Yep. He worked with the Aga Khan Foundation on curriculum on Muslim history for Texas public schools.  You can read the curriculum at the link below.

What is the Muslim Histories and Culture Project (MHCP)?

The Muslim Histories and Cultures Project was born out of discussions between His Highness The Aga Khan and Texas Governor Rick Perry during the Summer 2002, when The Aga Khan was in Houston for the dedication of a new Ismaili Center. Both His Highness and Governor Perry agreed on the need for Texans to have a greater understanding of Islamic culture...The purpose is two-fold 1) to fulfill Governor Rick Perry's desire to better educate Texas teachers on Muslim topics and 2) to train teachers to use a cultural lens approach to understanding other cultures. Governor Perry was instrumental in getting this program off the ground.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/here-is-aga-khan-perry-curriculum-scrubbed-from-web-cached-scrubbed-from-google-today.html

I think it's a mistake to dismiss Rick Perry's closeness to creeping sharia.  Not that he wants sharia in any way, but perhaps he unknowlingly supported it, as many people do when they think it is benign.   

 Mollie,

I'm discouraged that you're equivocating sharia with dominionism.  Do you know much about Islam or sharia?  Since 99% of Christians have no clue what dominionism is (i.e. since it's not a real Christian thing) it is not to be compared to mainstream Islam, which includes sharia.  Please don't equivocate when you don't know what sharia is. 

Do you all think fear about Perry's action and other public displays of Christianity are due to the increasing Biblical illiteracy among American Christians and Jews?  I'm asking because I have always considered myself a Christian, but it is only now in my 30s that I'm actually reading and studying the full text of the Bible.  And it is only now that I realize (because I've heard them speak) that fundamentalist or evangelical Christians are the biggest Israel and Jew supporters around.  I would be a barbarian if it weren't for Jews, and Western civilization would not exist.  And Christians believe God said, "I will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews."  

The other phrase I NEVER heard until a few years ago is "Judeo-Christian values."  Do you notice how the mainstream press never utters that phrase?  And yet those are the basis for the founding of this country.  We are going to lose this country if we do not come together, as Jews and Christians, to stand for these principles.  Do not let the Left divide us against each other.

Here's an example of Shariah coming to America because we're dependent on Persian Gulf states to finance our real estate development projects:  http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/06/23/who-needs-liquor-laws-when-youve-got-qatar/

This project in downtown DC is going forward despite the recession because Qatar's real estate arm stepped in as primary owner of the project.  The project is now Shariah compliant, so no bars allowed in this enormous development in the heart of happy hour land.

This isn't a new law on the books of DC, but the city government and the co-investors are abiding by Shariah (which is a legal and moral code; no distinction between civil laws and moral laws; they are one and the same).

Unbelievable.  Barry Rubin posted at Pajamas Media the other day, "Never Forget the Power of Mass Media to Distort Reality."  Steve Jobs and his employees have consumed this media.  Didn't citizens of the former Soviet Union describe the utter frustration and/or disorientation of living in a world where up is down and down is up; I'm starting to have an appreciation for that feeling.

I didn't say gay marriage will not affect anyone else.  It will affect social norms on the whole.  I agreed it won't encourage more people to be gay.  If marriage exists primarily to encourage commited, sexual partnership between two adults, then this debate is unnecessary.  I think you are missing that marriage is a social institution and, as such, it is an IDEA. What does that idea mean?  I realized I couldn't have it both ways.  I couldn't say that what's best for children is a mom and dad, and also say that gay couples are the same as straight couples for rasing children.  With gay mariage the law would no longer say that one-man-one-woman is special and preferrable for raising children. Is that what you want the law to say? 

Tommy, these are not the arguments against gay marriage.  Accepting its quality? No. A gay couple can have a better quality relationship than a hetero couple with a marriage liscence.  Marriage being one-man-one-woman doesn't imply that gay couples don't have quality. 

Gay marriage encouraging more people become homosexual?  People might be more likely to experiment, but that's not the argument I am making at all.

Gay marriage devaluing marriage?  No. Not devaluing.  Redefining.  Becoming something different than it has been.  It will still be valuable for people to partner.

By "insult" I meant impuning others' motives with statements like: "what's good for thee is not for me," "social engineering," being against equal rights, etc.  Maybe "insult" is not accurate. Oh, and "totalitarian" were the regimes who sought to undermine and redefine the family.

This is a situation of goods in conflict.  On the one hand, it is good to encourage life-long, committed gay unions and for gay people feel that their unions are public goods.  On the other hand, we want to encourage men and women to confine sex and childbearing to marriage, so that the children born are ensured a mom and a dad.  If marriage is not about giving kids a mom and a dad, then our social institution for encouraging that idea is gone. 

Tommy, you still have failed to say what you think marriage is and why it exists in the first place.  Well, maybe your answer is: two people who love eachother.  That's not the public purpose.  The purpose is to protect women and children, and ensure a father for children.  You have a lot of nerve insulting me and others who think marriage is between a man and a woman.  You are the one saying, "marriage for me and not for thee."  Because you already have a strong, loving marriage and you seem to be an excellent husband.  Now that you have benefited from a strong marriage culture growing up, you are want to experiment with a social institution for future generations. 

I'm not talking about groupthink; I'm talking about scriptures.  

There are single teachings in Christianity and Christians will tell you what they are.  It seems that your approach is to misdirect and say Islam doesn't mean anything in particular, and that non-Muslims can't know what it is.  I'm not buying.  Nice try, though.  

If there is no definition of marriage, then how could I change it? (to make a change, marriage must currently mean something).  And if there is no definition of marriage, then why are two gay people not currently granted a marriage liscence?  And wouldn't social engineers be the people who want to transform the meaning of a social institution, not those who want to maintain an institution common to every known human society?   

The definition is what we are talking about here.  Should we redefine marriage in the law, or not?  We're talking about what marriage means.  How do we as a sociey define marriage.

Tommy, do you see a state interest in children being known, loved, and raised by their own two parents?

The government doesn't stop any individuals from marrying.  It defines the institution of marriage: one man-one woman for a public purpose.  So the only combination of people recognized is any one man plus any one woman.  I'm not saying that should satisfy gay people; because of course it's not really a choice to marry the opposite sex if you are gay.  I'm saying marriage's strength as a social institution comes from civil society, and government recognizes the social institution in law.  For a minority of people to change the law in order to change the meaning of marriage for the entire country is an example of using the heavy hand of government to redefine a fundamental social institution. Marriage has weakened so much in our culture that we we don't even agree on what it is or why it exists in the first place.