Difference between revisions of "Talk:Muhammad cartoons controversy"
From Conservapedia
(New page: Erm, is this the appropriate page to point out that Conservapedia has a picture of Muhammad on the page with the relevant article? Remember it's not just the fact that the Danish cartoons ...) |
Hojimachong (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Erm, is this the appropriate page to point out that Conservapedia has a picture of Muhammad on the page with the relevant article? Remember it's not just the fact that the Danish cartoons were cartoons that caused the uproar but that they depicted Muhammad at all. Depictions of the human figure are proscribed in Islam, and depictions of Muhammad doubly irreligious.[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:55 8 April 2007 (EDT) | Erm, is this the appropriate page to point out that Conservapedia has a picture of Muhammad on the page with the relevant article? Remember it's not just the fact that the Danish cartoons were cartoons that caused the uproar but that they depicted Muhammad at all. Depictions of the human figure are proscribed in Islam, and depictions of Muhammad doubly irreligious.[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:55 8 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :I'm working on it... --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:57, April 9, 2007
Erm, is this the appropriate page to point out that Conservapedia has a picture of Muhammad on the page with the relevant article? Remember it's not just the fact that the Danish cartoons were cartoons that caused the uproar but that they depicted Muhammad at all. Depictions of the human figure are proscribed in Islam, and depictions of Muhammad doubly irreligious.Britinme 20:55 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm working on it... --Hojimachongtalk 20:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
