Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
What A Pudding
23 Answers
http://
Now it's really getting crazy.
What next? Chips to be banned in case they form an incantation to summon the devil when tipped into the lid of your burger box.
Now it's really getting crazy.
What next? Chips to be banned in case they form an incantation to summon the devil when tipped into the lid of your burger box.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
this is what the fuss is about https:/
I am being deliberately obtuse? Bit offensive /defensive, isn't it? It is not a current news story, so I questioning why you linked to it, is all.
You go on to claim that "now it's really getting crazy" - except it isn't, is it, since the story comes from 8 years ago?
It was pretty much a non-story then, and time has not made it more important, it seems to me. Storm in a tea cup at best, I would have said.
You go on to claim that "now it's really getting crazy" - except it isn't, is it, since the story comes from 8 years ago?
It was pretty much a non-story then, and time has not made it more important, it seems to me. Storm in a tea cup at best, I would have said.
"The article is from the UK news section of The Scotsman published today. "
No it isn't. It was published in 2005 - the date is clearly shown in the article as "Published 17/09/2005 01:46".
The only reference to today's date is in the masthead which is at the top of *every* page on the Scotsman website - however old the story underneath.
No it isn't. It was published in 2005 - the date is clearly shown in the article as "Published 17/09/2005 01:46".
The only reference to today's date is in the masthead which is at the top of *every* page on the Scotsman website - however old the story underneath.
Okay you got me. I trawled the entire online history of The Scotsman back to 2005 until I came up with this article.
It didn't appear in the online headlines of todays issue, I'm making it up as a bizarre stunt to publicise a book on how easy it is to miss something that you don't expect to see in the first place.
I throw myself on the mercy of the court with a promise to try not to be lulled into a false sense of security when reading the headline page of a supposedly reputable news organisation.
Of course, now that I go back to retrieve the article, it's gone.
Could be a job for CSI Embra.
It didn't appear in the online headlines of todays issue, I'm making it up as a bizarre stunt to publicise a book on how easy it is to miss something that you don't expect to see in the first place.
I throw myself on the mercy of the court with a promise to try not to be lulled into a false sense of security when reading the headline page of a supposedly reputable news organisation.
Of course, now that I go back to retrieve the article, it's gone.
Could be a job for CSI Embra.
From Wiki
An issue of a religious nature arose in 2005 in the United Kingdom when Burger King introduced a new prepackaged ice cream product; the label of the product included a silhouette of the ice cream that when rotated on its side bore a resemblance to the Islamic inscription for God, Allah (الله). When a British Muslim named Rashad Akhtar, a resident of the community of High Wycombe, was presented with the ice cream cone in a Park Royal Burger King restaurant, he noticed the resemblance and became angered at what he felt was an offense to the Islamic faith.[56] After being informed of the likeness, the local Islamic group Muslim Council of Britain pointed out the issue of the possible interpretation to Burger King and its relevance to Shariah, the Muslim version of canon law which governs the lives of members of the Islamic faith and carries the same weight as civil law in their belief structure. The company responded by voluntarily recalling the product and reissuing it with a new label.[57] The Muslim Council praised the company for its "sensitive and prompt action" in resolving the matter;[58] however, Akhtar was not satisfied with the company's withdrawal of the product.[56]
In response to the perceived blasphemy, Akhtar declared it was his personal jihad to find those responsible for the packaging and destroy their professional status, personal life and the UK as a whole for having a culture allowing the insult to occur.[56] This event, Akhtar's reaction and other similar issues with companies such as Nike and Unilever have been used by conservative political critics, such as James Joyner, claiming that western nations and organizations are kowtowing in too easily to Muslims' claims or threats and by commentators, including author Daniel C. Dennett, highlighting how factions of the Islamic faith gravitate towards iconoclasm.
An issue of a religious nature arose in 2005 in the United Kingdom when Burger King introduced a new prepackaged ice cream product; the label of the product included a silhouette of the ice cream that when rotated on its side bore a resemblance to the Islamic inscription for God, Allah (الله). When a British Muslim named Rashad Akhtar, a resident of the community of High Wycombe, was presented with the ice cream cone in a Park Royal Burger King restaurant, he noticed the resemblance and became angered at what he felt was an offense to the Islamic faith.[56] After being informed of the likeness, the local Islamic group Muslim Council of Britain pointed out the issue of the possible interpretation to Burger King and its relevance to Shariah, the Muslim version of canon law which governs the lives of members of the Islamic faith and carries the same weight as civil law in their belief structure. The company responded by voluntarily recalling the product and reissuing it with a new label.[57] The Muslim Council praised the company for its "sensitive and prompt action" in resolving the matter;[58] however, Akhtar was not satisfied with the company's withdrawal of the product.[56]
In response to the perceived blasphemy, Akhtar declared it was his personal jihad to find those responsible for the packaging and destroy their professional status, personal life and the UK as a whole for having a culture allowing the insult to occur.[56] This event, Akhtar's reaction and other similar issues with companies such as Nike and Unilever have been used by conservative political critics, such as James Joyner, claiming that western nations and organizations are kowtowing in too easily to Muslims' claims or threats and by commentators, including author Daniel C. Dennett, highlighting how factions of the Islamic faith gravitate towards iconoclasm.
Latest Posts
Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law6 mins ago
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
