I shan’t be seeing much of my neighbor Abu Hamza for a while. The man known variously as “the Claw” or “Hook” was finally brought to justice this week – at least 10 years too late. After a four week trial, the Egyptian-born godfather of jihad was convicted on 11 out of 15 counts of inciting murder and racial hatred, plus possessing a terrorism manual. The judge, Mr. Justice Hughes, sentenced him to prison terms varying from 21 months to seven years, all to be served concurrently.

It was a light sentence – far too light, considering that the maximum penalty for the most serious charge, soliciting to murder, was life imprisonment. But the judge was constrained by precedent and the certainty of an appeal. Hamza also had a better defense counsel than he deserved: my friend Edward Fitzgerald, one of the most eloquent lawyers in England. Astonishingly, Hamza could be out on parole in less than two years.

At that point, however, he will face extradition to the United States to face even more serious charges, which include conspiracy to abduct in the Yemen in 1998, in which four Western tourists were killed, and setting up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. In Britain, Hamza has been portrayed as a buffoon; in the U.S. he is seen for what he is: a monster.

By then he may have forfeited his British citizenship, which he obtained by marrying a British Catholic, Valerie Fleming (nee Traversa), while studying in London in the early 1980s. Within three he had converted to Islamism and abandoned her, returning to Egypt with their 3-year old son. He told the boy his mother was dead and brought him up as an Islamist. The son later served seven years for terrorist offences. But Hamza found his British passport useful as a freelance terrorist consultant in the Middle East, enabling him to resettle in Britain.

The judge told Hamza that he had used his clerical authority “to legitimize anger” and make killing seem “a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice.” Mr. Justice Hughes added: “No-one can say now what damage your words may have caused. No-one can say whether any of your audiences, present or wider, acted on your words.”

But we do know that many of the Islamist terrorists who gave London its nickname of “Londonistan” attended Finsbury Park Mosque during Hamza’s tenure. They are reported to include three of the 7/7 London suicide bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, and Jermaine Lindsay; Zacarias Mouissaoui, now on trial in the U.S. for his part in September 11; Richard Reid, the “shoebomber” who tried to blow up an American airliner; Feroz Abbasi, an Al Qaeda terrorist who spent three years in Guantanamo; and Omar Sharif, who died attempting to blow up a nightclub in Israel.

Police believe “dozens” of terrorist attacks around the world are linked to this mosque. By the time it was finally raided by 1,000 officers three years ago, it had become a terrorist headquarters and arsenal: chemical weapons protection suits, firearms and other weapons, false passports, and equipment used in terrorist training camps in the Brecon Beacons and Dorset.

No sooner had Hamza been convicted than the Islamist propaganda machine was cranked up to caricature the four-week proceedings as a political show trial, and to present this recruiting sergeant for Al Qaeda as a “prisoner of faith” and a “martyr.” Hamza isn’t exactly new to this game. He is a clever confidence trickster: Almost everything about him is actually fabricated: his name (he was born Mostafa Kamel Mostafa) and title (“Sheikh”); his profession (he is not a theologian but a former nightclub bouncer); his dubious accounts of how he lost his hands and eye, and his claim that his preaching was given “approval” by MI5, the British secret service.

The importance of Hamza’s trial, however, transcends his own role as the demagogic imam of Finsbury Park Mosque. It is hard to overestimate the significance of the fact that, after four weeks of evidence, a British jury did find Hamza guilty. Several times similar trials have collapsed because juries are reluctant to convict, especially where new anti-terrorist laws are invoked. In the present atmosphere of moral panic, neither juries nor judges, neither policemen nor politicians are prepared to stand up to Islamist intimidation. The Abu Hamza trial could – indeed, must – mark a turning point.

One thing, and one thing only, is feeding the Islamist attempt to bully the West. It is fear: fear of terrorism, fear of the mob, fear of an implacable, fanatical foe, internal as well as external. You can sense the fear every time European governments fail to show solidarity in response to a deliberate provocation, such as burning embassies in Damascus, or Holocaust denial in Teheran.

It was fear that led the British prosecutors to delay arresting Hamza for nearly a decade while he poisoned the minds of countless young Muslims. Even the French passed on evidence, but no action was taken. After Hamza’s mosque was closed down, he was allowed to preach on the street, to the delight of his disciples and disgust of residents. He was only arrested when a U.S. extradition warrant was served, and even then it took six months for charges to be brought against him here. The excuse offered by the British authorities is that he was being used as a “honeytrap” to keep terrorists under surveillance, but many of his disciples went on to carry out attacks. Others are still at large, all over the world, awaiting their moment to strike.

No, it was fear that enabled Hamza to abuse his liberty, just as it was fear that caused the London police to permit demonstrators outside the Danish embassy last Friday to brandish placards urging Muslims to “massacre” or “behead” those who insult Islam. Nobody stopped them from proclaiming “Now for the REAL Holocaust” or dressing a small child in an Al Qaeda headscarf. A couple of non-Muslim counter-demonstrators who distributed leaflets reprinting the Danish cartoon images of Muhammad, on the other hand, were instantly arrested. The police insist that they are “studying” photographic evidence before deciding to make arrests, but they have really been waiting for signals from their political masters.

One of the Islamist demonstrators, Omar Khayam, even dressed up as a suicide bomber; it later emerged that he was a convicted drug dealer who had been released on parole. Normally, a convicted criminal who so much as misbehaves while on parole is instantly returned to prison. Mr. Khayam, however, was allowed to return home to Bedford. Three days later he was permitted to parade before the media, flanked by his local imam and Member of Parliament, to “apologize” to the families of the victims of last July’s London bombings. But this “apology”- which was also an admission of guilt – included a good deal of self-justifying and extremist rhetoric. Only on Tuesday was he returned to prison.

There is an irony in the fact that this young thug is a namesake of Omar Khayyam, the medieval Persian poet, whose “Rubaiyat” (translated by Edward Fitzgerald) is probably the most celebrated Muslim work of literature in the West. But his best-known line – “A jug of wine, a loaf of bread, and Thou” – indicates that the poet subscribed to a very different form of Islam from his namesake. Indeed, Omar Khayyam was better known in the 12th century as an astronomer, for in the days when Muslims fought real Crusaders, they produced scientists as well as poets. They also painted images of the Prophet Muhammad: lots of them. Omar Khayyam’s Islam was the noble religion of a great civilization. Abu Hamza’s Islam is the hideous creed of the enemies of civilization.