[fellellor]

You can keep spewing non sense like this, but people here are more literate than what you are used to. Your argument boils down to - if you insulted or are perceived to have insulted the prophet of Islam (by even quoting a hadith), then you deserve to die and live in perpetual fear of being murdered by a "ghazi".

No one cares if Nupur Sharma lost a bloody BJP job. You are justifying murder and religious fanaticism.

[commoner]

Don't put words in my mouth. The murder is not justified and the perpetrators deserve the appropriate penalties. As the Supreme Court explained, Nupur Sharma made the incendiary statements that incited the murder. Nobody here has claimed that Sharma deserves to die for her rhetoric. Sharma knew her comments were provocative and much more than "quoting a hadith", which is why she issued her apology after she was suspended from her position.

[fellellor]

She literally quoted a Hadith. What is "incendiary" according to you is her tone of quotation. As if people don't quote nonsense from other religions in a non-reverential but mocking manner. Is Islam so fragile that Muslims get provoked by "quoting a hadith"?

I am incapable of putting words into your mouth, you are just taking hilariously diametrically opposite positions in the same conversation.

She apologised after she was thrown under the bus by her party (in a cowardly manner), which got pushback on this issue from India's middle eastern partners. The Supreme Court Judge's comments on her are unprecedented and disgraceful. After having received severe criticism for those comments, the court silently provided her the same relief from prosecution that she had sought in the first place.

The next time you turn up to support islamic barbarism, at least own up to it.

Here is a link in response to all your outdated bogus links: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-protects-nu...

You can do a text search on "Nupur Sharma" on livelaw as well.

[commoner]

There is no hadith with the negative phrasing Nupur Sharma used in her comments. As a politician in a country with religious tension, Sharma knew that her incendiary comments would inflame this tension.

The Supreme Court correctly assessed Sharma's comments as irresponsible and inflammatory, which even your LiveLaw link affirms:

> On July 1, a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to entertain Sharma's petition. During the hearing, the bench made strong oral comments against Sharma, saying that she was "singlehandedly responsible for what is happening in the country". The bench said that being a spokesperson of a political party is not a license to make irresponsible comments. The bench had also said that the petition "smacks of arrogance that the Magistrates of the country are too small for her", and added that she should avail alternate remedies than approaching the Supreme Court. Following the critical remarks of the bench, Sharma's lawyer chose to withdraw the petition.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-protects-nu...

The fact that Sharma made incendiary comments does not justify any threat of violence against her. However, as a politician, she should have known better than to inflame the people she is assigned to serve. The BJP removed her from her position because her behavior made her unsuitable for representing the party.

Your accusation that I am "supporting Islamic barbarism" is unjustified and also against the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Criticizing a politician for making incendiary statements is not the same thing as "supporting Islamic barbarism".