Along with the Alamoudi connection to the Boston mosque, this news makes one wonder just what it would take for Mayor Menino to retract his generous offer -- city land worth millions of dollars was sold to this plausible Muslim group for under $200,000. One wonders if he will re-consider, or be forced to re-consider, given this news: I am sure that the contract can be undone, because the plan was for a purely relgious institution, and any court would find, given this information, that this was clearly to be a "dual-use" mosque -- prayers, of course, but also a meeting place (for whom? for what purpose?), sermons from the minbar (but sermons on what subjects, and using what texts -- the khutba is nothing like sermons in churches, more politics than religion, and so on. No "dual-use" mosque should be built, or if built, should be allowed to continue to hide under First Amendment guarantees about freedom of religion -- not where a "religion" is itself "dual-use."

One hopes that terrific pressure will be put by Boston taxpayers on Menino; the next time any American mayor plans on land giveaways (think of the full horror of the 8 acres in Rome naively donated for the Saudi and U.A.E.-built Rome Mosque, scarcely a mile from the Vatican,a center of Muslim triumphalism (and intra-Muslim political intrigue), held up by such clerics as Qaradawi as clear symbols of the eventual Muslim takoever of Rome). Innocence abroad and at home --how much more of this must Infidels endure from their own leaders, who simply refuse to study, or be instructed in, the central political tenets of Islam, and refuse to consider anything other than the most sanitized and sappy versions of Islam, presented by plausible and oily apologists. Maddening.

I'm not sure Menino can be blamed in full for this. All religious institutions are "dual-use" in one way or another - as both prayer sites and community centers - perfectly common practice with Churches and Synagogues. Enforcement of political action prohibitions to keep tax-exempt status are notoriously unenforced.

A person purporting to represent the Islamic Society of Boston posted a response on my blog when the original Boston Herald series came out on this this past October (and kudos to the Herald for having the guts to take on the issue and do I little investigating). Statement here with link to initial Herald story:
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/001312.shtml

Second story here: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/001320.shtml

Comment re-posted in full in this post: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/001334.shtml (Sorry for the self-pimpage, it's just easiest to do it this way.)

I believe there was a third Herald story which I don't have a link to (no time to dig ATM).

The Kandil allegation is addressed. Frankly, their explanation is beyond my pay grade to refute, but sounds fairly reasonable, and probably would to the average person generally - although their attack on Steven Emerson is a bit disturbing, and the whole thing may beg the question...are there any "moderate" Muslim groups when you really start looking at who talks to whom? If not, how can the Boston Mayor actually take that position? The Middle East is a radical place, it's likely the people behind any mosque built in the US will have *some* tie to the ME, ergo, it's not unlikely there will be a radical connection somewhere along the line. Does that mean no Mosques? I'm just asking the question, not answering it - obviously, I come down on the side of caution when it comes to groups with ties or funding in the ME, but the Mayor needs something concrete to go on I would think. I don't think the city should be giving land away to *anyone*, but particularly for a religious institution, frankly.

Note again, I'm not arguing, just offering some data.

In response, I think that a "dual-use" mosque, where one use is incitement of religious or other kinds of hatred, and where there is some evidence of something unconnected to individual worship going on, is not at all like churches or synagogues where there may be social gatherings, and so on. When a belief-system is not only a religion, but a geopolitical program, and when there is evidence that that geopolitical program threatens all others, religious or non-religious, if they are not Muslims, one has a right to shut down the place that, hiding behind religion, is in fact a meeting-ground, a place where -- it has been discovered in mosques all over Europe and the Middle East -- weapons, false documents, and similar material has been stored. Bluntly put, any mosque where such activities go on, or where the content of the khutba incites hatred, should be carefully examined, and shut without ado. Let it be done once; let a case be brought and the First Amendment be invoked by people who would not, for one minute, if they were in charge permit the full application of the Free Exercise Clause (which would give Muslim apostates their freedom not to be Muslims), and let it be argued out in the courts. But we need a test case.

Meanwhile, a contract for the sale of land, when it turns out that there is reason to believe not all relevant facts were disclosed, this may be justification for refusing to go through with the contract. If Mayor Menino has his legal advisors look into it, they will undoubtedly realize that they are not locked into this act of generous -- even suicidal, in a civilizational sense -- folly.

Just a quick note: while I said the Kandil allegations had been addressed in the Islamic Center's response, and they were, the new series of Herald articles (and the Washington Times/UPI report as well if I had read it more carefully) actually point to newer, deeper allegations. Just wanted to clarify that.