A Mosque that Should have Been Shut Down 9 Years Ago

Well this is comforting news:

BERLIN — The authorities in Hamburg said Monday that they had shut down the mosque where several of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had met, asserting that it remained a source of radicalization nearly a decade later.

9 years after the events of September 11th is “Immediately”?!

Over the past decade, police found again and again that Muslims in al-Quds mosque were being fed a steady diet of militant Islam. The mosque still hosted a steady parade of radical speakers and recruiters. But nothing was done, as the police preferred to keep the mosque open in order to observe the radicals.

This is the law-enforcement variant of the libertarian argument that if you close a radical mosque (or brothel or drug den), people will just find some other place to carry out their illicit activities. But besides the moral problem inherent in this argument — capitulation — such a laissez-faire attitude has a practical problem as well. If the state tolerates radical mosques, young Muslims might think it is acceptable.

So why close it this week? Most likely, Germany has finally realized that the tactic of keeping it open for observation isn’t working. Over the past few years, the media in Germany has been awash with stories of young men being drawn into the jihadi scene, many radicalized, yet again, at al-Quds mosque. Of course, one might think the original 9/11 attacks would be enough to recommend closing al-Quds — but perhaps it took the threat of serious homegrown terrorism for Germany to finally come around.

If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and those associated with the Cordoba House project aren’t radicals with ties to Islamic terror themselves, might the Islamic Center/mosque still be vulnerable to infiltration by those who are “extremists”?

After all the outrage, indignation, and protests by so many Americans, it’s certainly on the radar of America’s enemies now. They recognize the propaganda value because of the significance we’ve attached to such a “provocative” act of building an Islamic community center/mosque so close to Ground Zero.

In Ronald Kessler‘s The Terrorist Watch, he talks about how the number of mosques in the U.S. that talked political Islam was about 1 in 10 prior to 9/11. The numbers have since dropped far lower than that; however, this is apparently due to those who support extremist views knowing full well that they will come under the radar of scrutiny by the FBI and Homeland Security. So they are more careful.

Another problem Kessler brings up is in how many Muslim immigrants come from countries where they had been persecuted and oppressed by the authorities. So they are instinctively distrustful and suspicious of sharing information with the FBI, preferring to handle extremists problems from within the community. Many are also in denial that it is Muslims who are engaged in terrorist activities.

Pg 205 of The Terrorist Watch, an FBI agent relates an experience he had:

I talked to a very prominent imam in the U.S. We would have our sweets and our sweet tea. We would talk a lot about Islam. I would say we understand Islam and where they’re coming from. We’d tell him about what our mission is, trying to keep people from murdering Americans, or anybody else for that matter.”

Months later, the FBI found out that the man’s mosque had two extremists who were so radical that they kicked them out. Clearly, those two extremists would have been of interest to the FBI. If they only engaged in anti-American rhetoric, the FBI would leave them alone. more likely, they were planning action to go with their rhetoric.

The agent asked the imam, “What happened?”

“What do you mean?” the imam asked.

“Why didn’t you tell me about this?” the agent said.

“Why would I tell you about this?” the imam said. “They’re not terrorists. They just hate the U.S. government.”