ALA to Libraries: Keep Alms for Jihad, Pulped in the UK

ALA to Libraries: Keep Alms for Jihad, Pulped in the UK

Andrew Albanese & Jennifer Pinkowski -- Library Journal, 8/23/2007

At the urging of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), a scholarly book pulped by its British publisher is maintaining a safe haven in U.S. libraries. Alms for Jihad was the target of a potential libel suit in England by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, whose charitable activities have reportedly been linked to terrorist activities, as conveyed in the book. In response, publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP) pulped its unsold copies of the book, put it out of print, asked libraries to pull it, and agreed to pay damages. CUP also issued a stunning public apology on its web site in which it characterized the "serious and defamatory allegations" against Mahfouz in Alms for Jihad as "manifestly false." 

In a statement released last week, the OIF recommended libraries resist Cambridge's request. Libraries "are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book," said OIF deputy director Deborah Caldwell-Stone. "Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy firsthand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users." 

As of mid-August, Alms for Jihad was not available through Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or Alibris. (About 1500 copies of the book were sold worldwide.) Libraries suddenly have an incredibly rare book in their stacks; a WorldCat search finds the book at nearly 300 libraries. Rather than discard the book, many libraries are safeguarding it, keeping it on hold, at the reserves desk. "I have recalled the copy of this title…in order to place it in our Rare Books collection, where it may be read by anyone but not borrowed," said Dona Straley, Middle East Studies librarian at Ohio State University's Ackerman Library. "Several of my colleagues at other institutions have reported their copies as missing." 

That may be the case at University of North Carolina's Davis Library, whose catalog reveals that Alms for Jihad is "in search," meaning "someone has gone to the shelf to look for the book and not found it," said reference librarian Carol Tobin. 

These sorts of measures may eventually be less necessary, because the authors hope to republish Alms for Jihad in the U.S. Co-author Robert O. Collins, a professor at University of California Santa Barbara, told LJ that he and co-author J. Millard Burr, a former state department employee, are currently negotiating with CUP for a rights reversion. The authors have had several offers from U.S. publishers.

"We stand by what we wrote and refused to be a party to the settlement," Collins said. "As soon as CUP received notice, they decided to settle as rapidly as possible despite our vigorous defense. CUP did not want to embark on a long and expensive suit which they could not win under English libel law." Indeed, libel laws in England are far more favorable to plaintiffs than those in the U.S.

Collins said he is confident Alms for Jihad will be republished in the U.S., where Mahfouz's charges would have little chance of succeeding in court. "In reality, the few passages referring to Mahfouz are trivial when compared to the enormous amount of information in the book that is in demand," Collins noted, adding that he has received calls from booksellers offering as much as $500 for copies.

Library Journal - New York,NY,USA

Send Me

By Yankee Doodle(Yankee Doodle)

It's very generous of them to send those young Muslim men to paradise and their 72 virgins, while Sheikh bin Laden and Sheikh bin Mahfouz stay here on Earth, organizing and funding it all, managing their wealth. ...

Stop Islamic Conquest - http://stopislamicconquest.blogspot.com/

Fighting a Saudi Billionaire in U.S. Court

On June 8, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals breathed vitality into Rachel Ehrenfeld’s case against Saudi billionaire Khaled bin Mahfouz--handing her extraordinary lawyer, Daniel Kornstein (and associates) an important victory--and establishing a legal precedent that henceforward affects every American writer and publisher.

In suing Mahfouz, Ehrenfeld asked the Federal Court to declare the default judgment against her obtained by bin Mahfouz in England's High Court---concerning details of his terror financing in her U.S.-published book, “Funding Evil”-- as unenforceable in the U.S., and contrary to the free speech protections Americans enjoy.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in requesting that New York’s highest state court determine whether Mahfouz should personally be subject to New York jurisdiction.

The Second Circuit’s decision went further, ruling that Ehrenfeld’s claim is “ripe,”--and therefore can be brought before a U.S. court. Thus, every American writer and publisher, finding themselves in a similar situation, can now seek a U.S. court decision.

When and if the New York Court of Appeals decides that there is jurisdiction over Mahfouz, the case would proceed on the merits. This would allow Ehrenfeld to take pre-trial “discovery” of Mahfouz’s financial activities to further confirm the accuracy of her reporting on him in “Funding Evil.” -----Stay tuned.

Your help to Ehrenfeld’s specially dedicated Legal Fund is important! The American Center for Democracy is a tax- exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS.

Contributions can be made through the ACD website: http://www.acdemocracy.org/support_ac.php - or by contacting Ehrenfeld directly at: rachel.ehrenfeld@gmail.com

The case appeared as the lead story in New York Law Journal June 11 edition (below)

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp
©2007 New York Law Journal Online
Page printed from: http://www.nylj.com

The Corner

Pulp Non-Fiction [Stanley Kurtz]

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.

Saudi terror, British censorship

A really astonishing story is beginning to emerge in the UK, the highlights of which were noted by Stanley Kurtz at The Corner. It appears to be simultaneously an indictment of the courage of certain publishers and a call to action with regard to UK libel laws.

The central figure in this escapade is one Khalid bin Mahfouz. The gentleman has, in recent months, made a hobby of suing writers who assert a connection between the Saudi government and terrorism. This is, of course, a great deal easier in the UK than it is in the US; the UK courts essentially place the burden of proof in libel cases on the defendant.

Mahfouz has already won one judgment, against American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld. The peculiar circumstances in which Mahfouz obtained standing to sue the writer of a book not even published in Britain are explained by Emory University’s Deborah Lipstadt, who is no stranger to UK libel suits (see below):

Bin Mafouz sued Ehrenfeld in London for libel. As most readers of this blog know, the burden there is on the defendant. But here is the kicker: Ehrenfeld never published her book in the UK. A couple of copies were sold as special orders over Amazon which posted a chanpter of the book on the Internet.

Bin Mafouz is essentially a “libel tourists,” who find some sort of weak connection in the UK to use that vanue to sue. The judge ruled that she must apologize to bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. She has not done either and, therefore, cannot travel to the UK, a servere impediment for someone who does research on terrorism and jihad.

As one might expect, and as Lipstadt goes on to explain, the author is engaging in what amounts to an appeal of that decision through the US courts and appears to be making some headway. Today, however, things got a good deal stranger.

At a different site, Lipstadt notes that bin Mahfouz has threatened a second suit, again in the UK, against J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, authors of the book Alms for Jihad. She explains:

The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:

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.

The British lawyers for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his son Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they intended to sue the Press and the authors for defamation against their clients.

Cambridge University Press contacted the authors, and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.

Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.

Not merely apologize, and pay compensation, but also destroy the entire press run of the book. Consequently, the book is suddenly unavailable at both Amazon and Barnes and Noble. One wonders if an American publisher will pick up the gauntlet and try to get American publication rights. I also wonder whether those rights are available at this point.

Now, I suppose it might be that bin Mahfouz’s complaints are justified, that CUP is making a reasoned decision based on the facts rather than a decision based entirely on fear. If it’s true, it certainly doesn’t speak too well to the professionalism of the editors at CUP that they didn’t fact-check to begin with. In this case, however, the evidence seems to point to outright cravenness by CUP.

Or, alternatively: to a fundamental flaw in the entire way the UK courts approach libel law. After all, CUP had every reason to think that they might have a hard time defending against a libel judgment, even if everything they said was both true and verifiable. Ehrenfeld lost her case; Lipstadt was famously sued by David Irving when she pointed out that he was a Holocaust denier (Irving lost). And more recently, we had the gruesome spectacle of the Daily Telegraph losing a verdict to George Galloway over printed charges that would now appear to have been validated by a Parliamentary inquiry.

In short: we are well past the point at which the UK’s approach to libel chills speech–even truthful speech–in that country. That poses a particular problem for the war on terror, but an even larger one where the basic liberties of the British people are concerned. They deserve better. One hopes for politicians courageous enough to seek a remedy.

Attention Authors [1]: Be afraid, very afraid.... especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism

Whenever David Irving's libel case against me comes up someone inevitably asks: How could he sue you in the UK? I explain that my book was bought and published by Penguin UK and therefore he could drag me into a UK court.

Turns out that now the reach of UK libel laws has been greatly extended. It's a frightening development. In an earlier post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid bin Mafouz for writing that he had supported terrorism.

But here's what makes Ehrenfeld's story quite different from mine: her book was NOT published in the UK. Some people in the UK [I wonder if it was the Saudis or their lawyers???] bought a copy over the Internet.

Bin Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay him damages. Now the American courts have come to her defense. [Scroll down at this link to find the New York Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.]

Now the Saudis have silenced another book. This one is by J. Millard Burr, a former relief coordinator for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert O. Collins, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

They have written a number of books on Darfur and Sudan. Their most recent book, Alms for Jihad was published by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was published in the UK, their case is closer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.]

The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:

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.

The British lawyers for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his son Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they intended to sue the Press and the authors for defamation against their clients.

Cambridge University Press contacted the authors,and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.

Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.

As Rachel Ehrenfeld has just written to me in an email: "Get a copy of “Alms of Jihad” before it’s banned..."

[To satisfy the different leanings of readers of this blog I have provided links to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I would have provided a link to Cambridge University Press but the book seems to have been buried deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for rewriting of history?]

Bin Mahfouz apparently has amassed a number of judgements by default, in other words the case was not tried on its merits. Everyone just caves, pays a fine, and gets out of Dodge as fast as they can.

Cambridge Press had pretty deep pockets but it too folded. If I were a reporter writing about this I would see what connections it has with the Saudis... That would be interesting to know.

And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?

There are important legal precedences here, especially in the Ehrenfeld case, and a disturbing pattern of silencing of criticism by the Saudis.

Where are the free speech advocates now???

State Court Asked If Long Arm Reaches to Party in U.K. Suit

By Joel Stashenko
06-11-2007

ALBANY - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals on Friday for guidance on whether the state's long-arm statute confers to the federal court personal jurisdiction over a Saudi businessman who was named as a supporter of terrorism in a New York author's book.

The author, Rachel Ehrenfeld, is seeking in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, 06-2228-cv, to have the federal court declare that a libel judgment secured by Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz against her in a British court in 2005 is not enforceable in the United States on constitutional and public policy grounds. She also is
seeking a declaration by the court that Mr. Mahfouz's libel action could not succeed against her in New York or the United States, where the plaintiffs' burden of proof is far more stringent than under English law.

The decision will be published Thursday.

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the British court. She explained that she lacked the money to travel to the United Kingdom to defend herself and that British libel laws were favorable to plaintiffs. At any rate, she said that she disagreed with her adversary's tactic as a matter of principle.

A British High Court judge ordered that Ms. Ehrenfeld and her publisher, Bonus Books, excise passages from her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" that link Mr. Mahfouz to al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and the activities of other terrorists. The British court also ordered her to pay 60,000 British pounds, about $120,000 at today's exchange rate, as a "downpayment" on damages.

Southern District Judge Richard C. Casey granted Mr. Mahfouz's motion to dismiss Ms. Ehrenfeld's action, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, 2006 WL 1096816 S.D.N.Y. (April 26, 2006).

But the Second Circuit ruled Friday that a New York state statute, CPLR § 302(a)(1), might provide for personal jurisdiction. In a ruling by Circuit Judge Wilfred Feinberg, it certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals whether the statute applies to someone who "sued a New York resident in a non-U.S. jurisdiction" and "whose contacts with New York stemmed from the foreign lawsuit and whose success in the foreign suit resulted in acts that must be performed by the subject of the suit in New York?"

Prior New York court decisions "do not yield a clear answer" about the scope of CPLR §302(a)(1) in a case like Ms. Ehrenfeld's, Judge Feinberg wrote.

CPLR §302(a)(1) confers jurisdiction over a non-New York resident who "in person or through an agent . . .transacts any business within the state" if the cause of action arises out of the defendant's New York transactions. Ms. Ehrenfeld argues that Mr. Mahfouz's contact with New York has entailed the
serving of numerous papers and documents on her during the course of the libel trial and an overall plan to secure the libel judgment against her as a means of chilling the writing and research she does in New York.

The Court of Appeals is not obligated to answer certified questions from the Second Circuit, but it almost always does.

Important Policy Issues

Judge Feinberg wrote that the Second Circuit believes the public policy issues involved in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz warrant guidance by the Court of Appeals.

"The question is important to authors, publishers and those, like Mahfouz, who are the subject of books and articles," Judge Feinberg wrote.

He went on, "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state. Because the case may lead to personal jurisdiction over many defendants who successfully pursue a suit abroad against a New York citizen, the question before us is also likely to be repeated."

The Second Circuit did uphold Judge Casey's finding that another part of the CPLR, §302(a)(3), does not provide for personal jurisdiction and also the judge's refusal to grant Ms. Ehrenfeld request for jurisdictional discovery. Judge Casey died in March.

Circuit Judges Pierre N. Leval and Jose A. Cabranes joined Judge Feinberg in the ruling.

Ms. Ehrenfeld's attorney Daniel J. Kornstein of Mr. Kornstein of Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard said Friday he was "looking forward to presenting our arguments on the jurisdiction issue to the New York Court of Appeals.

The bringing of libel actions in foreign courts by non-U.S. citizens against American authors and publications has been on the increase and is an alarming trend, Mr. Kornstein said.

"It is a vitally important issue for the publishing industry and for authors because of the concerns it raises about the chilling effect on free speech," he said.

Amicus curiae briefs supporting Ms. Ehrenfeld have been filed by a coalition of writers groups and communications associations, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Authors Guild, Association of American Publishers and the Online News Association.

Ms. Ehrenfeld is head of the New York City-based American Center for Democracy, a group that researches terrorism, primarily in the Middle East. Her other books include "Evil Money" and "Narcoterrorism."

Mr. Mahfouz is a former president and chief executive officer of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia. His personal wealth has been estimated by Forbes magazine in excess of $3 billion.

Mr. Mahfouz has insisted that he condemns terrorism and has never assisted Osama Bin Laden or other terrorists.

Timothy J. Finn of Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata in Washington, D.C., represented Mr. Mahfouz. Mr. Finn did not return a call seeking comment.

- Joel Stashenko can be reached at jstashenko@alm.com
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp
©2007 New York Law Journal Online