Private undercover team exposes nationwide network of radical, anti-U.S. Islamic centers

Hundreds of Islamic centers in the United States have become a hot-bed of extremist activity; they promote violence, terrorism and hatred against America.

“Our initial investigation has concluded there are between 400 to 500 radical Islamic centers in the U.S.,” said David Gaubatz, the director of counterintelligence and counterterrorism for the Society of Americans for National Existence. “In those places, they preach an extreme version of Islam that says America and the West is the enemy. They espouse violence, hatred and the need for terrorism.”


Gaubatz is a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who now works for the Mapping Shari’a in America Project (www.mappingsharia.com), which is supported by SANE, a national non-profit group devoted to investigating the 2,300 Islamic centers in the U.S. for extremist activity.

Gaubatz and his investigators are currently active and will soon form a team of about 12. They pose as people interested in converting to Islam or who are current Muslims. Their goal is to infiltrate mosques and Muslim centers. Recently, he and his team penetrated the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, located in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

Sporting a beard and Muslim dress, Gaubatz said he went on May 18 to the center, pretending to be an American interested in becoming a convert to Islam. He discovered the center espoused terrorism and jihad against America.

“They are teaching what they call Jihad Qital, which means physical jihad,” Gaubatz said. “They’re teaching violence and hatred of the United States.”

Gaubatz said that he met the two primary clerics at Dar Al-Hijrah, Imam Shaker Elsayed and Imam Johari Abdulmalik. Both men have been trained in Saudi Arabia. He says another key individual is Yusef Estes, an informal senior leader at the center and an internationally influential Muslim scholar who was trained in Saudi Arabia.

“They put me through the process of learning their faith and ideology,” Gaubatz said. “They felt close to me and they gave me literature and CDs. They told me to study. The literature is very Jihad Qital.”

He said that the Islamic center has deep ties to Saudi Arabia and espouses Wahhabism, a virulent and puritanical version of Islam.

“Many members of the mosque provided me literature to study. Most of the literature they gave me was from Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Their literature preaches that America and the West are decadent and evil, and that Muslims have a moral duty to engage in violence against the infidels.”

Gaubatz says that Dar Al-Hijrah and other radical Islamic centers in the U.S. are funded by Saudi Arabia, which is the primary sponsor of the Wahhabist brand of Islam.

“The ultimate goal for those at Dar Al-Hijrah is to instill Sharia law in the U.S. and have America adhere to the Islamic faith,” he said. “They want America to be an Islamic state.”

Gaubatz said that the imams at the center encouraged him to read the works of their “friends”—some of whom have been convicted for terrorism-related activities. According to Gaubatz, one of those “friends” he was encouraged to read is Ali Al-Tamimi, a radical Islamist author, who was convicted of inciting terrorism in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network.

Al-Tamimi was born and raised in the U.S., and then as a teenager went to Saudi Arabia to study Islam. He lectured often at the Center for Islamic Information and Education in Falls Church, Virginia. He was a founding member of the center, which is also known as Dar al-Arqam.

The Virginia Jihad Network was a group of radical Islamists who were charged with engaging in terrorist plots. Nine members of the group were convicted of using and possessing various weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and explosives.

Al-Tamimi was later convicted of being the spiritual leader of the group and of having encouraged them to wage Jihad on the U.S.

Gaubatz maintains that he and his team of field workers at the Mapping Shari’a in America Project are not only focusing on major metropolitan areas. Although there is plenty of Islamist activity in cities such as Detroit, Dearborn, Michigan and Washington, he says radical Muslims are also establishing education and religious centers in small towns.

“They’re branching out and teaching the Jihadist ideology in small towns across America, especially in rural areas in places like Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina,” Gaubatz said.

He says that a terrorist atrocity on U.S. soil similar to what happened on 9/11 is inevitable unless Americans take decisive measures.

“If we let our guard down, another 9/11—maybe even something worse—is going to happen again,” he said. “We need to be proactive rather than reactive.”

Gaubatz says that his investigative team is composed of individuals of various faiths, whose goal is to protect the American homeland from Islamic extremism.

“We have a team consisting of Christians, Jews and Muslims—there are several Muslims, in fact, on our team—who go undercover and try to penetrate radical mosques in this country,” he said. “This is not about being anti-Muslim. It is about being anti-extremism, anti-Jihadism and anti-terrorism.

“Our mission is to get at the truth—to find out the truth about what’s really going on in our country.”

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/islamic_0.htm

quote:

Gaubatz is a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who now works for the Mapping Shari’a in America Project (www.mappingsharia.com), which is supported by SANE, a national non-profit group devoted to investigating the 2,300 Islamic centers in the U.S. for extremist activity.

SANE - Society of Americans for National Existence

MISSION STATEMENT


The Society of Americans for National Existence or SANE is what its name declares: a society of sane Americans dedicated to preserving and strengthening America’s national existence. By national existence we mean what you normally mean when speaking of such matters. America is a unique people bound together through a commitment to America’s Judeo-Christian moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in G-d and in His Providence. America’s founding, and its greatness was neither accident nor staging ground for some better existence or world state. America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d. The founding fathers understood that party-led parliaments and democracy were the worse form of government and sought to resist the movement that was soon to find fertile ground in France with the French Revolution, the end of which we can see now before our eyes.


Thus, these great men formed a republican form of government, predicated upon a constitution and built upon federalism, with a clear separation of powers at the national level between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, all in an effort to avoid the obvious failures of democracy and parliamentary rule.


So at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic, with a vibrant and real federalism at work, providing for an Executive that can execute its mandate to lead the country, a legislature limited to legislating and to its other enumerated powers, and a court system fully reined in to adjudicate facts before the law and not to legislate by judicial fiat.


SANE’s Mission goes well beyond these rudimentary though necessary steps. SANE seeks a return to America’s founding commitment to deserve G-d’s continued blessing by preserving the soul of this great nation. Thus, SANE stands for the following:


Ø A strong commitment to preserve and to protect America’s Judeo-Christian content and moral grounding.


Ø A return to the original U.S. Constitution and the principles of limited government for which it stood.


Ø A return to a vibrant federalism where the state governments are not merely vassals to an overwhelming and over-sized national government.


Ø A limited but strong national government to protect our Homeland against the foreign aggressor, including those foreigners who have penetrated our borders.


Ø A commitment to a real border and immigration policy based on allowing only those immigrants whose culture and commitment to America’s national existence will bring greater prosperity and strength to our country.


SANE’s Mission includes the dismantling of much of the liberal enterprise, including:


Ö A rejection of the Open Society agenda and Multiculturalism that so dominates and permeates our society.


Ö A rejection of the view that Science dictates Certainty in man’s affairs and that Man’s Being is reduced to scientific thinking on matters of life and death, purpose, and values.


Ö A rejection of the culture of death that has resulted in a society more committed to permitting and providing for abortion than in preserving the life of the unborn and the living.


As we develop the work and the programs of SANE over the coming months and years, it will become clear to those who follow our work how these principles play out in the political life of the nation. But there is one guiding principle at work in all of this. Any world view, ideology, or –ism that promotes directly or indirectly the elimination of national existence and the establishment of a world state is our foe. So you can know at the start that liberalism (and this includes libertarianism) and Islam are in our sights.

Reference Source- SANE -The Society of Americans for National Existence

O you who believe! when an evil doer comes with news then ascertain (its veracity) lest you assail (innocent) folk out of ignorance and then (later) regret your actions.
Argy: I am not referring to you, but to SANE.

Plus SANE would probably deem pronoubcing "Allahu Akbar" extremist.

Really..is there any SANE person who actually buys into this thing that Muslims are trying to instal a shariah legal system in Norht America?

SANE Miaaion Statement Abstract

quote:

So at its core, SANE is dedicated to the rejection of democracy and party rule and a return to a constitutional republic, with a vibrant and real federalism at work, providing for an Executive that can execute its mandate to lead the country, a legislature limited to legislating and to its other enumerated powers, and a court system fully reined in to adjudicate facts before the law and not to legislate by judicial fiat.

Now -- sompare [ below ] what was done recently, as a first step and perhaps a political trial "balloon" - making Bush a "Dictator" to override the legislative and Judical arms for of the governance of the United States.

===============================================

A thread from GNI Political Section:

Bush To Be Dictator???

Bush To Be Dictator??? - GNI Reference Link

================================================

Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

by Lee Rogers

May 21, 2007


The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”, the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

Further on in the document it states the following.

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.

Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.

The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.


Reference Source

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Really..is there any SANE person who actually buys into this thing that Muslims are trying to instal a shariah legal system in Norht America?

===============================================

There have been attempts to establish "panels/venues" in both Canada and USA regarding some form on the use of muslim/islam's guidelines to mitiigate issues within the muslim communities -- within the ambits of the respective legislative/regulatory laws/rules/guidelines.

Hence, the misconceptions that "Sharia Laws" will be entrenched into the communities within Canada and the USA.

The following is background information I have put together a few years ago on the issues to address the issues on discussion forums plus personal discussions.

The current status in Canada - specifically in Ontario, where this issues was under the microscope - is no such process will be implemented.

I believe that same situation exists in the USA -- perhaps someone can clarify the current status.

Dem_Guy

================================================

Sharia or no Sharia in Canada !!

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom takes precedence over any Tribunal, etc., on any matter, including any Sharia Tribunal.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association

Legal and Equal Rights

Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Detention or imprisonment

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Arrest or detention

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.[/quote]

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[/quote]

Reference:

Schedule B
Constitution Act, 1982 (79)
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
PART I

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/loireg/charte/const_en.html


===============================================

The specific Acts and Regulations regarding any Tribunal on "Sharia" in Ontario, must comply with the requirements of the Canada Constitution Act, 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms plus the Ontario enabling Act, - Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 17, Ontario, Canada.

Relevant sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are presented in the foregoing section. There are adequate safeguards in the relevant Acts and Regulations. Should "Sharia Tribunals" be established, they must function in the same manner like all past and current Tribunals to comply with other governing Statutes. These Tribunals do nor operate outside the ambits of Canadian jurisprudence.

From my knowledge of the various statutes, regulations and jurisprudence protocols/procedures plus the numerous debates/discussions over the years on Sharia, my view is that, currently, there are adequate safeguards. In Canada, there is a distinct separation of State and Church. Of course, there will be concerns and ensuing debates on what has happened in other countries.

It must again be emphasised that should such Tribunals be established, they must function, in no different manner as those currently operating, pursuant to the relevant Laws and Customs of Canada and not those of another Countries.

No one is bound to use the Tribunals, because of religious beliefs, as a means of redress. Use of the Tribunals is always an option.

Dem_Guy

================================================
References:

Constitution Act, 1982 (79)
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
PART I
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/loireg/charte/const_en.html


Arbitration Act, 1991
S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 17
Ontario, Canada
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91a17_e.htm

Few Sections of the Arbitration Act, 1991

Definitions
1. In this Act,

"arbitration agreement" means an agreement by which two or more persons agree to submit to arbitration a dispute that has arisen or may arise between them; (--convention d'arbitrage--)

"arbitrator" includes an umpire; (--arbitre--)

"court", except in sections 6 and 7, means the Ontario Court (General Division). (--tribunal judiciaire--) 1991, c. 17, s. 1.


Application of Act

Arbitrations conducted under agreements
2. (1) This Act applies to an arbitration conducted under an arbitration agreement unless,
(a) the application of this Act is excluded by law; or
(b) the International Commercial Arbitration Act applies to the arbitration. 1991, c. 17, s. 2 (1).

Transition, existing agreements

(2) This Act applies to an arbitration conducted under an arbitration agreement made before the day this Act comes into force, if the arbitration is commenced after that day. 1991, c. 17, s. 2 (2).

Arbitrations conducted under statutes

(3) This Act applies, with necessary modifications, to an arbitration conducted in accordance with another Act, unless that Act provides otherwise; however, in the event of conflict between this Act and the other Act or regulations made under the other Act, the other Act or the regulations prevail. 1991, c. 17, s. 2 (3).


Contracting out
3. The parties to an arbitration agreement may agree, expressly or by implication, to vary or exclude any provision of this Act except the following:
1. Subsection 5 (4) ("Scott v. Avery" clauses).
2. Section 19 (equality and fairness).
3. Section 39 (extension of time limits).
4. Section 46 (setting aside award).
5. Section 48 (declaration of invalidity of arbitration).
6. Section 50 (enforcement of award). 1991, c. 17, s. 3.

Waiver of right to object
4. A party who participates in an arbitration despite being aware of non-compliance with a provision of this Act, except one mentioned in section 3, or with the arbitration agreement, and does not object to the non-compliance within the time limit provided or, if none is provided, within a reasonable time, shall be deemed to have waived the right to object. 1991, c. 17, s. 4.

Arbitration agreements
5. (1) An arbitration agreement may be an independent agreement or part of another agreement. 1991, c. 17, s. 5 (1).

Further agreements
(2) If the parties to an arbitration agreement make a further agreement in connection with the arbitration, it shall be deemed to form part of the arbitration agreement. 1991, c. 17, s. 5 (2).


Court Intervention

Court intervention limited
6. No court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act, except for the following purposes, in accordance with this Act:

1. To assist the conducting of arbitrations.

2. To ensure that arbitrations are conducted in accordance with arbitration agreements.

3. To prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration agreements.

4. To enforce awards. 1991, c. 17, s. 6.


Duty of arbitrator
11. (1) An arbitrator shall be independent of the parties and shall act impartially. 1991, c. 17, s. 11 (1).

Disclosure before accepting appointment
(2) Before accepting an appointment as arbitrator, a person shall disclose to all parties to the arbitration any circumstances of which he or she is aware that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. 1991, c. 17, s. 11 (2).

Disclosure during arbitration
(3) An arbitrator who, during an arbitration, becomes aware of circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias shall promptly disclose them to all the parties. 1991, c. 17, s. 11 (3).


Arbitration Act, 1991
S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 17
Ontario, Canada

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91a17_e.htm

Thanks DG. I am aware of these little WELL MEANING cultural movements. I oppose them in principle because the movement starters are usually well meaning people who have no knowledge of fiqh. Recently a book called "Fiqh for Minorities" was put out by Taha Al Alwani. That would be a primer for anyone in this. What is sad is that the govt. could previously entertain such from OTHER religons whose religious laws..especially as they pertain to women...are horrendously chauvinistic. But once Islam came on..the popular mind set came in. Bigotry rules.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Thanks DG.

............

But once Islam came on..the popular mind set came in. Bigotry rules.

You are welcome Dara.

That is exactly how bigotry raised its 'ugly' head on the issue -- and the ensuing "hysteria".