Muhammad cartoons n+1

February 8, 2008 4:19 AM

Seems the Muhammad cartoons controversy still lives/.
posted by jeffburdges (9 comments total)

We know.
posted by Jimbob at 4:22 AM on February 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure buttressing a (very brief) NYTimes link with Wikipedia links is a good idea.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:27 AM on February 8, 2008

um, what BP said.

also, i had to click through a bunch of stuff i already knew, plus some wikipedia ^ stuff, to get to the story that should have been on the FPP: "Muslim groups are attempting to censor Wikipedia because of images of Muhammad contained in the article about him"

why not just put that upfront?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:01 AM on February 8, 2008

You couldn't come up with any link for the letter I?
posted by Wolfdog at 5:21 AM on February 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm so angry that Muhammed failed to acknowledge Siegal and Schuster's inspiration for Alloy Ackbar, The iman of steel. Clearly comic book plagersism.

[I am tired of the other "controversy" so I made my own.]
posted by srboisvert at 5:30 AM on February 8, 2008

Islmao.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:07 AM on February 8, 2008

What's the fuss? Aren't we building a font a world knowledge here?
posted by parmanparman at 6:10 AM on February 8, 2008

I think the proper response to any instance of "That offends my religion!" is "So fucking what?"
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:20 AM on February 8, 2008

You know, one thing I don't quite get: from what I understand, they don't want to make images of Mohammed because they fear worshiping false idols. There's actually a core of sense to the idea... it's not about the man, it's about the message, and pictures of him may distract from what's important.

But who cares if non-believers make images? If the problem is worshiping false idols, but the images aren't about worship, what's the problem?
posted by Malor at 6:22 AM on February 8, 2008