Up in smoke

Book burning, in these enlightened times, might seem like something found only in science-fiction novels. But two American authors have found the practice quite literally still exists.

Their tome wasn’t destroyed because of populist outrage. Rather, a single man succeeded in pressuring their publisher to pulp the book — without having to set foot in the country in which its authors live.

“Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World,” by J. Millard Burr, a former U.S. Agency for International Development relief coordinator, and scholar Robert O. Collins, was published last year by respected academic publisher Cambridge University Press. The book details how money is funneled to Islamic terrorists through charitable foundations.

It’s probably required reading for those fighting a war on terror at its foundations — if they can get a copy. A few weeks ago, the British publisher agreed to burn all unsold copies of the book after it received a letter threatening legal action from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. In their book, Mr. Burr and Mr. Collins allege that the former head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia funded Hamas and al Qaeda.

Cambridge didn’t wait long to agree to Mr. Mahfouz’s stringent demands and distance itself from the book’s authors. A letter of apology on the publisher’s Web site states, “Cambridge University Press accepts that there is no truth whatsoever in these serious allegations… To emphasize their regret, Cambridge University Press has agreed to pay Sheikh Khalid substantial damages and to make a contribution to his legal costs.” It says the sheik will donate the undisclosed amount to charity.

Mr. Collins, professor emeritus of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is a prolific author, with 40 books to his name. This is the first time one has been suppressed.

When Cambridge told the authors about the letter in May, Mr. Collins says, “we sent to them what we thought a very fine defense. We didn’t do some of the things they accused us of, and we can defend the accusations we did make.”

In fact, much of the information they used is in the public record. Mr. Mahfouz, who in 1993 paid $225 million in lieu of fines after his New York indictment (charges were dropped after the payment) in the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, helped found the Muwafaq Foundation. In 2001, when Mr. Mahfouz says he was not involved in running the charity, the U.S. Treasury Department named the charity an al Qaeda front organization.

“If you look at the book, there are about 1,000 footnotes. That book is meticulously researched,” Mr. Collins says. “That is one damn good book.”

Cambridge must have thought it was thorough, too. “In March 2005, the Cambridge lawyers spent a whole month going through the book and gave it a clean bill of health,” he reports.

The irony is, Mr. Collins says, Mr. Mahfouz plays a very small role in the book, mentioned just 10 times, nine of which are in passing: “If we went through it with my computer, it would take me half an hour to take out his name and it wouldn’t change a thing.”

However, Mr. Mahfouz is becoming a powerful player in the world of publishing, with the help of the British courts. He managed to win a London lawsuit against an author whose book wasn’t even released in the country.

In January 2004, he sued Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It,” shortly after Los Angeles-based Bonus Books published it. Miss Ehrenfeld’s book cannot be published in England, and the judge awarded the businessman damages, which Miss Ehrenfeld has refused to pay.

“He’s a serial libel tourist,” she says, using a phrase that was coined mostly with regard to the Arab businessmen who have used Britain’s more plaintiff-friendly libel laws to sue. In the United Kingdom, the onus is on the writer to refute allegations, meaning writers rarely prevail; in the U.S., plaintiffs who are public figures must prove malice or reckless disregard to win, and they prevail far less often.

Brits could order “Funding Evil” online, which is how Mr. Mahfouz managed to claim British courts had jurisdiction — an easy feat in the Internet age. Mr. Mahfouz has won or successfully settled more than 30 cases in England.

Story Continues →