Robert Spencer Asks, "Why Are You Guys Mad At Me and Pamela? We're Only Asking Questions About Rick Perry

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have gone on a unrelenting crusade against Rick Perry the past week or so, going so far as to call him, in a headline, "the Stealth Jihad Candidate".

Today Spencer writes:

I've never seen anything like this: friends have broken with me, I've been attacked on hitherto friendly websites, I've gotten calls from people I haven't heard from in years, telling me to lay off Perry, and more -- all because I dared to raise some concerns about Rick Perry.

In my estimation, calling him "the Stealth Jihad Candidate" is going much further than "raising concerns". Given the opinions of those of us in the know about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia, it is clear that such a characterization is meant to be a death blow against Rick Perry.


I have been trying all week to figure out why Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer would have the hubris, the arrogance, to attempt to destroy a leading Republican Presidential Candidate - and in my opinion, the only truly marketable one we've got.

I can find no palatable explanation at this point.

I must say, however, I do agree with this comment from AJAT, (from Jihad Watch):

Robert:
Listen, I am afraid it is simply wrong to characterise the manner in which you and Pamela have behaved towards Perry as simply 'asking questions'. You have both engaged in a smear campaign against Perry (with sensationalist headlines such as the 'stealth jihad candidate' and a fifth columnist), using the same tactics you rightly decry when employed against you. You are both playing a game of 'Gotcha!' and I think most conservatives would appreciate it if you stopped acting as though you were Perry's prosecutor.
In any case, this is my response to Pamela's article:
---
To begin with, you claim you 'never suggested' that Perry and Aga Khan have an Islamization agenda to promote via 'taqiyya'. In your original article, you wrote:
'including a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools and taqiyya nonsense about how Islam is a religion of peace.'
As for that curriculum you highlight, the abstracts of content you draw attention to don't vindicate your case. It is not telling students that the Qur'an entails 'beauty and perfection' as the literal word of God, but only that Muslims think this is so, and the curriculum is not saying that it's bigoted to think otherwise. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the fact that the development of Islam in the 8th to 11th centuries was due to borrowings and plagiarisms from other religious traditions in the region (e.g. the 5 prayers a day was taken from Zoroastrianism). I don't see why you object to that point in the curriculum. Finally, with regards to Western colonialism, it is true that the European legal systems were instated- the curriculum is not necessarily condemning that; and it is also correct that the local Muslim populations often tried to make clear rejection of European modernity by applying Shari'a to themselves more vigorously. And nowhere does it say that the Europeans deserve to be blamed for this development. I could go on, but you get the picture.
But even then, I am only relying on the evidence given by your one of your readers. It turns out that her reader's own information is flawed. David Stein at http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945 completely refutes the myth that Perry is working to promote a pro-Shari'a curriculum.
Likewise, your reasoning on the al-Habib bank wildly stretches the facts. For example, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and the Aga Khan are not one and the same, and even so the former is only a part-owner of that bank, not necessarily the main one. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is of course abundant evidence that al-Qaeda had Daniel Pearl murdered, but there is nothing to show that the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development has given money to Al-Qaeda (and why would the fund do such a thing? al-Qaeda and affiliated groups regularly target Shi'a in Pakistan for terrorist attacks). As you note, the lawsuit against the bank was dropped, but clearly not on grounds of practicality (which was probably the issue concerning why the lawsuit was also dropped against al-Qaeda).
But what conclusion do you draw from all this? You state that the Aga Khan is the owner of an alleged al-Qaeda bank. Quite a stretch, I am sure you would agree.
As for the ties with Syria, all those agreements and activity date from between 2003 and 2008. In any case, it was merely based on a false hope- held also by Western governments- that Bashar al-Assad would reform. The Aga Khan was of course wrong on that and should have realised it from the beginning- one can only presume this is why the agreements and business activity stopped after 2008. Finally, this alleged tie with Moustapha Sharba is only on Mark Mitchell's word (no sources given etc.). Surely Western governments would have long been aware of this and onto the Aga Khan Development Network if it had been the case?
The interview with Der Spiegel: like you, I disagree with many things he says, but he did not call for laws to ban publication of the cartoons, and as for the remark on Hamas, it was again based on a hope that Hamas would change their views and platform. Again, he was wrong on that, and should have recognised it from the beginning, but Haim Saban- an entrepreneur who created the Power Rangers franchise and has given millions in support of Israel- also said that there should be negotiations with Hamas, in the hope they might moderate. Like the Aga Khan, he was always wrong, but it doesn't show he is sinister- just naive.
As for the Norquist connections, they are hardly worth worrying about: the issue is solely taxation; and it's a platform essential for winning votes.
Finally, you have missed the point about the Jewish Division connection, on which you are also being dishonest. Roberta Moore (thanks for the correction on her name- sincerely) did not merely make one inquiry into aligning with the JTF. As the EDL itself notes:
http://englishdefenceleague.org/the-english-defence-league-standing-firm/

''The decision made by individuals within the EDL Jewish Division to ally themselves with the JTF (Jewish Task Force), an organisation whose leader, Victor Vancier, was imprisoned on terrorism charges, was made without the authority of the EDL Leadership, and we have ensured that all ties have been severed with that organisation. Israel itself has proscribed the JTF as a terrorist organisation, and Vancier has been recorded making incredibly offensive and inflammatory statements about black people, Christians, and homosexuals. This could hardly be further from the objectives and beliefs of the English Defence League, and it is hugely disappointing that in the fallout of this sorry episode a small number of Jewish Division members saw fit to make personal attacks on members of the EDL Support Group for criticising their decision to align themselves with known extremists.''
It's actually obvious that this was the reason Moore fell out with the EDL leadership. She and her followers in the Jewish division were smearing as 'Nazis' anyone in the EDL who objected to the alliance with JTF. I also have the testimony of one of the editorial board members for official statements by the EDL to confirm that this is so.
The Jewish division- after Moore left- also denigrated the victims of the Norway massacre as 'scum' (http://www.edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/jewish-div-endorse-norway-attacks). Do you condemn that? The whole point of this affair is that you cannot go around smearing Rick Perry and tying him to Islamism with wild stretches of the facts unless you want to vet yourself for supporting the Moore and the (ex-EDL) Jewish division (and one could name numerous other connections, such as your endorsement of Vlaams Belang as the 'Jewish party', whose sole concern is to glorify Flemish Waffen-SS veterans, not to support Israel as you have repeatedly claimed). In short, please stop having double standards.
Someone who calls Obama a 'Mohammedan president' and Goldberg a 'Jewicidal Jihadi' cannot be taken seriously. As for Robert Spencer's forums, I never insinuated- contrary to your claims- that he is a neo-Nazi or fascist solely because there have been commentators on Jihad Watch threads who have declared support for the BNP. Otherwise, why would I have made it clear in that same article that he unequivocally repudiated the BNP?
---
Now back to you Robert. On further investigation of this matter, it turns out that the source for the Aga Khan-Rick Perry connection was a reporter at Salon. He predicted, on the basis of what he reported, that someone would soon start attacking Perry on these grounds and stir up a storm. You and Pamela fell right for the bait. If you wish to heal the rifts created, i suggest you put up a formal apology to Perry for your nasty insinuations about him.