With a hat tip to Brooke, the video is below the fold:
Labels: Books, CAIR, Dhimmitude, Islam, islamic supremacism, Islamification, Pat Condell speaks out, Political correctness, shari'a, Shari'a Law, Video
As pointed out yesterday by Pastorius and Z, BHO's books have been deemed as problematic by the most secure federal prison in the United States. Both Z have Pastorius cited this article from the AP in their postings. Excerpt from the AP article:
No Obama books for Supermax conAlthough the prison ban of BHO's books relates to pages about foreign affairs, Pastorius also reminds us that BHO's books promote racism and cites the following brief excerpt from Dreams of My Father:
MCLEAN, Va. — The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to read them.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali [valedictorian graduate of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County, Virginia] is serving a 30-year sentence at the federal Supermax prison in Florence for joining al-Qaeda and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. Last year, Abu Ali requested two books written by Obama: "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." But prison officials, citing guidance from the FBI, determined that passages in both books contain information that could damage national security....
He already has a lawyer, who spoke to the AP briefly about this episode. Abu Ali also filed a handwritten prison complaint form, saying the Obama book rejections “violate my 1st Amend. rights.”He must really want those books, which he apparently asked for even before BHO was elected:
An official at Abu Ali’s prison, in Florence, Colo., referred comment to the FBI, where a spokesperson said she was still looking into the matter.
For the record, the prison cited one questionable page in “Dreams from my Father” and 22 such pages in “The Audacity of Hope.”
The report says the prisoner...requested Obama’s books last year before he won the presidency. After being denied, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali began a hunger strike (he has since started eating again).I thought that felons automatically lost certain civil rights, particularly while in prison. Apparently not.
Labels: Books, Islamic Saudi Academy, Obama, race relations in America, Video
Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin presents the two forms of world polity—liberty and tyranny—and the views shared by those who believe in them. In the first chapter, Mark Levin divides people into two categories: he who supports liberty—the Conservative—and he who supports tyranny or the all-powerful, authoritarian state—the Statist. The author asserts that these two groups, although claiming to share the same goal, diametrically oppose each other and thus are incompatible. As summed up by the following quote of President Abraham Lincoln found on the back cover of the book:We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
There is a manifest, marked distinction, which ill men with ill designs, or weak men incapable of any design, will constantly be confounding,—that is, a marked distinction between change and reformation. The former alters the substance of the objects themselves, and gets rid of all their essential good as well as of all the accidental evil annexed to them. Change is novelty; and whether it is to operate any one of the effects of reformation at all, or whether it may not contradict the very principle upon which reformation is desired, cannot be known beforehand. Reform is not change in the substance or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.Many of the American electorate today express surprise at President Barack Obama’s Statist view of economics, social issues, and foreign policy. But one has only to look at his campaign speeches in which he constantly emphasized that he was “fundamentally opposed” to the ways and institutions of the United States government. His campaign slogan: "Change!"
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their conscience.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.Those words call out to us today. The Conservative must choose to act if the Statist is not to claim tyrannical victory. By reading Liberty and Tyranny, the Conservative can fortify himself in this ongoing battle for freedom.
Labels: Book Review, Books, Guest post, MJB, The Nanny State
Usually ships within 1 to 3 weeks.
Labels: Blog news, Books, Personal
Labels: Books, Northern VA
(hat-tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)
Fear of retaliation and political correctness have led to yet another Twenty-first Century book burning — not in the literal sense, of course. Today, the West is much more sophisticated.Starting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha's life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem.You'll note that the above commentary was written by a Moslem and, therefore, provides an important perspective on yet one more Twenty-first Century book burning, one akin to what happened to Alms for Jihad and very nearly to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. But in the case of The Jewel of Medina, objections from a powerful Saudi weren't needed. All that was needed: fear, dhimmitude, and political correctness.
It's not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.
Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."
After consulting security experts and Islam scholars, Mr. Perry said the company decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."
This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way. "I'm devastated," Ms. Jones told me after the book got spiked, adding, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored -- silenced -- by historians." Last month, Ms. Jones signed a termination agreement with Random House, so her literary agent could shop the book to other publishers.
This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg's book, "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr."
But Ms. Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms. Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.
In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: "the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Says Ms. Spellberg: "I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."
After he got the call from Ms. Spellberg, Mr. Amanullah dashed off an email to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students, acknowledging he didn't "know anything about it [the book]," but telling them, "Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, 'Jewel of Medina' -- she said she found it incredibly offensive." He added a write-up about the book from the Publishers Marketplace, an industry publication.
The next day, a blogger known as Shahid Pradhan posted Mr. Amanullah's email on a Web site for Shiite Muslims -- "Hussaini Youth" -- under a headline, "upcoming book, 'Jewel of Medina': A new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Two hours and 28 minutes after that, another person by the name of Ali Hemani proposed a seven-point strategy to ensure "the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world."
Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House's Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an.")
"She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence," Ms. Garrett wrote. "Denise says it is 'a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.' Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP." ("The Jewel of Medina" was to be published by Random House's Ballantine Books.) That day, the email spread like wildfire through Random House, which also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel. On May 2, a Ballantine editor told Ms. Jones's agent the company decided to possibly postpone publication of the book.
On a May 21 conference call, Random House executive Elizabeth McGuire told the author and her agent that the publishing house had decided to indefinitely postpone publication of the novel for "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."
All this saddens me. Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception. There is in fact a tradition of historical fiction in Islam, including such works as "The Adventures of Amir Hamza," an epic on the life of Muhammad's uncle. Last year a 948-page English translation was published, ironically, by Random House. And, for all those who believe the life of the prophet Muhammad can't include stories of lust, anger and doubt, we need only read the Quran (18:110) where, it's said, God instructed Muhammad to tell others: "I am only a mortal like you."
Ms. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam" (HarperOne, 2006).
Labels: Books, Censorship, cultural jihad, Culture, Dhimmitude, freedom of expression, Islamification, silencing voices
Today on Atlas on the Air, Pamela Geller will interview Robert Spencer. He has just published a new book entitled Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, and the book will be the topic of discussion. The show begins at noon, Eastern Daylight Time.
The complete article from the August 8. 2007 edition of the NY Post (emphases mine):
THE Saudis' efforts to keep a veil of secrecy over their support for al Qaeda and Hamas got a shot in the arm last week, as a British publisher opted to suppress a controversial book on the financing of terror.
Facing the mere threat of a lawsuit from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press agreed to pulp all the unsold copies of "Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World," issue a public apology to Mahfouz and pay his legal expenses and substantial undisclosed damages.
The prestigious publisher - the world's oldest publishing house - had carefully vetted the book before publishing it last year. Yet now it has asked more than 200 libraries worldwide to pull the work off their shelves.
Bin Mahfouz never sued the authors, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, both U.S. citizens, who had provided their publisher with all the sources to back their allegations that bin Mahfouz, his family and his former bank, the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, funded Hamas and al Qaeda. Yet Cambridge University Press still caved - and even asked the authors to join its apology to bin Mahfouz. (They rightly refused.)
Since March 2002, bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in England at least 36 times against those who've linked him to terrorism, including many American authors and publications. Everyone settled with bin Mahfouz - except me.
He sued me in London in January 2004, shortly after my book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It" was published in the United States. I refused to acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book published here; the court then ruled in bin Mahfouz's favor by default. It enjoined British publication of "Funding Evil," awarded bin Mahfouz $225,900 in damages and expenses and ordered that I publicly apologize and destroy the book. I still refuse to acknowledge the British Court and its ruling.
The data in both "Alms for Jihad" and "Funding Evil" is all well-documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official statements. Further corroboration comes from French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily, Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.
British libel law favors suits such as bin Mahfouz's, so I chose to fight his false claims here in America. I've sued him in a New York federal court, seeking a declaration that his English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States and repugnant to the First Amendment.
Prominent civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate described it as "one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years."
On June 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declared my case is "ripe" for hearing in a U.S. court, noting that the case has implications for all U.S. authors and publishers, whose First Amendment rights are threatened by foreign libel rulings.
That ruling thus established that all U.S. writers and publishers sued in the United Kingdom for libel can ask U.S. courts to rule the foreign decisions unenforceable here - provided they have jurisdiction over the person who sued for libel overseas. (The New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments on that issue in my case this fall.)
These important legal rulings have weakened bin Mahfouz's ability to threaten or sue U.S. authors and publishers; they're likely why bin Mahfouz failed to sue Burr and Collins in London.
Bin Mahfouz and fellow Arabs alleged as terror financiers, known as "libel tourists," have made the English libel bar rich, leading the London Times to declare Britain the "libel capital of the Western world." English lawyers now refer to the "Arab effect" to describe the surge of English libel actions by wealthy, non-resident Arabs accused of funding terrorism.
Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today.Meanwhile, watch for a downloadable pdf file for Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, whether or not the mainstream media covers the story of the book's recall and destruction.
Labels: Books, Censorship, Litigation jihad
To this posting. I originally left an almost identical comment at the above link, but have now decided to place it front-and-center.
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.Go HERE for internal links.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."
Labels: Books, Censorship, Dhimmitude, Islamification, Litigation jihad
(Another of my long reads. Settle in! What you're going to read here affects you and your posterity)
In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's classic, frightening vision of the future, firemen don't put out fires--they start them in order to burn books. Bradbury's vividly painted society holds up the appearance of happiness as the highest goal--a place where trivial information is good, and knowledge and ideas are bad. Fire Captain Beatty explains it this way, "Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs.... Don't give them slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy."
The disturbing thing about the book is that, unlike many other books that deal with the distant future, "Fahrenheit 451" (written in 1953) hasn't been proved wrong simply by time itself. Not at all. Actually, what is shocking to realize is that we've come quite close to the society Bradbury writes about. Perhaps books haven't been banned yet, but it is indeed the entertainment industry that controls people's minds, the political correctness has reached ridiculous levels...Coincidentally, early last spring I chose Fahrenheit 451 as one of the readings for my World Literature class for the 2007-2008 school term. At the time, I didn't realize just how important the reading of Bradbury's classic was going to be.
Now comes the story about the recall and destruction of Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, a book published just last year and now becoming scarce at the behest of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. From this source: I’ve gotten numerous reports from readers who have attempted to purchase Alms for Jihad from Books a Million and elsewhere, only to have the purchase denied because that title is currently unavailable. That’s because, as Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and I discussed earlier this week, Khalid bin Mafouz has successfully bullied the Cambridge University Press into pulping the book. Cambridge has even sent out notices to have it removed from some libraries...According to the above source, Alms for Jihad is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain (at any price, according to Cassandra, who phoned me last night), even via digital download. At the moment, the hard copy of Alms of Jihad is unavailable at Amazon.com, although the site has a link for digital download. I don't know if that link still works.
How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?The following is some additional information about Alms for Jihad. According to this source, the book:
Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.
The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?
For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.
Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:
"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."
Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.
As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.
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."
Indeed, this "charity" seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he's called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.
So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?
Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.
We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.
Suppose you've got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?
Libraries here in the United States are not legally obligated to remove Alms for Jihad from their stacks. This morning, I noted that the Fairfax County Public Library system does not have the book; however, I do not know if the Fairfax system ever carried the book, but if so, voluntary censorship, resulting from fear of litigation, is afoot. You might want to check the library system in your area. Also, check your local bookstores. Cassandra told me yesterday that she couldn't find the book in her area. Is the book being pulled here in the United States?is properly sourced, with hundreds of references. And Burr and Collins provided Cambridge University Press with all their materials on bin Mahfouz’ al Qaeda and Hamas financing, contrary to the false statements by both bin Mahfouz’ and Cambridge University Press attorneys.
Incredibly, the publishing arm of the world’s second oldest English speaking university (est. 1209), completely capitulated to bin Mahfouz, offering a comprehensive apology and substantial damages, according to an agreement read in the U.K. High Court on July 30, 2007. Cambridge University Press also promised to pulp the books, publish a detailed apology on its website and contribute to bin Mahfouz’ legal costs.
[T]hese authors’ statements and data were all previously well documented by the media and U.S. Congressional, Court, Treasury Department and other official statements.
These reports were further corroborated by French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), and published in the French daily, Le Monde. The DGSE reported that in 1998, they knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden; both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.
In short, Cambridge University Press had nothing for which to apologize....
The pre-existing British intelligence knowledge of bin Mahfouz’ terrorist ties render the British High Court announcement all the more appalling an infringement of free speech...
Two news flashes on August 1, 2007. First, the lawyers representing the so-called Flying Imams in their lawsuit against US Airways announced that they were not going after the unnamed passengers whose concerns prompted the men to be pulled off the Arizona-bound flight (here). I suppose that is good to know, now that the long-term policy implications of their lawsuit are about to justify (literally) an act of Congress. Second, Cambridge University Press announced that it was going to destroy all 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 (here).And let's not forget the recent dust-up between CAIR and the Young America's Foundation, when the group scheduled Robert Spencer to speak.
Connected? Absolutely. Each story involves people who do not like how information flows these days. Each chose litigation as the means to try to get their way.Read the entire article.
[...]
DATELINE - BOSTON 2003
The Boston Herald reported on community concerns with the generous land deal between the city and the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), based on suspicions that ISB had connections to terrorists in the Middle East. ISB sues the Herald and various people who provided it information for libel. Islamic Soc. of Boston v. Boston Herald, Inc.,21 Mass.L.Rptr. 441, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 2423287, Mass.Super. 2006.
DATELINE - WASHINGTON DC 2003
A sitting U.S. Congressman finds himself having to explain why he has chosen not to run for re-election, after public reports that he and his wife are having marital problems. To redress public concerns, he speaks by phone to a reporter from the Charlotte Observer, and describes how living in Washington no longer appeals to him, especially across the street from the headquarters of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after the events of 9/11 and the rumor he heard that CAIR is a fundraising front for Hizballah. CAIR sues the congressman for libel. CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
DATELINE - SAN FRANCISCO 2002
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) posts a letter on its website calling for an investigation of Khadja Ghafur, the former superintendent of public charter schools, based on indications that public schools under his supervision are teaching religion and are associated with a controversial Pakistani organization. Ghafur sues the ADL for libel. Ghafur v. Bernstein, 131 Cal.App.4th 1230, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 626, Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2005.
DATELINE - CHICAGO 2001
The New York Times and other news organizations report that Global Relief Foundation (GRF) is the target of an investigation based on suspicions of its terrorist fundraising. GRF sues the news organizations for libel. GRF v. NY Times, 390 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2003)
DATELINE - OMAHA 2001
Radio personality Rick Dees makes some on-air statements that are offensive to Muslims. Durkhan Iqraa Jihad Mumin and two other people sue Dees and his station for libel. Mumin v. Dees, 266 Neb. 201, 663 N.W.2d 125 Neb. 2003.
DATELINE - VIRGINIA 1998
America Online (AOL) permits chat rooms dealing with the the Qu’ran and the beliefs of Islam, and this generates posts that Muslims consider harassing and blasphemous. One Muslim visitor to the chat room user sues AOL for libel. Noah v. AOL, 261 F.Supp.2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003)
DATELINE - NEW YORK 1994
The New York Post publishes an interview of Dr. Betty Shabazz, the widow of Malcolm X, suggesting complicity of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in the assassination of her husband. Farrakhan sues the Post for libel. Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.,168 Misc.2d 536, 638 N.Y.S.2d 1002, N.Y.Sup.,1995.
DATELINE - BOSTON - 1993
The Wellesley College journal Counterpoint publishes an article about professor Tony Martin, who is believed to be associated with the Nation of Islam, suggesting that the decision to grant him tenure was based on threats of litigation. Martin sues Counterpoint for libel. Martin v. Roy, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 642, 767 N.E.2d 603, Mass.App.Ct., 2002.
DATELINE - BOSTON - 1984
The Boston Globe publishes an article about Yusuf Islam, the popular musician formerly known as Cat Stevens, describing how he had embraced Islam and moved to Iran. Islam sues the Globe for libel. Globe Communications Corp. v. R.C.S. Rizzoli Periodici, S.p.A., 729 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.N.Y.1990).
DATELINE - NEW YORK - 1983
Newsweek publishes an article suggesting that Pakistani businessman Mahmoud Khan is associated with the CIA. Khan sues Newsweek for libel. Khan v. Newsweek, Inc, 160 A.D.2d 425, 554 N.Y.S.2d 119, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1990.
DATELINE - ARIZONA - 1981
A student religious journal Al-Ittihad publishes an unfavorable review of a translation of the Qu’ran by Rashad Khalifa, using the words “charlatan” and “mental imbalance.” Khalifa sues the journal for libel. Khalifa v. Muslim Students' Ass'n of U. S. and Canada, Inc., 131 Ariz. 328, 641 P.2d 242, Ariz.App., 1981
DATELINE - SAN FRANCISCO - 1980
A California television station broadcasts “Death of a Princess,” a film depicting the public execution of a Saudi Arabian princess for adultery. Prince Khalid Abdullah Tariq Mansour Faissal Fahd Al Talal, on behalf of 600 million Muslims throughout the world, sues the television station for libel. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Mansour Faissal Fahd Al Talal v. Fanning, 560 F. Supp. 186 (N.D. Cal. 1980)
DATELINE - WASHINGTON D.C. 1964
The Evening Star newspaper publishes an article describing political activist Dolphin Thomas as a chief spokesman for Malcolm X and his Black Muslim Mosque. Thomas sues the Star for libel. Thompson v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 394 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
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.
Legal efforts to control how Muslim organizations and individuals are portrayed is not limited to public statements. They extend to non-public statements about Muslim employees’ job performance. This list above does not contain other lawsuits that are more akin to the recent US Airway litigation: Muslim employees who sued for their employers for libel, alleging that their employers spoke about their job performance to state licensing boards created to assure quality health care, or government agents or persons employed by the university or company responsible for investigating the employment discrimination allegations that arose from the libel actions themselves. Mawaldi v. St. Elizabeth Health Center, 381 F.Supp.2d 675 (N.D. Ohio 2005); Shabazz v. PYA Monarch, LLC, 271 F.Supp.2d 797 (E.D.Va. 2003); Obu v. Ohio Dept. of Aging,119 Ohio Misc.2d 131, 774 N.E.2d 812, Ohio Ct.Cl.,2002; Ahmed v. Gelfand,160 F.Supp.2d 408 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Naeemullah v. Citicorp Services, Inc., 78 F.Supp.2d 783 (N.D.Ill. 1999); El-Ghori v. Grimes, 23 F.Supp.2d 1259 (D.Kan.1998); Al-Khazraji v. Saint Francis College, 523 F.Supp. 386 (W.D. Pa. 1981). In all of these lawsuits, the libel complaints were dismissed by the court, which ruled that the employee had no action. There must have been some very disappointed lawyers.
These cases may be the tip of the iceberg. Although truth is a defense to libel lawsuits, it generally takes thousands of dollars to establish the truth sufficiently to achieve a dismissal. Settlement is sometimes the best option, no matter how unmeritorious the allegations. When that happens, there will be no court opinion. Thus, we do not know how many more cases are out there in which someone facing steep legal bills chose to quietly settle. For those defendants, they will probably never mention the word Islam again in public. Who loses then? In the long run, fear of discussion has costs to society’s search for the truth. Some of us like the fact that information flows so efficiently, and we want to keep it that way.
Moreever [sic], the truth is not always obvious when the lawsuit is being pursued. It often takes many years and much more lively American dialogue to get there. That means the use of litigation to control the flow of information should matter to those all who appreciate the gradual pace at which knowledge develops. There is now no question that GRF was under investigation - it has since been designated as a terrorist financier by President Bush. Cat Stevens’ conversion to Islam and his relocation to Iran is now common knowledge, as is the CIA‘s involvement in Afghanistan through Pakistani intermediaries. Historically, with some libel actions, we sometimes look back years late and wonder how anyone could have questioned the information then at issue, either because it is so obviously true or because our mores have changed. Then we feel dirty.
...[O]f these cases I list above, there was only one that was not dismissed in favor of the defendants - the oldest one, involving the Arab Sheik looking to acquire an American wife. In that 1937 case, the Alabama judge refused the dismiss the libel action...
Labels: Books, Censorship, Litigation jihad
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
