I wonder how many from the left of politics condone the violence by those in France who can't accept a democratically right wing elected government. Socialist like some extreme religous groups react violently to those who don't share their view of the world. Its ironic that the Muslims and Socialist are at one in this violence in France at the moment. They not only object to free speach but democracy itself.

I think that most people are missing the point here. Notwithstanding their apparently vile content, I can see no reason why such videos should not be available through normal channels - except that the PG rating seems absurd. Make them R or X rated, the latter probably being a better classification because they would then only be legal in, or distributed from, the ACT. There's a squillion other legal DVDs out there that promote all kinds of hate and violence, but their distribution is theoretically constrained by our censorship ratings. Why not this one?

Put it out there so people can see it, discuss it, rant about it, lampoon it or whatever. I think that "Borat" could have a field day with material like this :)

CJMorgan, it is obvious to you and I that Sheik Feiz Mohammed is a fool but that is because we don't take the Koran or the Islamic religion too seriously.

The real questions are - how many Muslims DO take Sheik Feiz Mohammed seriously? What are the likely outcomes of this? And should we be concerned?

That is, what percentage of Muslims (probably young male) are adversely affected by the Sheiks ranting? Zero percent? 5 percent? 10 percent?......

There is also another key point to remember here. In Western societies Muslims are fighting a public relations battle to convince everyone that Islam is a "religion of peace."

YET Muslims like Irfan seem to condone such moronic and aggressive behaviour by their obvious refusal to consistantly condemn men like Sheik Feiz Mohammed.

Irfan's vague post in this thread is a typical example of Muslims shooting themselves in the foot.

Go on Irfan (or other Muslims out there), say it; "Sheik Feiz Mohammed is nasty facile bigot. We condemn his words and actions as they are contrary to the peaceful teachings of Islam and slander its good name."

Philip Ruddock is proposing to ban material which praises terrorism. That's praises; not just advocates or incites. It's not surprising the states have refused to support him.

The definition of 'terrorist act' in the Criminal Code is so broad, it includes the bombing of Nagasaki and of Dresden. Yes, those actions were wrong. But if the RSL wants to defend them,to praise them, they should not be liable to prosecution, or dependent on the Attorney General not to authorise such prosecution.

I should be able to read Mein Kampf, in order to understand Nazism. I should be able to read what Neo-Nazis write, so I can argue against their views.

I should be able to read material which advocates violent action against tyrannical governments. I should be able to read defences of the Iraq war (wrong though it is). (What was shock and awe but an attempt to terrorise people into ceasing to resist?)

There is already a law against inciting violence.

The views espoused by Sheik Feiz Mohammed in the “Death Series” DVD should not shock Manny Waks as he was only preaching from the Koran.

In the book ‘The Wisdom of Jihad’, printed in Malaysia and sold openly, the ‘moderate’ Muslim author (Abuhuraira Abdurrahman) defined jihad as ‘..waging a just and holy war against infidels [non-Muslims] with the motive of keeping the word of Allah supreme.(p. 22)’ He appealed to the Koranic verse,

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.(2:276)”

He went on,“More Koranic verses are so emphatic on the necessity of armed-jihad.(p. 10)”. The author is correct because the Koran has a whole chapter dedicated to jihad, Al–Anfal (in Arabic) or ‘Spoils of War’ in English.

The Islamic cleric brought out the ultimate aim of jihad, “..unless… a full-fledged Islamic State with Koranic constitution is established, the Muslims cannot exercise freedom in all aspects of their lives.( p.49)”

The issue goes far deeper than the freedom of speech, it is about the Koran and what it stands for.