Ham­burg: From the “Mul­lah Cent­re” to a “Memo­ri­al to the Vic­tims of Isla­mism”

In Hamburg, a broad, pluralistic alliance is calling for the confiscated “Mullah Centre” to be converted into a “Memorial to the Victims of Islamism.” The concept envisages five functions for the site’s reuse: alongside the memorial, a constitution-compliant prayer space, a Documentation Centre Political Islam, a youth education campus, and a Jina cultural centre. The proposal aims to anchor remembrance, documentation, and public education — “from Hamburg, for Germany and the world.”

In Ham­burg, a broad, plu­ra­li­stic alli­ance is cal­ling for the con­fis­ca­ted “Mul­lah Cent­re” to be con­ver­ted into a “Memo­ri­al to the Vic­tims of Isla­mism.” The con­cept envi­sa­ges five func­tions for the site’s reu­se: along­side the memo­ri­al, a con­sti­tu­ti­on-com­pli­ant pray­er space, a Docu­men­ta­ti­on Cent­re Poli­ti­cal Islam, a youth edu­ca­ti­on cam­pus, and a Jina cul­tu­ral cent­re (named after Jina Mah­sa Ami­ni, who died in Iran in 2022 for alle­gedly vio­la­ting the hijab law).

The alli­ance is taking the initia­ti­ve to send a strong signal by hono­u­ring the vic­tims – ‘from Ham­burg, for Ger­ma­ny and the world’. Back­ground: Until its ban in July 2024, the Ham­burg Mul­lah Cent­re acted ‘as the direct repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the Ira­ni­an “Supre­me Lea­der” in Ger­ma­ny’, accor­ding to the Fede­ral Minis­try of the Inte­ri­or (BMI) in its ban order — that is, Aya­tol­lah Ali Kha­men­ei, the hig­hest spi­ri­tu­al aut­ho­ri­ty and com­man­der-in-chief of the armed forces in the Isla­mic Repu­blic of Iran.

The cent­re spread the ideo­lo­gy of the ‘Isla­mic Revo­lu­ti­on’ in an ‘aggres­si­ve and mili­tant man­ner’ and aimed to estab­lish an aut­ho­ri­ta­ri­an theo­cra­tic regime in place of the free demo­cra­tic basic order; it also spread ‘aggres­si­ve anti-Semi­tism,’ acted ‘against the idea of inter­na­tio­nal under­stan­ding,’ and sup­port­ed the ter­ro­rist orga­ni­sa­ti­on ‘Hizb Allah,’ which is ban­ned in Ger­ma­ny.

The Isla­mic Cent­re Ham­burg (IZH) – tog­e­ther with its sub-orga­ni­sa­ti­ons ‘Isla­mic Aca­de­my Ger­ma­ny’, ‘Asso­cia­ti­on of Sup­port­ers of an Ira­ni­an-Isla­mic Mos­que in Ham­burg’ and others – was ban­ned becau­se it is an extre­mist Isla­mist orga­ni­sa­ti­on that pur­sues anti-con­sti­tu­tio­nal goals. The BMI found that the IZH ope­ra­tes in an ‘extre­me­ly con­spi­ra­to­ri­al’ man­ner: “Out­ward­ly, it wants to give the impres­si­on of being a tole­rant and purely reli­gious insti­tu­ti­on wit­hout any poli­ti­cal agen­da or con­nec­tions. In fact, the inves­ti­ga­ti­ons cle­ar­ly show that the IZH does not act sole­ly on reli­gious grounds. Rather, as the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of Iran’s “Supre­me Lea­der”, it con­sis­t­ent­ly and cate­go­ri­cal­ly imple­ments the poli­ti­cal direc­ti­ve to export the “Isla­mic Revo­lu­ti­on”. The IZH and its lea­der have been express­ly ins­truc­ted by the “Supre­me Lea­der” to “work inten­si­ve­ly and unwa­ve­rin­gly for the foun­da­ti­ons of the revo­lu­ti­on, wit­hout com­pro­mi­se”. Human rights and demo­cra­cy are mere­ly a pre­text to sup­press the spread of the “Isla­mic Revo­lu­ti­on”. The social model pro­pa­ga­ted by the IZH is con­tra­ry to the Ger­man Basic Law – wit­hout free elec­tions, wit­hout pro­tec­tion of mino­ri­ties, wit­hout sepa­ra­ti­on of powers, with a reli­gious judi­cia­ry.

Civic use of the site

The alli­ance the­r­e­fo­re aims to con­vert the IZH site and ensu­re its civi­li­an use. The pro­po­sal to estab­lish a memo­ri­al site repres­ents a chan­ge of cour­se: away from deca­des of extre­mist Isla­mist infil­tra­ti­on and sup­port for ter­ro­rism by the IZH, towards a public, secu­lar place of remem­brance, docu­men­ta­ti­on and edu­ca­ti­on. The alli­ance wants to pre­vent the deba­te from nar­ro­wing and pre­vent the buil­ding from fal­ling back into Isla­mist or auto­cra­tic struc­tures.

Hour­vash Pour­ki­an, an Ira­ni­an exi­le from the alli­ance part­ner Kul­tur­brü­cke Ham­burg, is con­cer­ned that under the gui­se of ‘reli­gious free­dom,’ ‘inter­re­li­gious dia­lo­gue’ and ‘anti-dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on,’ the deba­te is ske­wing in favour of enemies of the con­sti­tu­ti­on. Short­ly after the ban, the Ger­man Press Agen­cy (dpa) uncri­ti­cal­ly dis­se­mi­na­ted state­ments by the Ira­ni­an IZH lea­der, who had been expel­led from Ger­ma­ny, in which the imam mobi­li­sed ‘around a hundred belie­vers’ against the sta­te ban and accu­sed the Ger­man aut­ho­ri­ties of cor­rup­ti­on and dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on. The taz news­pa­per play­ed down IZH sup­port­ers who staged show pray­ers in front of the clo­sed buil­ding as peo­p­le who gather to draw atten­ti­on to ‘their reli­gious home­l­ess­ness.’ Accor­ding to Pourkian’s assess­ment, Nord­deut­scher Rund­funk (NDR) ‘repro­du­ced pro­pa­gan­da’ with state­ments such as ‘pray­ing on the pave­ment is degra­ding’ and demands such as ‘mos­que ins­tead of street’ and ‘whe­re is our place in this city?’.

The Ham­burg Shura, which for many years has been clo­se­ly lin­ked to the anti-con­sti­tu­tio­nal actors of the IZH through mem­ber­ship, declared in the media that it was alre­a­dy in talks with two pos­si­ble spon­sors; reco­gni­ti­on by a Shii­te coun­cil of scho­lars and the recruit­ment of an accep­ta­ble imam were pro­ving dif­fi­cult, as the ban­ned IZH had car­ri­ed out the trai­ning of Shii­te imams.

Regard­less of this, it should be noted that the Shura, as a sta­te-trea­ty part­ner, has influ­en­ti­al advo­ca­tes in parts of Ham­burg poli­tics and in the ‘inter­re­li­gious dia­lo­gue’ of the churches – a con­stel­la­ti­on that has con­tri­bu­ted to unde­si­ra­ble deve­lo­p­ments in the past. From the Coun­cil of Ex-Mus­lims, the foun­der and exi­led Ira­ni­an Mina Aha­di, who­se hus­band was mur­de­red by the Isla­mic regime in Iran, sup­ports the initia­ti­ve:

“One must not unde­re­sti­ma­te the importance of Ham­burg as a loca­ti­on for Shii­te poli­ti­cal Islam and the Ira­ni­an power appa­ra­tus. Moham­mad Khat­a­mi was head of the IZH during the 1979 revo­lu­ti­on, when the cler­gy sei­zed power in Tehr­an, and later rose to beco­me Pre­si­dent of Iran. Ham­burg now has the oppor­tu­ni­ty to crea­te a place that no lon­ger spreads Isla­mist pro­pa­gan­da, espio­na­ge and repres­si­on against free peo­p­le, but whe­re cri­mes are docu­men­ted and edu­ca­ti­on and enligh­ten­ment take place. A cou­ra­ge­ous decis­i­on to con­vert the Isla­mic Cent­re Ham­burg into a memo­ri­al would also send an important signal to the free­dom move­ment in Iran.”

“Isla­mism affects us all” — Com­men­ta­ry by Pro­fes­sor Mouha­nad Khor­chi­de

At the begin­ning of Decem­ber, Mouha­nad Khor­chi­de, pro­fes­sor of Isla­mic reli­gious edu­ca­ti­on, wro­te in the Pro­tes­tant month­ly maga­zi­ne Chris­mon:

“Isla­mism affects us all – Mus­lims and non-Mus­lims, reli­gious and non-reli­gious ali­ke. This also includes a clear distinc­tion bet­ween Islam and Isla­mism. The term “Isla­mism” is neces­sa­ry here to name an ideo­lo­gy that attacks demo­cra­tic values in the name of reli­gi­on. It is not the term that stig­ma­tis­es – but the vio­lence it descri­bes. Isla­mism distorts a spi­ri­tu­al reli­gi­on into a poli­ti­cal pro­ject of domi­na­ti­on. Pushing it back not only pro­tects libe­ral socie­ty, but also the inte­gri­ty of Islam and the safe­ty of Mus­lims them­sel­ves.”

Khor­chi­de was recent­ly appoin­ted to the Isla­mism Advi­so­ry Group of the Ger­man Fede­ral Minis­try of the Inte­ri­or (BMI) and has chai­red the Sci­en­ti­fic Advi­so­ry Board of the Aus­tri­an Docu­men­ta­ti­on Cent­re Poli­ti­cal Islam for seve­ral years. When asked about the plan­ned lar­ge-sca­le pos­ter cam­paign and the con­cept behind it, he repli­ed:

“Repur­po­sing the Imam Ali Mos­que of the ban­ned IZH — which has been poli­ti­cal­ly misu­s­ed for deca­des — into a place that hono­urs the vic­tims of Isla­mist vio­lence while also pro­vi­ding a trans­par­ent­ly ope­ra­ted pray­er space is an excel­lent idea. It comes at a time­ly moment. Isla­mic reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties are cal­led upon to par­ti­ci­pa­te con­s­truc­tively in this deba­te so that, ulti­m­ate­ly, as many belie­vers in Ham­burg as pos­si­ble who wish to draw clear boun­da­ries vis-à-vis Poli­ti­cal Islam can be streng­the­ned.”

Poli­ti­cal posi­ti­ons in Ham­burg: Sena­tor of the Inte­ri­or, govern­ment, oppo­si­ti­on

Pre­pa­ra­to­ry work can be car­ri­ed out until the fede­ral ban beco­mes legal­ly bin­ding. The alli­ance sug­gests com­mis­sio­ning the fol­lo­wing: a fea­si­bi­li­ty stu­dy, a pre­pa­ra­to­ry board of trus­tees made up of repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of vic­tim groups, aca­de­mia, civil socie­ty and the fede­ral and sta­te govern­ments, and a con­cept for infor­ma­ti­on and edu­ca­tio­nal work, for exam­p­le in the form of a per­ma­nent exhi­bi­ti­on (at the site) and a tra­vel­ling exhi­bi­ti­on (for schools, local aut­ho­ri­ties and cul­tu­ral insti­tu­ti­ons). A fea­si­bi­li­ty stu­dy can be initia­ted by poli­ti­cal par­ties, foun­da­ti­ons, asso­cia­ti­ons, a civil socie­ty alli­ance or a sci­en­ti­fic insti­tu­ti­on.

In order to empha­sise the state’s respon­si­bi­li­ty for the con­fis­ca­ted pro­per­ty, the Sena­te has cle­ar­ly sta­ted its posi­ti­on on seve­ral occa­si­ons. Hamburg’s Sena­tor of the Inte­ri­or, Andy Gro­te (SPD), puts it this way:

“The sta­te must never relin­quish con­trol of the buil­ding again.”

In Hamburg’s red-green coali­ti­on agree­ment (April 2025), the fol­lo­wing was agreed regar­ding the reu­se of the pro­per­ty:

“We are com­mit­ted to ensu­ring that it once again beco­mes a place of reli­gious prac­ti­ce for Shii­tes and a mee­ting place for exi­led Ira­ni­ans – free from for­eign influence and in accordance with our con­sti­tu­ti­on.” And fur­ther, in prin­ci­ple: “[…] Dia­lo­gue [that] pro­mo­tes mutu­al under­stan­ding and crea­tes spaces in which com­mon posi­ti­ons for peaceful and tole­rant coexis­tence can be deve­lo­ped. This also appli­es to cri­ti­cal issues: in the exis­ting dia­lo­gue con­texts, pro­blems can be cle­ar­ly addres­sed and goals and mea­su­res for their solu­ti­on can be defi­ned.”

From the per­spec­ti­ve of the lar­gest oppo­si­ti­on par­ty, Dr Anke Frie­ling, depu­ty chair of the CDU par­lia­men­ta­ry group, says:

“We are stri­ving for a secu­lar buil­ding, a cent­re run by the sta­te.”

At an infor­ma­ti­on event at the Patrio­tic Socie­ty of Ham­burg in July 2025, Frie­ling said of the cir­cu­la­ting com­plaints of dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on that Shii­te belie­vers would no lon­ger have a place of wor­ship after the ban: ‘Shii­te belie­vers had deca­des of oppor­tu­ni­ty to use the buil­ding in peace, but they cho­se a dif­fe­rent path’ – with refe­rence to the pro­pa­gan­da and sup­port struc­tures of the Isla­mic Cent­re, which are attri­bu­ted to the mul­lah regime. The reli­gious poli­cy spo­kesper­son for the SPD par­lia­men­ta­ry group, Ire­ne Appiah, empha­si­s­es: ‘Any sub­se­quent use should pri­ma­ri­ly be aimed at recon­ci­lia­ti­on.’

Dr Necla Kelek from the Secu­lar Islam Ham­burg asso­cia­ti­on out­lines a pos­si­ble com­pro­mi­se:

“It should beco­me a place of remem­brance and a remin­der of free­dom and human rights; a place whe­re the vic­tims of Isla­mic fun­da­men­ta­lism are com­me­mo­ra­ted; a place whe­re the gre­at diver­si­ty of Isla­mic cul­tu­re, but also of the Ira­ni­an peo­p­les and non-Isla­mic cul­tures, finds a place; a place whe­re peo­p­le can learn and dis­cuss – and a place whe­re peo­p­le can also pray on Fri­days.”

“Exclu­si­ve use as a pray­er room is not neces­sa­ry. The­re are offi­ci­al­ly 66 mos­ques and pray­er rooms in Ham­burg – no one is pro­hi­bi­ting belie­vers from pray­ing or wor­ship­ping. Mul­ti­func­tion­al use of the cent­re pro­mo­tes diver­si­ty and tole­rance and can also take spi­ri­tu­al needs into account within house rules that app­ly to ever­yo­ne,” says Kelek.

One con­sen­sus could be to con­vert the site of the for­mer Mul­lah Cent­re into a public space with five func­tions. One of the ide­as is pre­sen­ted by Ali Ertan Toprak from the alli­ance part­ner Kur­dish Com­mu­ni­ty of Ger­ma­ny (KGD). He wants to pro­mo­te the estab­lish­ment of a ‘Docu­men­ta­ti­on Cent­re for Poli­ti­cal Islam’ in Ger­ma­ny, based on the Aus­tri­an model, in the new Isla­mism Advi­so­ry Coun­cil of the Fede­ral Minis­try of the Inte­ri­or, of which he is a mem­ber:

“Ham­burg is a sui­ta­ble loca­ti­on. A fea­si­bi­li­ty stu­dy should exami­ne whe­ther office space on the IZH site is sui­ta­ble for this pur­po­se.”

Once the ban beco­mes legal­ly bin­ding, the pro­per­ty will, under cur­rent law, beco­me the pro­per­ty of the fede­ral govern­ment – not the Free and Han­sea­tic City of Ham­burg. The­r­e­fo­re, the fede­ral govern­ment, as the owner, would initi­al­ly have the aut­ho­ri­ty to make decis­i­ons. One opti­on is to trans­fer it to a foun­da­ti­on, e.g. under sta­te spon­sor­ship. Accor­din­gly, the alli­ance is addres­sing its pro­po­sals to both Ham­burg poli­ti­ci­ans and the fede­ral level and is encou­ra­ging ear­ly coor­di­na­ti­on bet­ween the fede­ral and sta­te govern­ments as well as the exami­na­ti­on of foun­da­ti­on law models for spon­sor­ship and ope­ra­ti­on. In addi­ti­on, pro­vi­sio­nal imple­men­ta­ti­on should be exami­ned, as the court pro­cee­dings are likely to con­ti­nue for some time.

Evi­dence-based: Who are the ‘vic­tims of Isla­mism’?

The alli­ance defi­nes vic­tims of Isla­mism as peo­p­le who are affec­ted by Isla­mist vio­lence and hege­mo­nic claims – in Ham­burg, Ger­ma­ny and Euro­pe, for exam­p­le, through attacks, inti­mi­da­ti­on and pres­su­re to con­form; in auto­cra­ci­es such as Iran sin­ce 1979, as well as in con­flict and ter­ror situa­tions, for exam­p­le in the Midd­le East, the Sahel, Nige­ria, Syria and other count­ries.

Ham­burg con­nec­tion and Euro­pe

9/11 with the ‘Ham­burg cell’ (Har­burg) marks the most serious Isla­mist attack in modern times with around 3,000 deaths – a cen­tral his­to­ri­cal refe­rence point for Hamburg’s remem­brance work. The Hamas mas­sa­cres of 7 Octo­ber 2023 are con­side­red the second dead­liest event, with 1,200 dead, 3,400 inju­red and 251 kid­nap­ped. Euro­pe has seen major attacks in Ber­lin, Madrid, Lon­don, Paris, Brussels, Nice and Man­ches­ter, and a gro­wing pro­blem of struc­tu­ral Isla­mism affec­ting mil­li­ons of peo­p­le in Euro­pe.

Glo­bal mini­mum figu­res

Sin­ce 1979, over 65,000 Isla­mist attacks have been recor­ded world­wi­de, with at least 250,000 deaths. Almost 90% of the fata­li­ties occur­red in pre­do­mi­nant­ly Isla­mic count­ries, with the main loca­ti­ons being the MENA regi­on, South Asia and sub-Saha­ran Afri­ca. In addi­ti­on, the­re have been thou­sands of exe­cu­ti­ons and deaths due to devia­ti­ons from Poli­ti­cal Islam in the Isla­mic Repu­blic of Iran alo­ne.

Affec­ted groups

  • Tho­se kil­led and inju­red by ter­ro­rist attacks and mili­tant Isla­mist groups.
  • Tho­se exe­cu­ted, tor­tu­red, impri­so­ned or dis­ap­peared under theo­cra­tic or extre­mist Isla­mist regimes.
  • Women and girls sub­jec­ted to forced vei­ling, forced mar­ria­ge and ‘honour’ vio­lence.
  • Per­se­cu­ted reli­gious and ideo­lo­gi­cal groups (non-Isla­mist Mus­lims, Chris­ti­ans, Jews, Yazi­dis, athe­ists).
  • Libe­ral-min­ded peo­p­le who are tar­ge­ted by extre­mist pro­pa­gan­da, recruit­ment or social pres­su­re to con­form to norms.

Cura­to­ri­al approach for Ham­burg

The alli­ance recom­mends sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly cura­ting this evi­dence (UN/NGO reports, court decis­i­ons, con­flict data­ba­ses, poli­ce situa­ti­on reports), pro­ces­sing it accor­ding to time/space/perpetrator context/victim groups, and sup­ple­men­ting it with eye­wit­ness accounts, in a fac­tu­al, com­pa­ra­ti­ve per­spec­ti­ve with other expe­ri­en­ces of vio­lence and dic­ta­tor­ship in con­tem­po­ra­ry histo­ry, such as Nazism, Sta­li­nism and Mao­ism. Isla­mism is a rese­arch desi­de­ra­tum that needs to be fur­ther inves­ti­ga­ted.

From the archi­ves: You­Tube video “One Year of the IZH Ban – Review and Out­look” | Dis­cus­sion on 24 July 2025 in Ham­burg