THE SAUDI SUER--ACCORDING TO HIS OWN LAWYERS. Investors Business Daily writes that in fear of lawsuits, publishers have absolved Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz of any connection to terrorism--

Problem is, bin Mahfouz's own lawyers admit on the sheik's Web site that he was "the principal donor" to the Muwafaq Foundation (also known as Blessed Relief), which the Treasury Department in October 2001 named as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen."

Treasury at the same time listed a foundation trustee, Yassin Qadi, as a specially designated global terrorist.

U.S. court documents allege that "(Qadi) and other well-connected Saudi citizens transferred millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden through charities and trusts like the Muwafaq Foundation."

The 58-year-old sheik's son, Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, was a director of the foundation. To be fair, neither has been blacklisted by Treasury as a terrorist. But the implication is clear.

Mark Steyn confirms:

In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" and its chairman as a "specially designated global terrorist." As the Treasury concluded, "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief."

Yet bin Mahfouz claims on his website:

Q: Has any US government department or agency alleged that Muwafaq Foundation is linked to the financing of terrorism, in particular Al-Qaeda?
A: To the best of our knowledge, no such allegations have ever been made and no statement in this respect has been published in any official government press release or posted on any official government web site.

How can he deny that the Treasury Department explicitly made this connection back in 2001?
If you go to the Treasury Department website and do a search for Muwafaq (or Muwaffaq)--your search will come up empty.

Unlike publishing companies, the Treasury can and should keep this sort of information readily and publicly available--especially in light of bin Mahfouz's attempt to bury it.

That the Treasury Department did in fact make a connection between Muwafaq and Al Qaeda is clear. CNN reported on October 15, 2001:

ZAHN: Well, let's for starters, talk about some of those names that we saw surface on that government list that came out on Friday night. How vivid an example is that of any Saudi role in all of this?

FRANK: Well, one of the names on the list is a man named Yasin Al-Qadi. Now, my sources in the government tell me that the foundation he ran funneled at least $3 million to bin Laden in the form of contributions from wealthy Saudi businessmen. [Al-Qadi, who once headed the Muwafaq Foundation, said Monday he has never sent money to bin Laden or al Qaeda.]

In Alms For Jihad, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins confirm:

After 9/11 the Foreign Assets Control Department of the US Treasury conducted its own investigation of Yassin Abdullah al-Qadi, whom they called a “wealthy businessman” used “by wealthy Saudi businessmen to transfer millions of dollars to Bin Laden.” His assets in the USA were then frozen.

There is clearly more to this than bin Mahfouz is letting on.

Technorati Tag: Khalid bin Mahfouz and Muwafaq Foundation and Blessed Relief and Alms For Jihad.

US COURTS VS. SAUDI INTIMIDATION. Score one for the West, as bin Mahfouz tries to have another expose of the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism pulped.

On June 8, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals justices unanimously found that Ehrenfeld’s case merits hearing in an U.S. federal court--and that the case has implications for all U.S. authors and publishers, whose First Amendment rights are threatened by foreign libel rulings.

The Second Circuit justices also took the unusual step of referring the matter of jurisdiction over bin Mahfouz to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court --and underscoring its importance to other New York and U.S. authors.

The Second Circuit panel slammed bin Mahfouz again on June 27, 2007--unanimously denying his request to reconsider their decision on the merit of the case for trial in the U.S. And on June 28, the New York Court of Appeals agreed to hear the arguments on jurisdiction this autumn.

These rulings have already weakened bin Mahfouz’ ability to conduct legal terrorism against U.S. authors and publishers.

By the way, it seems you can download an electronic copy of the book here. There is a link there to download a special reader to read the excerpt, which is a .prc file.

Read related posts.

Technorati Tag: Alms For Jihad and Khalid bin Mahfouz.

THE 'ALMS FOR JIHAD' ISSUE: WHAT'S AT STAKE? Glad you asked, because the media seems to be asleep on this one. At The Corner, Stanley Kurtz puts it on the line:

The issues at stake include freedom of speech, national sovereignty, the legal and social effects of the Internet, and the war on terror. Several questions present themselves, including: 1) Is mainstream media coverage failing as a direct or indirect outcome of the earlier suits? 2) Did the earlier suits leveled at major newspapers and magazines include specific agreements forbidding future coverage? 3) Are American libraries complying with Cambridge University Press’s letter calling for the withdrawal of Alms for Jihad from their shelves? 4) What, if any, are their legal obligations to comply? 5) Are libraries that chose not to comply in any danger? 5) Why are we not hearing anything more from the American publishing industry about the threat they are under?

Kurtz also links to some key articles on the topic.

Technorati Tag: Alms For Jihad.

IF THEY DIDN'T PULP CARTER'S "PEACE NOT APARTHEID"... At The Corner, Stanley Kurtz writes:

Lets assume, strictly for the sake of argument, that the controversial statements that have led Cambridge University Press to withdraw and pulp all unsold copies of Alms for Jihad are indeed false. Should an entire book be made to disappear from the face of the earth because it contains several false statements? Is it appropriate for the world’s libraries to withdraw all copies of Alms for Jihad from the shelf? Is there any precedent for this sort of response to a libel suit? Are there competing precedents? [emphasis added]

Well, Simon & Schuster didn't do it for Carter's book--and CAMERA helpfully provides a list of Carter's errors: not only the ones he normally makes during interviews, but the ones in his book, with page numbers.

Technorati Tag: Alms For Jihad and Jimmy Carter.

INTERVIEW WITH DR. RACHEL EHRENFELD. Hot Air's Brian Preston interview's Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld of The American Center for Democracy:

The ACD works to inform decision makers and the public as to the ideological underpinnings, organizational structure, and political objectives used by terrorists and terrorist state sponsors to undermine the democratic process in Western countries and subvert liberal efforts in the Muslim and developing world and expose the sources and methods of their funding.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Unlike Cambridge University Press, which caved in to threats of a lawsuit and is now in the process of destroying copies of Alms for Jihad--Dr. Ehrenfeld is fighting back and discusses what is going on.

Listen to the interview.
Her website also has links to a number of articles on the Saudi-funded intimidation of free speech.

Technorati Tag: Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alms For Jihad and Cambridge University Press and Khalid bin Mafouz.

A SHORT HISTORY OF ISLAMIST US LAWSUITS 1935-2003. As a background to the lawsuit to suppress Alms for Jihad, Jeffrey Breinholt at the Counterterrorism Blog lists past lawsuits brought by Muslim groups and individuals--including the earliest case:

DATELINE – BIRMINGHAM 1935
The Birmingham Post reports that an Arab sheik is interested in acquiring an American bride for his harem, and describes what he is looking for and some of his good attributes. The newspaper is sued for libel. White v. Birmingham Post Co., 233 Ala. 547, 172 So. 649, Ala. 1937.

This case the judge did not dismiss.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Lawsuits and Alms for Jihad.

THEY DON'T BURN BOOKS, DO THEY? They may not burn them, but The New York Sun is reporting that Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books:

Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England, the latest development in what critics say is an effort by Saudis to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism.

Apparently the intimidation tactics that CAIR has used so well, are working especially well for Saudi Arabia--to such an extent that

A professor at Emory University, who won a libel suit in Britain brought against her and Penguin, Deborah Lipstadt, likewise told The New York Sun that this action by Cambridge University Press was a "frightening development." She said that it seemed to her that the Saudis were "systematically, case by case, book by book" challenging anything critical of them or anything that linked them to terrorism. She said that she could not think of any publisher that would now accept a manuscript critical of the Saudis. "This affects not only authors but readers," she said, adding that "ideas are being chased out of the marketplace."

Interestingly, Cambridge University Press did not even pursue the legal avenues available to it. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who is also being sued over her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop It, went to the courts:

In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not be enforceable here.

Also odd, the suit seems to have been brought by Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, yet according to the 2 co-authors of the book, though Sheikh Mahfouz is mentioned in their book 13 times--he is never labeled as a terrorist in the book, and they have sent supporting documentation on this point to their publisher. The fact that Mahfouz has been successful in other suits was an obvious factor.

But if you can get hold of any of these books, do it now so you can be the proud owner of a colllector's item.

After all, how often do you get the opportunity to own a censored book?
More and more often, apparently.

[Hat tip: The Corner]

Technorati Tag: Alms For Jihad and Alms For Jihad and Cambridge University Press and Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz.

SAUDIS SUE, PUBLISHERS CAVE (UPDATED). Apparently for the 4th time. From Critical Mass:

Cambridge University Press announced this week that it would pulp all unsold copies of the 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, in response to a libel claim filed in England by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker. The book suggests that businesses and charities associated with Mr. Mahfouz financed terrorism in Sudan and elsewhere during the 1990s.

"Cambridge University Press now accepts that the entire bin Mahfouz family categorically and unreservedly condemns terrorism in all its manifestations," a lawyer for Mr. Mahfouz declared on Monday in a London courtroom.

During the court hearing, the publisher also promised to contact university libraries worldwide and ask them to remove the book from their shelves. It also agreed to pay "substantial damages" to Mr. Mahfouz. Representatives of both parties declined to tell The Chronicle how much money was involved in the settlement.

The book's authors -- Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the U.S. State Department -- were not personally named in the libel action, and they have refused to endorse the settlement. They declined to speak to The Chronicle on Tuesday, saying they were still talking to the university press about their legal obligations.

This is at least the fourth book against which Mr. Mahfouz has successfully pursued a libel action.

The National Review Online thinks there is a major story here that is not being addressed at all in the media. Stanley Kurtz writes:

Here’s a story with huge implications for freedom of speech (all negative), and it’s apparently gone almost entirely unreported in the mainstream press. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required), under threat of a law suit, Cambridge University Press has just agreed to pulp all unsold copies of the 2006 book, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World. According to the Chronicle, this is the fourth such book on terrorism funding to be pursued by a libel action. The Chronicle quotes Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, whose own book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed–and How to Stop It is one of the four books.

In an interview on Monday, Ms. Ehrenfeld characterized as "despicable" Cambridge's decision to settle this week, a move the press has defended as necessary and just. Ms. Ehrenfeld, who is a friend of Mr. Burr's [one of the authors of Alms for Jihad], said that, as she understands it, press officials "caved immediately."

"They didn't even consider the evidence that the authors had given them," she said. "They received a threatening letter, and they immediately caved in and said, Do whatever it takes. Pay them whatever they want. Ban the book, destroy the book, we don't want this lawsuit."

In a blog post entitled, "Attention Authors: Be afraid, very afraid....especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism," Emory University professor, Deborah Lipstadt elaborates. In addition to the links within Lipstadt’s post, you can find related stories at the website of Ehrenfeld’s American Center for Democracy. Given MSM’s silence, this looks like one for the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Here is a review by Michael Rubin of Alms for Jihad and Journey of the Jihadist:

Lay Muslims once looked at zakat as just another tax levied by their governments. However, the Muslim Brotherhood-run mosques began collecting alms to fund jihad. Messrs. Burr and Collins demonstrate this with a number of case studies covering Afghanistan, Sudan, the Balkans, Russia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Holy Land, Europe, and North America. Throughout, the Saudi royal family played a pernicious role, founding and promoting charities to spread militant Sunni Islam, not only as an inoculation against resurgent Shi'ism from revolutionary Iran, but also to radicalize the Muslims in Europe and America.Western bungling amplified the charities' success: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika enabled Islamist charities to sink roots in Chechnya, while in the next decade, the Clinton administration delayed investigations into charities like the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation out of deference to its Saudi royal family patrons.

Not the sort of stuff the Saudis want getting out.

Technorati Tag: Khalid bin Mahfouz and Saudi Arabia and Terrorism and Cambridge University Press and Alms For Jihad.