LONDON, ENGLAND - "On hell's door."  That's where an American author and her British publisher were told they would find themselves if they dared print their historical piece of fiction entitled "The Jewel of Medina."

This story is still simmering, so watch this space.

And apparently it's not just a figure of speech. On Saturday evening on a quiet square in London, a tidy fire bomb was squeezed through the mail slot of a substantial door. The building is both the home and office of Martin Rynja and his Gibson Square publishing company who have just agreed to publish "The Jewel of Medina."

Little did the would-be terrorists know that Scotland Yard was keeping an eye on the house and warned Rynja to leave just the night before.

Three men were promptly arrested on the suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

American author Sherry Jones is adamant that in writing her fictional account of the Prophet Mohammed's youngest wife, Aisha, she meant no disrespect to Islam. Jones contends the book is meant to be a tribute to the courage and modern resonance of a little girl who was said to be Mohammed's wife at the age of nine.

Most have never cracked the spine of this book and yet it is speaking volumes to both sides in the freedom of speech debate, a debate that almost 20 years to the day is still haunting Salman Rushdie after the 1988 publication of his book, "The Satanic Verses."

Jones says it was actually Random House Publishing that jumpstarted this controversy. Random House was to publish her book in the UK but pulled out citing "security concerns."  That's when Rynja and his Gibson Square publishing company stepped in to say it would indeed put "The Jewel of Medina" on European bookshelves.  And then someone pitches a firebomb at his house.

Anjem Choudary is a longtime critic of what he calls the blanket protection of free speech, especially when it offends Islam.

"I'm not going to blame people who are reacting towards provocation. I think we need to deal with the root cause of all of this problem which is people gratuitously attacking Islam and Muslims and we should learn the lessons of Salman Rushdie," he says.

Just to make sure I heard him right, I asked Choudary if he was saying that the author's life was in danger if she dared publish her book.

"I think certainly, you know there will be consequences for her," he said, reading the shock on my face and adding: "Well, would you just prefer that I remain silent? And then someone just you know firebombed some more houses and some more publishing places and you find blood on the streets of London? Is that a wise thing to do? I think it's better for us to come out and tell you ‘look, this is what the Islamic verdict is.'"

Shelina Janmohamed is no opponent of free speech, she and her blog, www.spirit21.co.uk, thrive on the cut and thrust of earnest, intelligent debate. But she too has reservations about the tone and content of the book.

"I think the book raises the same big question again - where does freedom of speech end, and sheer good manners and etiquette begin? And it's a conversation that is constantly at cross purposes, because the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Muslims simply state generically, if we find it so upsetting, why do you keep publishing this stuff? Are you out deliberately to provoke?"

Janmohamed says although she has not read the entire book, it certainly falls short of scholarly pursuit. And she asks openly, what is the purpose of publishing such a work?

"I think Muslims are not saying anything about freedom of speech but actually legitimately calling a public debate on whether the concept of freedom of speech has blanket applicability, no questions asked, or needs to have a worthy cause which trumps social harmony and social cohesion." says Janmohamed.

And yet she says there would be nothing gained by calling for the book's censorship, save perhaps big sales for the author and publisher as the "controversy" is played up in the media.

This story is still simmering, so watch this space. We are still hoping to get comments from both Sherry Jones and her would-be publisher.

In the meantime, what do you think? We want to hear from you.

A significant terror trial opened in Manchester this week. Significant because it is the first time anyone in Britain has been brought to trial accused of directing terrorism.

Rangzieb Ahmed (above, left) is the man charged with the offence. He also faces a charge of belonging to Al Qaeda, as does another of his co-accused, Habib Ahmed (above, right).

The court has heard how the two men – who are not related – met up in December 2005 in Dubai, where Rangzieb Ahmed handed over what prosecutors described as a "contacts book for terrorists."

Written in invisible ink in an ordinary diary, the court heard, was a series of phone numbers, including one for Hamza Rabia, described in court as the then number three in Al Qaeda.

The contacts book was uncovered in Habib Ahmed's luggage at Amsterdam's Schipol airport. Agents searched through his bags during a layover on his journey back from Dubai to Manchester.

Neither of the two men has been accused of any particular plot. However it's alleged the Dubai meeting was called after Rangzieb Ahmed was forced to abort some sort of mission.

The court heard he was part of an active three-person cell involved in what was described as "major activity." He had been due to fly on to South Africa when his alleged Al Qaeda commander in Pakistan, Hamza Rabia, was killed and the mission was called off.

Also on trial is Mehreen Haji, the wife of Habib Ahmed. She's charged with funding terrorism by transferring money to her husband while he was on a trip to Pakistan, where he was allegedly attending a training camp.

The jury was told the married couple had connections to radical Islamism and the now-banned group Al Muhajiroun. The group's leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, officiated at their wedding in June 2001.

All three deny all the charges against them. The trial is expected to last about twelve weeks.

The IntelCenter, an internet monitoring group in the United States, has produced an interesting timeline for the attack on the Danish embassy in Pakistan, which I adapt below.

Blast outside Danish Embassy, Islamabad, June 2, 2008.

Act One – The "Injustice"

This happened on February 13th when a number of Danish newspapers re-printed some of the controversial cartoons of Mohammed.

Act Two – The Warning

A month later, on March 19th, Osama bin Laden mentioned the cartoons in an audio message. He said, "If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions. The answer is what you see, not what you hear."

Act Three – The Attack

A little under eleven weeks later, on June 2nd, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb at the gates of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad. Eight people were killed.

Act Four – The Claim of Responsibility

This followed within two days. On June 4th, in a written statement, al-Qaeda leader Mustafa Abu al-Yazid quoted bin Laden's words from March, and said the attack was "in revenge for what Denmark has published: the insulting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed."

Act Five – The Martyrdom Video

Three months later, on September 4th, Al Qaeda's media operation, As Sahab released a video on the internet called, "The Word is the Word of the Swords." A man identified as Saudi is shown next to a car packed with explosives. He tells the camera, "My final message to the worshippers of the cross in Denmark is that, God permitting, this is not the first or the last act of revenge."

It would be unwise to see this as any sort of fixed template for AQ atrocities, but it's a good example of how the group communicates and the tempo at which it operates.

LONDON, England – "We should never allow a good story to get in the way of the facts," quips British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. By turning the old cliché on its head, Ms Smith wants to highlight the facts about the new national identity scheme she has just unveiled for Britain.

Jacqui Smith shows off the new IS card.

British Home Office officials confidently predict that every new immigrant will be given a card within three years and that by 2015 most foreign nationals in the UK will have the new identity card complete with a picture, and a fingerprint-encoded chip. More importantly, this is part of an overall plan by the British government to introduce biometric passports for its citizens.

The Home secretary was quite categorical when I asked her, she insists her government's plans are a matter of national security.

"There is some evidence that in terrorist plots, for example, people have used multiple identities. If through our national identity scheme we're able to lock people securely to their own identity and be clear that other people are who they say they are, that may well help us with our battle in improving national security"

Ms. Smith has made short work of a chaotic government department. She is earnest in her intentions and direct in her actions. So, before unveiling this scheme she wanted cold, hard facts to back up her assertion that most people would welcome a ‘bulletproof' way to prove who they are.  And she got it.

 
"As the latest public attitudes analysis I am releasing today shows, public support for our proposals has remained broadly steady – at nearly 60% – even after a series of high-profile government data losses" Ms. Smith reported.

Ok, she brought it up, not me. The data losses in what is essentially a well-funded and supposedly sophisticated bureaucracy have been staggering. My point is that no matter how well intentioned or necessary these programs are, the question from Joe-Public should always be: Can we really trust you with this?

I wish I had the answer.

LONDON, ENGLAND–Those were the foreboding words of Wajid Shamsul Hasan hours before the Marriott hotel went up in flames.

Marriott Explosion

Hasan is Pakistan's High Commissioner here in London and while his words to me had nothing to do with the terror attack, his warning was prophetic.

Hasan's main concern before terrorists razed one of Islamabad's ‘Western' icons was American policy in Pakistan's tribal areas. The Pakistani government says it is furious at U.S. military incursions into the tribal regions saying it violates their sovereignty. More to the point Pakistani officials say, during these incursions the Americans have hit civilian targets, not Al Qaeda militants.

Which is what led Mr. Hasan to warn, "We're 160 million people in that part of the world that is already burning and volatile, all the region will be in flames if something goes haywire and these sort of policies continue so I'm sure our friends in America will listen to us."

But will American be listening? Even as President Asif Ali Zardari wings his way to Washington, American military and intelligence chiefs aren't necessarily looking at the Marriott attack as a game-changer. While there is considerable interest in who ordered this attack and how it was executed, the 'why' it happened is less material to American policy in Pakistan.

There was already word on Monday that a U.S. military helicopter may have made yet another incursion into Pakistan's tribal areas. The Pakistani President is hoping that the ‘I told you so' rant he delivers to President Bush will make him think twice about aggressively pursuing militants on Pakistani soil. In the words of Mr. Hasan, the Pakistani population can't take much more, enraged as it is over civilian deaths and American violations of their territorial integrity.

But in the same breath, the Pakistanis say they won't be intimidated by terrorists. They say they will continue pursuing militants in the Bajaur region, a notorious safe haven for terrorist training and activity. The Americans may be thinking to themselves the same thing the Pakistanis are saying in public: ‘We are not backing down'.

The problem with this American proposition is that there is the issue of a Pakistani border and the little ‘problem' of territorial integrity. More to the point, the Pakistani government claims American incursions have been largely ineffective, unless their intention is to cultivate still more resentment against the U.S. The fact is, while the Marriott attack will give a renewed sense of urgency to the Zardari meetings this week in the Oval Office, it will change little in the military planning offices across Washington.

LONDON, ENGLAND – The U.S. Embassy attack in Sanaa, Yemen's capital, has more to do with internal Yemeni politics than al Qaeda. It is not even a reliable indicator of al Qaeda's strength or weakness. In more than seven years, very little has changed in the global war on terror. Just like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Yemen is a place where tribal warfare and chaos affords al Qaeda a safe hub for operations.

Through every crevice of the ancient capital city Sanaa, there is a sense of unease, a feeling that Yemen could at any moment descend into chaos. With biting poverty and tribal wars, Yemen has muddled along in a state of barely controlled chaos. Outside the urban centres the government has given ground to separatists and insurgents both to the north and the south.

"Which means that loyalty to a national policy dedicated to reinforcing a U.S. war on terror simply isn't there," says Rosemary Hollis, a Middle East analyst with Chatham House in London.

The Yemeni government insists it is a loyal and effective ally against al Qaeda. Last month alone it claims to have arrested more than two dozen terrorist operatives. But the more it cracks down on al Qaeda, the more vulnerable the country seems to be. Violent uprisings, separatist movements, regular insurgent attacks even in the capital, seem to feed off the victories of security forces.

And all of this underlines a suspicion with many Yemenis that their government is a pawn of the U.S. government and picked the wrong side in the global war on terror.

"I blame America for creating al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden for cultivating extremist thought," one Yemeni administrator told me at a Sanaa cafe a few months ago.

He was quick to add that many Yemenis could never completely turn their back on Osama Bin Laden. He is half Yemeni and still respected even if he's not seen as the hero he once was following the September 11th attacks. Watch my story here.

In fact, many Yemenis have developed a much more nuanced approach to how global terror is fought and how it affects them. Many say they don't support the U.S. government or Bin Laden. And in that vacuum slip many terrorists determined to make Yemen their home and base of operations.

For now, Yemen remains not just a hotbed of extremist thought and qualified sympathy with al Qaeda, but a place where words and thoughts can be matched with deeds. That was proven on Tuesday, right on the U.S. Embassy's doorstep.

London, England – The U.S. Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, makes it a habit now to tell people that the United States "cannot kill or capture its way to victory" in its war on terror.

A 'very, very interesting woman.'

It also needs to prevail in the war of ideas.

"We have to tell America's story," as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James Glassman, put it at a speech in London this week.

"We need to find the words, the deeds, and the images that show the United States to be a good and compassionate nation," he said.

Mindful of the poor standing of the U.S. in some parts of the world – those parts being the ones Mr. Glassman is inevitably more concerned about – one might expect a rather dour assessment of how things are going.

But actually Glassman reckons he has a hit on his hands.

Or rather two hits: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

"Public Diplomacy loves the Presidential election campaign," he said. "It's got people excited about the United States."

"It shows the kind of change that's possible when there's an African-American man in the race and a very very interesting woman."

A simple, powerful message. And where does Glassman need it to resonate most strongly?

Right here in Europe, which, along with the Middle East, he said, ranks among the areas of greatest animosity towards the United States.

LONDON, England – Germany's top terror cop will tell lawmakers next week that the threat from "Islamic terrorism" remains high.

Threat warning in Germany

In an address already posted on the Internet, Joerg Ziercke of the Federal Criminal Police Office, will tell parliamentarians that Germany "lies directly on the target spectrum" for al Qaeda and related groups. 

Warnings like this can seem routine - but it is worth recalling how officials in Germany have tried previously to prepare the public ahead of important terror arrests.

Last summer, the Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, told Germans there was information that suicide attacks could take place in Germany. At about the same time his deputy, August Hanning, said the situation was reminiscent of the months before 9/11.

Weeks later, German police swooped on three men accused of wanting to carry out bomb attacks against American targets in Germany.

That alleged plot was back in the news last week as prosecutors finally presented charges, including conspiracy to murder and membership of a terrorist organization.

Restaurants, bars, discos and airports had all been considered by the plotters, prosecutors allege, but no final target had been chosen. The men had stockpiled hundreds of pounds of hydrogen peroxide and were expected to make their move within weeks, according to the charges.

Like British terror investigations, it is the links to Pakistan and Afghanistan that most interest German police. All three of the men charged last week had attended training camps there - among up to 30 German nationals known by police to have done so since 2001. Many of them are now back in Germany, Joerg Ziercke said in an interview earlier this year, and are being watched.

As with Britain - if not fact probably more so - it's the presence of German troops in Muslim countries that's seen as the primary factor in making the country a target for terrorism.

Last year's plot was allegedly being planned to coincide with a vote in the German parliament to continue Germany's participation in the U.S.-led operation in Afghanistan. Worth noting then that it's getting close to the time parliament must vote to extend that mandate for another year.

NOTTINGHAM, England – The ripple effect of 9/11 has extended far and wide and even, seven years on, reached right out and overwhelmed Rizwaan Sabir as he worked away on his laptop.

"I felt that I was some big-time nutcase, some terrorist who just planned 9/11 or something, something so bizarre," says Sabir.

Sabir is a 23-year-old graduate student born and bred in Nottingham, central England. He attends his hometown university and is researching extremism for his PhD. But back in May, Sabir says, he was arrested on campus and held for six days as police picked through his life and his family home. Eventually he was released without charge. Watch what happened to Sabir.

What did Sabir do? His homework.

He downloaded a copy of the al Qaeda training manual from The Federation of American Scientists Web site. Its source: the US Department of Justice. And it's a document that is still available to anyone on the Internet.

"This is not the way to fight the war on terror, by locking away innocent people," Sabir said. "You are radicalizing more people and you are ostracizing more people and you're breeding discontent and disenchantment. It might just drive them over the edge and before you know it, you've given birth to 1,000 Osama bin Ladens."

Sabir was arrested as a result of a tipoff from Nottingham University, where he studied. Neither the university nor British police would comment. All charges were dropped and Sabir continues as a student at the same institution.

But it is difficult to separate the legacy of 9/11 and what happened to Sabir. The Bush administration is categorical that there will be casualties of war. And U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has always said vigilance will be important because 9/11 changed the global security landscape forever.

"As September 11th recedes into the past, there are some people who've to come to think of it as a kind of singular event and of there being nothing else out there... we are the victims of our own success... that another attack has been prevented." Mukasey said in July.

But Sabir points out that al Qaeda is an ideology - not a country, not an army, not a singular enemy that can be bombed into defeat.

" I want to quash them as much as anybody," he says, "but by the government and police services arresting people like me, they're not helping anybody apart from the real terrorist and that's the truth and it will bite them again, and again and again" he warns.

Sabir says he's much more guarded on the computer now, believing that everything he looks at or downloads could possibly be mistaken as a weapon of war.

LONDON, England - So there will be a re-trial in the case of the British men accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic airliners. No great surprise. It's true the jury in the first trial could have acquitted all eight defendants, but it's otherwise hard to see how the result of the "airline plot" trial could have been less to the taste of the police, the security services and the government.



An armed British police officer patrols outside Heathrow Airport in August 2006.

Investigators had uncovered martyrdom videos and they knew what the bombs were going to look like. The number two at the Metropolitan Police had even said on the morning of the arrests that what was being planned was "mass murder on an unimagineable scale".



Well, yes it was; three men were found guilty of conspiracy to murder. But on the other hand the single most important "fact" about the "plot," as it was described at the time and as it was put by prosecutors, was that it was all about blowing up planes. Crucially, the "existence" of that particular plot was not established to the satisfaction of the jury.



Recriminations have already started to fly, with many in Britain blaming the United States for wrecking the investigation. The U.S. moved to have a key figure in the alleged plot arrested in Pakistan; this in turn forced the Met police to arrest the men it had under surveillance before it was necessary. And that, so the argument goes, meant the evidence against them was not as strong as it could have been if the police operation had been allowed to continue.

In Walthamstow, home to two of the three guilty men, and where the majority of the arrests two years ago took place, the mood, says one community worker who works to tackle extremism, is hard to measure.

Certainly, the absence of any convictions on the central charge will be grist to the mill for those already signed up to the bin Laden message, that the "war on terror" is in reality a "war on Muslims." They now have another string to their bow. 

More damaging is what it might do to the wider community. This case was seen as crucial to convincing doubters there was a problem of violent extremism in their midst that needed to be addressed. Making that argument has now become far more difficult, says the community worker; there is a risk that people will slip back into disbelief.

It's worth remembering, though, that it's not the job of the criminal justice system to maintain harmonious communal relations, just as it's not the job of a jury to simply follow the wishes of prosecutors. A jury's task is to try a case on the evidence before it. And in the trial that ended on Monday, the jury took a look at the prosecution case and decided it was seriously wanting.