[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 143 (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1974-E1975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SAUDI LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PUBLISHERS OF THE BOOK ALMS FOR JIHAD

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 25, 2007

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the book 
Alms for Jihad, coauthored by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins. 
This seminal work details the use of Islamic charities to fund 
terrorist activity around the world.
  The book's publisher, Cambridge University Press, agreed to pulp all 
unsold copies of ``Alms for Jihad'' in the face of a defamation lawsuit 
by Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. The publisher also sent 
letters to 280 libraries around the world, asking them to insert an 
erratum slip or withdraw the book from their shelves. Since March 2002, 
bin

[[Page E1975]]

Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue at least 36 times against 
individuals in England who have linked bin Mahfouz to terrorist 
financing and activities.
  ``Alms for Jihad'' reaches back into history, particularly into Sudan 
where much of the activities of fundamentalist Islamist groups found 
their origins, and traces them to the modern-day struggle against 
extremist forces around the world. We cannot understand the current war 
on terror, which extends far beyond the terrible events of September 
11, without examining the chronology and details of this issue.
  I have enclosed the author's response to the lawsuit, and encourage 
our colleagues to obtain and read this important book.

      Saudi Billionaire vs. Cambridge University Press: No Contest

       On 3 April 2007 Kevin Taylor, Intellectual Property Manager 
     for the Cambridge University Press (CUP), contacted Millard 
     Burr and myself that the solicitors for Shaykh Khalid bin 
     Mahfouz, Kendall Freeman, had informed CUP of eleven 
     ``allegations of defamation'' in our book Alms for Jihad: 
     Charities and Terrorism in the Islamic World and requested a 
     response. On 20 April CUP received our seventeen page 
     ``robust defence'', but it soon became apparent that CUP had 
     decided not to defend Alms for Jihad given ``knowledge of 
     claims from previous litigation'' and that ``the top-line 
     allegations of defamation made against us by bin Mahfouz are 
     sustainable and cannot be successfully defended . . . 
     certainly not in the English courts, which is where the 
     current action arises.'' Of the eleven points of alleged 
     defamation ``we [CUP] could defend ourselves against some of 
     his individual allegations . . . which, as you say could 
     hardly be deemed defamatory on its own,'' but on pp. 51-52 
     where you use the phrase `` `The twenty supporters of Al 
     Qaeda' followed by the Golden Chain references . . . is 
     defamatory of him under English law.'' The Golden Chain was a 
     list of twenty wealthy Saudi donors to al-Qa'ida which 
     included the name ``Mahfouz'' on a computer disk seized 
     during a raid by the Bosnian police and U.S. security agents 
     of the Sarajevo office of the Saudi charity, the Benevolent 
     International Foundation (Bosanska Idealna Futura, BIF).
       On 9 May 2007 CUP agreed to virtually all of the Shaykh's 
     demands to stop sale of the book, destroy all ``existing 
     copies,'' prepare a letter of apology, and make a ``payment 
     to charity'' for damages and contribute to legal costs. After 
     further negotiations the press also agreed, on 20 June 2007, 
     to request 280 libraries around the world to withdraw the 
     book or insert an erratum slip. During these three months of 
     negotiations Millard and I had naively assumed that, as 
     authors, we were automatically a party to any settlement but 
     were now informed we ``are out of jurisdiction'' so that CUP 
     had to ask ``whether of not they [the authors] wish to join 
     in any settlement with your client [Mahfouz].'' On 30 July 
     2007 Mr. Justice Eady in the London High Court accepted the 
     abject surrender of CUP which promptly pulped 2,340 existing 
     copies of Alms for Jihad, sent letters to the relevant 
     libraries to do the same or insert an errata sheet, issued a 
     public apology, and paid costs and damages.
       The crux of this sordid and sorry saga lies firmly in the 
     existing English libel law which is very narrow and 
     restrictive compared to its counterpart in the United States 
     with a long history and precedent of ``good faith'' protected 
     by the First Amendment, absent in English jurisprudence. In 
     effect, CUP was not prepared to embark on a long and very 
     expensive litigation it could not possibly win under English 
     libel law in the English High Court, known to journalists the 
     ``Club Med for Libel Tourists.'' Laurence Harris of Kendall 
     Freeman was quite candid. ``Our client [Shaykh] Mahfouz chose 
     to complain to Cambridge University Press about the book 
     because the book was published in this jurisdiction by them'' 
     where he had previously threatened to ``sue some 36 U.S. and 
     U.K. publishers and authors'' and in which Shaykh Mahfouz had 
     previously won three suits for the same charges of his 
     alleged financing of terrorism. Even Justice Eady's pious 
     pronouncements about ``the importance of freedom of speech'' 
     were of little relevance before the weight, or lack thereof, 
     in English libel law he rigorously enforced.
       This was the first time that Shaykh Mahfouz had brought 
     suit only against the publisher that did not include the 
     authors, for ``our client [Shaykh Mahfouz] took the view that 
     they [CUP] were likely to deal with his complaint sensibly 
     and quickly, which they did,'' rather than include the 
     authors who would not. As American authors residing in the 
     U.S., we were ``out of jurisdiction'' and under the 
     protection of the U.S. Courts, specifically the unanimous 
     ruling by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June 
     2007 that Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld could challenge in a U.S. 
     Court the suit previously won against her by Shaykh Mahfouz 
     in Justice Eady's High Court in London thereby establishing a 
     defining precedent in U.S. jurisprudence. Dr. Ehrenfeld is 
     the director of the American Center for Democracy in New York 
     whose book, ``Funding Evil: how terrorism is financed--and 
     how to stop it,'' published by Bonus Books of Chicago in 
     2003, describes how Shaykh Mahfouz helped finance al-Qa'ida, 
     Hamas, and other terrorist organizations in greater detail 
     than ``Alms for Jihad.'' Although her book was not sold in 
     Britain, Shaykh Mahfouz secured British jurisdiction by 
     demonstrating that ``Funding Evil'' could be purchased or 
     read on the internet by British citizens. When she refused to 
     defend the case in the London High Court, Justice Eady 
     declared for the plaintiff and ordered Dr. Ehrenfeld to pay 
     $225,000 damages. She then chose to confront the Shaykh and 
     seek redress in the U.S. Court system.
       Millard Burr and I had adamantly refused to be a party to 
     the humiliating capitulation by CUP and were not about to 
     renounce what we had written. ``Alms for Jihad'' had been 
     meticulously researched, our interpretations judicious, our 
     conclusions made in good faith on the available evidence. It 
     is a very detailed analysis of the global reach of Islamic, 
     mostly Saudi, charities to support the spread of fundamental 
     Islam and the Islamist state by any means necessary. When 
     writing ``Alms for Jihad'' we identified specific persons, 
     methods, money, how it was laundered, and for what purpose 
     substantiated by over 1,000 references. I had previously 
     warned the editor at CUP, Marigold Acland, that some of this 
     material could prove contentious, and in March 2005 legal 
     advisers for CUP spent a month vetting the book before going 
     into production and finally its publication in March 2006. We 
     were careful when writing ``Alms for Jihad'' not to state 
     explicitly that Shaykh Mahfouz was funding terrorism but the 
     overwhelming real and circumstantial evidence presented 
     implicitly could lead the reader to no other conclusion. 
     Court records in the case of U.S. vs. Enaam Arnaout, Director 
     of the Benevolent International Foundation and close 
     associate of Osama bin Laden, accepted as evidence the 
     ``Golden Chain'' which the British High Court later refused 
     as evidentiary. The Mawafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation of 
     Shaykh Mahfouz and its principal donor was declared by the 
     U.S. Treasury ``an al-Qaida front that receives funding from 
     wealthy Saudi businessmen'' one of whom was the designated 
     terrorist, Yassin al-Qadi who ``transferred millions of 
     dollars to Osama bin Laden through charities and trusts like 
     the Muwafaq Foundation.'' It appears very strange that the 
     founder of his personal charity and its major donor had no 
     idea where or whom or for what purpose his generosity was 
     being used.
       Although the reaction to the settlement by CUP has been 
     regarded by some, like Professor Deborah Lipstadt at Emory 
     University, as a ``frightening development'' whereby the 
     Saudis ``systematically, case by case, book by book'' are 
     shutting down public discourse on terrorism and intimidating 
     publishers from accepting manuscripts critical of the Saudis, 
     there still remains the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and 
     written text in the world of the internet protected by the 
     First Amendment. Ironically, the eleven points of the Mahfouz 
     suit against CUP amount to little more than a large footnote, 
     a trivial fraction of the wealth of information in ``Alms for 
     Jihad'' that cannot be found elsewhere. The Shaykh can burn 
     the books in Britain, but he cannot prevent the recovery of 
     the copyright by the authors nor their search for a U.S. 
     publisher to reprint a new edition of ``Alms for Jihad'' for 
     those who have been seeking a copy in the global market 
     place.

                          ____________________