Here they answer your questions on what they discovered about terrorism, Islamic extremism and al-Qaeda.
In researching your book you must have delved heavily into militant Islam. From your readings and research, do you believe that Islamic terrorists pose a completely new threat to Western society or do you believe they are part of a cycle that has included anarchists, facists and communists? If they are different, in what ways do they differ and why are they more threatening? Richard Howard, London
We prefer to use the term Islamist - referring to the global revolutionary movement that wishes to impose Islam and Sharia law as the international system of law and governance - rather than Islamic. The Islamist movement draws on the tactics of many previous revolutionary movements but, especially since 9/11, it has emerged as a totally new form of threat to Western society. It allows a great deal of autonomy to followers of its ideology around the world - yet the creed it preaches is essentially fascistic in that it dictates precisely and inflexibly how life should be led; the core beliefs are deeply misogynistic, racist and homophobic.
Perhaps the greatest, and newest, threat emerges however from the tactics that these al-Qaeda inspired terrorists are prepared to use. Essentially the footsoldiers are also weapons; they regard their own deaths in "battle" as a huge success, believing it paves the way to paradise. Martyrdom is their goal. This separates them from other terrorist organisations (such as the IRA or ETA, which had structures and defined goals) and makes them almost impossible to negotiate with.
As a resident in an area with a large Muslim population, I have the strong impression that many Muslims are increasingly entrenched and show not only a worrying hostility towards non-Muslims but a significant level of sympathy for terrorism. The police and authorities seem so scared of upsetting militant Muslims that they are (even now) complicit, often by sheer inaction, in allowing this obvious hostility to continue and worsen. Does this accord with your impressions, based on your investigation? Name and address withheld
Certainly at the time that Abu Hamza was running Finsbury Park Mosque as his personal fiefdom, there was a reluctance on the part of the authorities to interfere. It seemed to stem from a belief that he and his cohorts could be monitored and that they posed no threat to the security of the UK. It is also clear, however, that there was a fear among politicians and public bodies of interfering with the affairs of a minority faith and raiding a place of worship. The authorities did not want to be accused of racism or Islamophobia.
That said, a number of Mulsim organisations have alerted the authorities over extremist groups taking control of mosques, prayer groups and youth clubs using violence and intimidation to enforce their will.
Thus there is a greater recognition now on the part of the state that militant Islam is a subversive and reactionary political force which can lead some young impressionable people into violence. However, militant groups with extremist views still flourish and are able to recruit from a pool of young Muslims, may of whom feel alienated from and hostile towards the British state, not least because of its involvement in the Invasion of Iraq.
I would like to know the official reason why Abu Hamza's scheduled trial around July 5, 2005 was postponed (i.e. prior to the London Bombing events)? Also, are you aware of any connections with Jerome Courtailler and David Courtailler, who allegedly "accepted an offer from a man at the prayer center on Baker Street: $2,000, a visa to Pakistan and the phone number of a contact in Peshawar". Tom Sinclair, London
Abu Hamza's trial was scheduled to take place in July 2005 and was actually sitting - hearing pre-trial legal argument - on the day of the suicide bombings in London. The trial judge decided that in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 attacks it would not be possible to assemble a jury that would be able to give him a fair trial. The trial was adjourned for six months.
We are aware of the activities of others and their connections with Finsbury Park. The activities of the Courtailler brothers in particular are covered in some detail in The Suicide Factory.
Do you think the term "Londonistan" to describe London is justified?If so, why do you think Islamic terrorists, their publications and fund-raising activities were so tolerated in the UK, particularly when you consider the way in which the BNP have been treated? Christopher McCabe, Lancaster
Undoubtedly the term Londonistan was justified in the 1990s. London was the centre of the international Arab press and a place where it was essential for dissident movements from the Arab world to have a presence - whether they were communist groups or Islamist groups. Even bin Laden had an office here until 1998.
There was a basic misunderstanding of the ideology and politics of many of the Islamists who were given political asylum in Britain in the 1990s. They were viewed as people who were refugees from oppressive regimes who would face torture and imprisonment if they stayed in their native countries. That they were trying to replace those regimes with quasi-fascist religious states was not appreciated.
We don't believe there is a parallel to be drawn between the state's treatment of the BNP and its handling of Islamic extremists.
If Hamza and Quatada hate England and the Infidels so much, why do they spend so much time fighting in the courts to stay here? Surely they can find a Muslim haven, such as Somalia, that will welcome them? What do they gain from staying here? Kerry Livermore, London
Their argument for staying here is that they will be persecuted, imprisoned without trial, possibly tortured and perhaps executed if they are extradited to Jordan, Egypt, Yemen or any of the other countries seeking them. Given that both claim to regard martyrdom as the highest obligation of their faith, it does seem strange that they are so unwilling to embrace it.
The individuals you have named have shown no desire to live in the kind of spartan conditions and hiding places where senior figures such as Osama bin Laden are in hiding in inhospitable terrain along the Afghan and Pakistan border.
What steps has the Home Office put in place to ensure that no more Abu Hamzas manage to defraud the immigration and health service and abuse the hospitality of this country? In your opinion, how many more Abu Hamzas are there that the Home Office and security services are simply ignoring or unaware of? Marc Levine, Edgware
The current chaos in the Home Office is pretty well documented and it is hard to believe that the task force on extremism set up in the wake of the July 7 bombings last year is capable of actually tackling that menace. There are many hundreds, probably thousands, of people in the UK who have been influenced and inspired by Abu Hamza and other extremists. As we say in The Suicide Factory, the great majority of those are not on the intelligence radar. Particularly since 7/7 the Islamist movement is much more security conscious and conducts its activities out of the public eye - in private houses, gyms, community centres - rather than in mosques and at public meetings.
From about 2000, I was regularly reading a website called SOS (Supporters of Sharia) which was registered to an address in Luton and was run from Finsbury Park Mosque by Abu Hamza Al Masri. This website was a contact board for radicals from all over the world and was quite incendiary. MI5 got wind of it and had made them take a motif of a grenade off of the main page, but took no further action. Previous to this I had discovered another site in East Timor showing soldiers in Jihad activity and pictures of a massacre in Indonesia led me to Hamza's site. Just before 9/11, I made complaint to the police about Hamza and produced evidence from his website but my complaint was diverted to a person from a website policing unit. I told them I had been monitoring this site for several months and was sure that something big was in the offing. Surely if I could do this, the security services must have been monotoring it too? Why could these websites not have been closed down and why was action not taken against Hamza at the time? Name and address withheld
Radical websites proliferate and mutate constantly; for example, those supporting the insurgents in Iraq move their websites almost on a daily basis. It is difficult for the authorities to chase and locate such outlets; however, it is also the case that a number of them are provided with a platform by London-based radicals.
Al-Qaeda and its offshoots have been adept at using the internet for propaganda and, more recently, for training and instructing their followers. The Supporters of Shariah website, incidentally, is still online today carrying Abu Hamza's propaganda.
The Suicide Factory: Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park Mosque by Sean O'Neill and Daniel McGrory is published by HarperCollins on June 19. Pre-order your copy here
