[noisy_boy]

> In India, a Lady, Nupur Sharma merely quote the Hadith about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha and she had to go underground.

This is not equivalent to the case in question (to be clear about my stand, I think the firing of the lecturer was completely wrong). However, there are few things to consider in Nupur Sharma case:

1. Nupur Sharma is not a random Lady, she was the spokesperson of the ruling party BJP. As part of the ruling party, she had the responsibility of acting as is appropriate for a national-level party member. More so as being the spokesperson, her views could be seen as the views of the party. See point #3 on why this is relevant.

2. Her comments were not part of some art history or philosophical discussion. By her own admittance, she couldn't accept the insulting of Hindu god Shiva and retaliated by making comments about prophet Mohammad.

3. Her comments were not made within the confines of a classroom where free academic discussion is paramount; she went on three national TV channels and basically tried to make the same comments deliberately knowing well that in a deeply religious country like India, such actions have far reaching consequences. My personal view is that one should be free to insult any god, Hindu or Muslim or any other religion; however, practicality demands that care should be exercised by members of political parties on such public platforms (if she was a Muslim leader who insulted a Hindu god, the point would still stand i.e. her behavior was irresponsible).

[boruto]

I guess the focus of OP comment was the death threats she received, the beheading that followed of a tailor.

But it seems your comment sort of justifies all that because nupur is a spokesperson of a party.

[noisy_boy]

My comment points out the difference between the two incidents i.e. the lecturer's behavior was NOT irresponsible and Nupur Sharma's was. Death threats are not justified in either case under any circumstances.