Dave Stein at CounterContempt purports to refute the information Pamela Geller has provided about Rick Perry's questionable associations. It would be reassuring if he had actually proven Perry to be clear of suspicion in these areas, but unfortunately that is not the case.
1. The curriculum.
Stein contends that the Atlas Shrugs reader who provided information about the Texas curriculum about Islam that the Aga Khan Foundation developed "was quoting from the abstracts (summaries) of the sessions that the teachers who volunteer for the Muslim Histories and Culture Project (MHCP) attend," and not from the curriculum itself. He assures us that a "a 60-something-year-old world history teacher with a Master’s Degree" can "read books from various points of view and reach his own conclusions," and that "the training involved no pro-Islam proselytizing."
It is odd that the teacher sessions would involve whitewashing of Islamic teaching and of its historical record, but that the curriculum itself would not, and Stein doesn't explain how that happened. Nor does he explain why we should trust his 60-something-year-old world history teacher. And even if his world history teacher is extremely knowledgeable about Islam, the material presented at Atlas Shrugs did not involve proselytizing, which he assures us is not happening, but whitewashing, which he does not address. And while I would love to take his word for it, arguments from authority are the weakest of all arguments, and he ultimately presents nothing to assure anyone that the questionable material in the teacher sessions is not making its way into the classroom. After all, what are the teacher sessions for, if not to train the teachers on how to present the material in the classroom?
He also says that there was nothing in the seminar abstracts "that even remotely qualifies as pro-Sharia." Yet the material we do see presents Muhammad as a benign moral teacher, saying nothing about his teachings of hatred, warfare and subjugation, and also whitewashes the oppressive history of Muslim Spain, and other matters. To dismiss concern about this by saying it's not "pro-Sharia" is too narrow. The heavily slanted and wholly positive view of Islam that Islamic supremacist groups have insinuated into textbooks and curricula fosters ignorance of the nature of the jihad threat and complacency about it, and provides a basis for proselytization from other materials. Ignore or minimize this at your own risk.
2. The Aga Khan and the Ismailis.
Stein says that "if Robert Spencer – whose entire raison d’être is investigating and tracking Islamists – didn’t know about these 'new facts' until last week, well…certainly Rick Perry can be excused for not knowing them as well." No, he can't. I am not entering into partnership with the Aga Khan. If I were, I would certainly vet him thoroughly first, and Perry should have. As far as not knowing about these issues, I wish I could keep up with all the violent and stealthy jihad activity going on in the world, but there is just too much of it, and the purchase of a tainted bank and investment in a tainted regime by the Aga Khan is simply not something that is going to become an issue until someone like Rick Perry becomes a viable presidential candidate, and everyone starts rushing to declare him the perfect candidate without properly vetting him. Perry should have vetted the Aga Khan, and we must vet Rick Perry.
3. The Habib Bank.
Stein points out that "the Aga Khan Foundation was not part-owner of Habib Bank until two years after the murder of Daniel Pearl," and dismisses all concern about it accordingly, even though the bank is in Pakistan, a country Stein himself terms "about as loyal and trustworthy an ally as a pet scorpion." Does Stein have information to the effect that the Aga Khan dismissed everyone who had been with the bank before he bought it, and thoroughly cleansed it of all al-Qaeda ties? Would such a thing even be possible to do in Pakistan?
4. The Aga Khan's investments in Syria.
Regarding the Aga Khan's investments in Syria, Stein contends that "'General Moustapha Sharba' accusation is found only on the 'everything but the kitchen sink' conspiracy-theory site of Mark Mitchell." Actually there is a picture of Sharba with Ismaili leaders on an Ismaili website. Why doesn't Stein mention that?
Then he dismisses the Aga Khan investments in Syria by pointing out that the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) did humanitarian work in countries ruled by tyrannical regimes, and challenges Pamela Geller to show that the Aga Khan money went to terrorist activity. However, the fact that one group does a foolish thing doesn't excuse someone else for doing the same foolish thing. In any case, the JDC was not endorsing the Ceaucescu regime by giving that aid; however, the Aga Khan worked directly with the Assad regime. Aiding oppressed people in spite of their regime is not the same thing as working with that regime, thereby freeing it up to spend its own funds on terrorist or other nefarious activity. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. If that means anything at all, no one should be investing there.
5. Norquist.
Stein points out that Norquist is ubiquitous and powerful. Granted. But Perry and Norquist are very close. Perry has raised funds for Norquist. They have vacationed together. Until I see Bachmann, West, and the others Stein mentioned doing the same thing, I will continue to raise questions about Perry's closeness to Norquist.
Ron Paul doesn't back or associate himself with any religious leader or group, other than to practice his own religious beliefs, divorced of politics or business. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a President to do otherwise. Everybody here needs to think about that. Only Ron Paul stands for the Constitution and a return to the Libertarian Republic the USA was founded as and intended to be. Only Ron Paul.
I'm trying to learn more about him. Just yesterday, addressed from the office of Ron Paul, I received a survey about the proposed UN "Small Arms Treaty" etc. I felt that it was timely, as well as a heads-up on what "riders" to be wary of, from our own legislature. Learning gets steep.
Sorry, no matter what topics we may diverge to, they all converge at the basic civil liberties and who will protect them. 1st and 2nd Amendments are the foundation of our way of life. It seems that the people after one, are also after the other!
Kadaffi's fiasco is a prime example. The only way to guarantee the 1st, is by exercising the 2nd! Even decent, well intentioned, men need to be reminded of this.
A top priority is to educate fellow non-Muslims about Islam, Islamization, jihad, and sharia. Obviously, whatever side one takes in this dispute, there can be no disagreement (among Islam critics) that Perry has endorsed an Islam-is-peace, Bush/Obama-style rose-coloured-glasses view of Islam and, worse, has endorsed this formally as the view of Islam to be presented to students in Texas. This kind of nonsense is lulling the West to sleep and must be countered.
Some basic questions remain unanswered, and some key pieces of information are lacking.
To read the course session outlines and descriptions online, enter "muslim histories and cultures project session" (without the quotation marks) into google. The session titles will come up, but you must click "cached" beside each title to access the descriptions.
Note: It seems that material about these Islam lessons has recently been removed from the saisd website, but you can still view at least some of the descriptions by clicking on "cache," as mentioned above.
From what I've been able to gather, Rick Perry naively signed on to an agreement with an Islamic advocacy group (the Aga Khan and his Ismaili Shia Islam sect) to permit a largely pro-Islam view of Islamic culture, doctrine, and history to be presented Texas students. From what I've seen of the descriptions of this teaching material thus far, it does have a pro-Islam bias. In that, it is not remarkable or unusual. It looks generally like most current presentations of Islam in schools and universities throughout the west.
I've not seen anything yet that suggests a "pro-Sharia" (i.e., pro-Islamic law) bias in the material.
I have detected a pro-sharia bias in the Aga Khan's constitution, and in reading between the lines of some of his statements (i.e., my interpretation, based on what he says and doesn't say), but the Aga Khan is obviously the rhetorically skilled and politically astute type who knows what to say and what not to say to the western media.
There are certainly some egregious Islam apologist writers on the reading lists, such as Saudi-funded propagandist John Esposito, and Carl Ernst, who received accolades for his work from the Iranian regime. This of course is not unusual; certainly Esposito for example is regarded as mainstream.
Regarding the lesson plan (by Ronald Wiltse) that Dave Stein cited in a previous article, it's not clear how many teachers are actually using that particular document, or how closely it would need to be followed by individual teachers, or whether it is even officially approved. Also, that's only for one lesson out of how many? The lesson plan is titled as "13a Islam: conflict without and within". The "13a" suggests that this lesson plan is only one out of numerous lesson plans on Islam. And it is not clear how this fits in with the "Session" format, which shows 9 sessions, plus some additional material.
Here is the "Summary outline" from the Wiltse lesson plan:
"[0. Introduction
I. Muslims often have negative feelings toward the West.
II. A history of conflicts between Islamic Civilization and Western Civilization
III. Muslims often have problems with each other.
IV. A history of conflicts within the Islamicate
V. Another story: Islam east of Islamic Civilization
VI. Mistakes Westerners have made in getting along with Islam
VII. Summary: Islam faces difficult challenges, both from without and within.
00. Conclusions]"
My pdf download of this document is 47 pages long. I searched the words dhimmi, dhimma, millet, devshirme, slave(ry), apostasy, and heretic and found no (zero) instances. Thus, we have a discussion of conflicts between Islam and the west and within Islam that doesn't deal with Islam's enslavement and subjugation (i.e., forcing under dhimma) of westerners, and doesn't deal with allegations of apostasy/heresy as a factor in internal conflicts in Islam.
I also searched the word imperial(ism), and this term is never used to refer to Islamic imperialism; it is always used to refer to Europeans/Westerners.
The word sharia appears several times, but the author does not describe what this entails other than that it is traditional Islamic law.
The only instance of the word jihad was in a footnote quoting the statement of another author (my bolding):
98 “It's obviously not for non-Muslims to decide what Islam means. Only the faithful can decide whether
Islam is a religion of peace or war (historically it has been both). Only the faithful can banish jihad as a
beloved weapon against infidels and unbelief. Only Muslims can decide how they balance legislation by men
and what the community -- or at least its legal guardians, the ulama -- has historically seen as divine
commandments.
Westerners can, however, ask probing questions and apply pressure when differing views threaten
us.” (Gerecht, “Speaking Truth to Muslim Power”)"
The Wiltse lesson plan is certainly not pro-Sharia. However, it does leave out some important information, as mentioned above, to say the least.
More problems from the Wiltse lesson plan defended by Stein (my emphasis):
"D. Southeast Asia
1. Between the 1200s and 1400s Islamic culture spread from India and
96 Lapidus, page 382.
97 Such a failure to meet new challenges is a mark of decline in all civilizations sooner or later.
Islam: conflict without and within 13a.36
the Arabian Peninsula to the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian
archipelago.
2. The medium was merchants and Sufis.
3. The method of leadership lay not in founding new leadership regimes
(as in India) but in converting existing native leaders.96 The retained local culture was of such a degree that the resulting Islamic culture would not be considered a part of Islamic Civilization."
As ex-Muslim M. A. Khan, of Islam-Watch, has shown in his book "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery", this spread of Islam also involved violent jihad. The idea that Islam was simply spread to those regions by "merchants and Sufis" is an apologist myth. Besides, Islam spreads mainly through immigration and relatively high fertility rates, with strict marriage rules, plus harsh penalties threatened for blasphemy and apostasy. I should add that both Malaysia and Indonesia, as Muslim majority countries and members of the OIC, have some extent of sharia in place today, and the trend is toward increasing sharia.
Next excerpt:
"VI. Mistakes Westerners have made in getting along with Islam.
A. Arrogance and lack of respect
1. Believing that Muslims come from an inferior culture.
B. Lack of knowledge
1. Belief that most Muslims are terrorists.
2. Too little understanding of Islamic beliefs.
C. Is insisting that Muslims meet certain standards valued by Westerners a mistake? If the initial answer is “no”, is the answer still “no” when women’s rights is specified as such a value?"
Next excerpt [my brackets]:
"To a conservative minority [of Muslims] the enemy is any
change to Islam, and their goal is the restoration of a successful past (an attitude seen in other cultures in world history), either an earlier form–traditional Islam–, or the earliest form–‘pure’ Islam. For a small part of this conservative minority violence against innocent targets (in Islamic countries or elsewhere) constitutes a means of moving toward pure Islam."
That's misleading at best. Polls and surveys show that the vast majority of Muslims want sharia, and a majority want a "strict application of sharia" and even want a caliphate to be set up. (See World Public Opinion, PEW, Gallup). Also, these studies show that Muslims want western values kept out of Muslim countries.