Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Kidnapped Sudan editor beheaded

by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 12:56 PM PDT

he beheaded body of a Sudanese newspaper editor has been found on the outskirts of the capital, Khartoum.

Mohammed Taha ran the al-Wifaq paper and was taken from his home on Tuesday night by an unknown group of armed men.

Last year, he was put on trial for blasphemy after his pro-government paper reprinted an article questioning the parentage of the prophet Muhammad.

The charges were later dropped but if convicted of blasphemy under Sharia law, he could have been put to death.

The BBC's Jonah Fisher in Khartoum says no-one has claimed responsibility but suspicion will immediately turn to Sudan's hardline Islamic groups.

In May last year, thousands of people demonstrated outside a courtroom in central Khartoum calling for Mr Taha to be put to death.

After several emotionally charged days the case was adjourned and later quietly dropped.

Our correspondent says the killing of Mr Taha, an ally of Khartoum's Islamist government, will raise fears that extremist groups are once again active in Sudan.

such peacefull religion:(


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Kidnapped Sudan editor beheaded
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Kidnapped Sudan editor beheaded
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Yes, it is a shame that so many people are commited to this.
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 1:06 PM PDT
Collapse -
by Terry Browne / September 8, 2006 12:19 PM PDT

it's a minority of the Muslims that are committed to this kind of behavior. People condoning violence exist in all religions, but the are a minotrity. Nevertheless they do do a lot of damage to their respective religions.

Here is another example.

Collapse -
There is a lot of similarities between Hindi and Islam
by Diana Forum moderator / September 8, 2006 12:28 PM PDT
In reply to: Fortunately

Both believe in honor killing, putting down women, putting children to work, killing each other and others.


Collapse -
Both believe in honor killing
by Terry Browne / September 8, 2006 1:37 PM PDT

"Both believe in honor killing, putting down women, putting children to work, killing each other and others."

A lot of people who are Christians believe in the same things and do it in the name of religion. Howerver they are a minority.

Many Christian men who are betrayed by their women, kill them because of "honor" as part of the religion. A woman should be faithful to her man according to these people. Many men abuse of their women (no matter what religion) because they think they are superior and many times this is due to our biblical values.
I am not sure about Buddhism, which seem to be a pretty peaceful religion most of the time, but I believe that there are examples of them abusing women and children too.
Take a look at the Amish people and even Jehova's Witnesses. They abuse children even sexually in the name of their religion sometimes.
But, as I said, that is a minority of the members.

Collapse -
Sorry but another mistaken notion here
by Steven Haninger / September 8, 2006 9:26 PM PDT

as you said

''Many Christian men who are betrayed by their women, kill them because of ''honor'' as part of the religion''

''Honor'' killings are not a part of the Christian core faith. Any who would do such, do it wrongly....period. Secondly, this part of your statement ''who are betrayed by their women'' (underline is mine) could be read to imply that women are possessions. While this may be true in some religions...that women are mere chattels...this is not so in Christianity. While there are many biblical statements implying males as the dominant gender, it's never been taught to me that this reduces women to being subservients.

Collapse -
OK, so you don't know much about Christianity.
by Kiddpeat / September 9, 2006 5:19 AM PDT

It should be sufficient to point out that 'honor killing' was not taught by Jesus or prescribed by the Bible. It seems that this was advocated by Islam's prophet and prescribed in his writings including the Koran. Those who do such things are condemned by the Christian community and by Christian leaders. Where is the community outrage in Islam? Where are the leaders who condemn it? There is no outrage or condemnation in Islam because Muslims know that this is what their prophet taught.

Collapse -
Without immediate supporting evidence you're slandering
by Roger NC / September 9, 2006 11:19 AM PDT
Take a look at the Amish people and even Jehova's Witnesses. They abuse children even sexually in the name of their religion sometimes.

I suggest you quickly back this up or request it's removal. And individual families and/or individuals do not qualifying as the religion believing it and teaching it.

All groups have evil people within. Your statement implies the official position of these groups supported such actions. Or at the least refused to either admit it or condemn it.

Evidence or apology please.

And for the record, I've never been associated with either group and am not particularly religious myself. But I consider this a deliberate insult to a group you seem to feel deserve it.

Collapse -
rodger we all know what and who terry is
by Mark5019 / September 9, 2006 11:34 AM PDT

what he beleaves why isnt it pulled?

Collapse -
From your own link
by Roger NC / September 9, 2006 4:36 PM PDT
In reply to: Response
There is no evidence that physical or sexual abuse is more frequent among the Amish than in the general population, but popular perceptions of the Amish make abuse more striking.

So strike one.

Your second link is a site admittedly run by ex Jehovah witnesses if I read it right. Does that invalidate it entirely? no, but it does raise serious questions of bias. I personally disagree with about what little I think I know about Jehovah Witnesses, but that doesn't mean I'll believe anything former members say.

Call it a foul ball.

Third link reports accusations of cover-up of sexual abuse by members. That is seriously wrong I'll concede but not official support. Many groups are ashamed and don't share everything outside themselves.

Call that a foul too.

The third at what little I've been able to ascertain is the only one I might consider further at this time. But the link itself quotes the JW representative

But to say that the policy is not followed perfectly is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to affirmatively minimize, or hide this problem.

And then the page does nothing to illustrate otherwise.

Sorry, I don't think you made your case. I think your prejudices are showing strongly, again.

Collapse -
"Sorry, I don't think you made your case."
by Terry Browne / September 9, 2006 10:29 PM PDT
In reply to: From your own link

OK. That's your opinion and I respect that!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) bingo give you a cigar
by Mark5019 / September 9, 2006 11:36 PM PDT
In reply to: From your own link
Collapse -
About ''cover ups''
by Steven Haninger / September 9, 2006 10:05 PM PDT
In reply to: Response

While many will not agree, I would say that when religious and other organizations who have standards and measures for dealing with wrongdoings of their own people do not run to the media or law enforcement agencies but attempt to handle problems internally, their actions are not necessarily a deliberate cover-up. Many acts of wrongdoing are against both religious and secular laws. Those within the religious community when dealing with their own will often have their own methods of resolving the ''sin'' within their own faith. There is nothing wrong with that. They operate completely separately from secular authority. I believe this is proper. Now, there have been times in history when ''sinners'' were handed over to secular authority for punishment because the laws of church and of kings were one... and the two cooperated fully. Perhaps you would like to return to those times.

Collapse -
I disagree Steve
by Terry Browne / September 9, 2006 10:37 PM PDT
In reply to: About ''cover ups''

"There is nothing wrong with that. They operate completely separately from secular authority. I believe this is proper."

So many cases where these things just keep going on over and over again simply because all they have to do is to tell the truth and they are supposed to be forgiven (that's how it works among the Amish) and the case is supposed to be forgotten! They are "punished" by not being able to attend the mass for nine weeks (or whatever the exact amount was) and after that everything is OK again. But is it OK for those who have been abused? Do they get the proper help and support? Nope. They're supposed to forgive and FORGET! All according to their Bible... I wonder how many of the members here would like to see America run that way...

Collapse -
I am going to say this is entirely up to
by Steven Haninger / September 9, 2006 11:06 PM PDT
In reply to: I disagree Steve

the individuals directly affected and none of your or my business. What you and I consider abuse might differ from what another might consider such. What you and I consider proper punishment or resolution might differ from what is acceptable to or accepted by another person. It's perfectly acceptable to me that others have different standards than I do though it pains me no less when I see too much deviation from it at times. As an example, let's use child spanking. To many who would witness such, the natural tendancy might be to wish to intervene on behalf of a child being spanked by a parent in public...but how proper is this if both the child and parent are accepting of this practice? Now, a witnessing of brutality is another matter....but still a judgement call.
I would say, however, that a person who felt abused and threatened in their religious community...such as Amish....should be allowed the protection of the secular community if they seek it... but the secular community needs to be very cautious if seeking to regulate what is proper within the law of such a religious community. Each needs to respect the other. Such is already being tested in parts of the world where Muslims would like to impose their own law's on their people and be immune to secular law...shouldn't happen, IMO.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) and all the beheadings by whom?
by Mark5019 / September 8, 2006 12:31 PM PDT
In reply to: Fortunately
Collapse -
Yes, that's what we hear all the time. I'm sure we even
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 12:32 PM PDT
In reply to: Fortunately

heard it while we were watching video of Muslims dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. The problem for Islam is that it began with violent conquest rather than persuasion. Those who advocate violence can point to their own prophet who told them to do this, and no one condemns or corrects their teaching.

None of this is true of Christianity.

Collapse -
Not sure if this is exactly true
by Steven Haninger / September 8, 2006 12:46 PM PDT
In reply to: Fortunately
''People condoning violence exist in all religions,''

or if just confuses me by how it's stated. I would say that people who can be violent and those who are tolerant of them exist irrespective of religious affiliation (or lack of any). In some, but not all, what we call violence might have specific justifying causes...self defense being one of them. But it would seem that in the Muslim religion acts of aggression and violence are a built in option rather than an exception. I could be wrong, however. If you know otherwise, you may correct me. I cannot think of another religion, however, that regards the ''collateral damage'' of killing it's own followers as an acceptable means to an end....the end being the killing of ''infidels'' such as Christians and Jews. As hard as I have tried, my ''Christian'' mind cannot fathom this...and Christians have been thought by many to be less than passive. My two cents worth....
Collapse -
The Liars and their Prophet
by James Denison / September 7, 2006 3:10 PM PDT

are always fearful of people actually looking to close and clearly at their Prophet. In today's world he'd be a criminal and probably registered on a sex offender list, if he was even allowed out on probation.

On the other hand though, what does his parents have to do with anything as regards his actions? As I recall he was orphaned at an early age, so they probably had little input into his developments.

Collapse -
Sudanese government refuses more UN peacekeepers
by marinetbryant / September 7, 2006 10:42 PM PDT
Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Turn up the volume with our Apple Byte sweeps!

Two lucky winners will take home the coveted smart speaker that lets Siri help you around your connected house. This sweepstake ends Feb. 25, 2018.