Section 14

Sheik Feiz Mohammed’s call for his followers to “have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam” has attracted deserved outrage in the days since his “Death Series” DVDs were posted on YouTube (they have since been removed).

Sheik Mohammed is already under investigation for his links to a group arrested in Sydney during an anti-terrorism operation and is now being investigated in conection with these videos. Australian officials are calling for the DVDs to be banned and for Sheik Mohammed to be prosecuted for incitement to violence, inciting racial hatred, sedition, or presumably whatever else can be made to fit.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn rightly points out that

Prosecuting Mohammed is likely to [turn him into a martyr for freedom of speech, and give his views far more prominence and credibility than they deserve], with the added bonus of symbolising Australia’s hatred of Muslims - something which is not exactly going to help in the battle for “hearts and minds”.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and applies to views you don’t like as well as those you do. Sheik Mohammed’s views are vile and hateful, but they do not in and of themselves harm anyone. They are offensive, but giving offence is not harm.

I/S also makes an “obvious” comparison to the David Irving case. I don’t think the comparison is as obvious as I/S makes out and it downplays Sheik Mohammed’s evil. Irving promotes a demostrably false version of history that many, particularly Jews, find offensive. As noted above, “giving offence is not harm”.

Sheik Mohammed, while causing no direct harm himself, calls for others to do just that:

“Teach them this: there is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid. Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom.”

I.e., brainwash your children to kill themselves and murder others.

It is important that these words are said out loud, in public. Not so that people can follow his instructions, but so that we can truly understand the nature of freedom’s enemies; so that those who would claim that Islam isn’t that awful feel compelled to make their case in public.

The incitement to violence here is not direct enough to warrant a ban. There is still room to think between the impulse and the response. And the educational value of having the views of these so-called “leaders” aired in public is immense.

UPDATE 26/01/07: Dr Mirko Bagaric, head of the Deakin Law School in Melbourne and NZ Herald guest columnist, agrees in part.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 19th, 2007 at 9:44 am and is filed under Islam, Hate Speech, Sedition. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.