any power to be relevant and gain or maintain power, it can't keep pining for some so-called golden age in antiquity. That's why China is racing ahead and increasing in confidence, whereas the Islamic world continues to define itself by passing the buck, knee-jerk reactions and rhetoric that actually keep it mired in its own misery.

For Islam to become a major player, it would have to embrace modernism and go through similar or equivalent periods to those of the west over the past five centuries (eg. The Reformation, Age of Enlightenment, etc). However, those same developments led to Christianity being de-fanged, essentially. Thus, Islam faces the prospect of remaining a backwater by any measure, or essentially becoming less Islamic. If they choose the former, it will be annoying for us, but not a major threat.

Hi all:

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=18514

Read and enjoy

http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=40215

Read and enjoy

See, how the 'christians' react to these blasphemous acts.

Jesus Cartoons Everywhere and Christians Are Not Rioting .. Why?

I "Googled" and "Alta-Vista-ed" the phrase "Jesus Cartoon" this morning and found that there were quite a few to choose from. Most were from Christian sites, some from anti-Christian sites, some were whimsical, some were coarse and degrading, many were from European sites (mostly German with cartoon dialogues that defied translation by Babel Fish). There were even political cartoons from American newspapers.

When I was finished I checked for "Muhammed Cartoon" and found . . . nothing. Google and Alta Vista have apparently blocked access to the many Muhammed cartoon caricature that are everywhere on the internet these days. Even the newsworthy Danish cartoons that kicked off the current Islamist riots have been censored by these search engines.

I am sooooo glad that these internet gateways have no problems guiding me to all the pornography I (don't) want to find but are thoughtful enough (or scared of having their throats cut) to protect me from finding the images that have set off major international rioting.

A search for "Piss Christ", however, delivered over 45 "hits" (just of the image itself) on Google and 31 on Alta Vista. Go figure. Sure.

Apparently images of Jesus, no matter how demeaning or insulting, do not create a threat of rioting, burning down an embassy, boycotting a nation or beheading somebody. Clearly, the American news media are not afraid of Christians.

Since you posted this rubbish on another thread, I thought I'd post here too.

>>When I was finished I checked for "Muhammed Cartoon" and found . . . nothing. Google and Alta Vista have apparently blocked access to the many Muhammed cartoon caricature that are everywhere on the internet these days<<

I typed "Muhammed Cartoon" into Google and got 4,040,000 hits, plus a polite question "Did you mean: Mohammed Cartoon" which I tried, and got another 2,230,000 hits.

Right at the top of both is the Wikipedia entry covering the Jyllands-Posten affair.

So your suggestion that search engines are somehow imposing anti-christian censorship is baseless.

If you meant something else entirely, fine. But if you'd like a URL where you can gawp at the cartoons again, Google will get you there, no problem.