• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Ominous new development in Libya?

You seem to be under a misapprehension as to what "sharia law" means. There is not some set-in-stone single definition of what it means. The various countries that claim to have "sharia law" all have different legal, legislative and justice processes. Of course some have in my opinion terrible systems but that holds for many countries.

As Lukraak_Sisser said we'll have to see what the actual systems of law and justice end up looking like before we will be able to say (for instance) their justice system is biased against women.

Also this is not news, the NTC stated all along that this was their intention.
I was about to say something similar. Ive read up a little bit about the sharia law principles and it's really not something I'd endorse personally but Iran's and the Taliban's implementation was downright ridiculous. It's a wait and see game at the moment, I'm not ready to "celebrate" anything yet until I see more of what's happening with that region's politics.
 
WildCat,

Yes, we should see how they define their words, but isn't that the positive thing? As the OpenDemocracy article says, the term 'Islamic law' is fairly open to interpretation and offers no specifics about what parts of Islamic law should certain policies be drawn from.

As we all know from the American experience, the words written in a constitution do not deny excessive interpretation.

We shall have to see the assembly of the Libyan Parliament come next year. Islamists will surely stand, but they would have to get a majority to severely damage prospects for a modernised Libya. As there will undeniably be secular parties who will win a fair share of the vote, the Islamist parties will undeniably have to compromise.

Isn't democracy a wonderful thing?
 
Sharia = ominous
Islamic = ominous
Countries wanting to define themselves by their religion - ominous (unless its the non muslim countries of course)
 
It's a bit early to see what version of Islamic Law survives the next few years of growing pains in Libya.

Take a look at who is doing well in Tunisia, if you are interested in seeing a little political opportunism in action, then look at a slightly different state of play in Egypt, another "beneficiary" of the Arab Spring.

They are all a work in progress.

"The West" wanted change. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have it.

Enjoy.

Change has indeed arrived.
 
It should be noted that most Arab countries have similar clauses in their constitutions. It's nothing to freak out about. Yet.
 
Point well taken about the many meanings of Sharia. And personally, I'm not totally opposed even if a nation takes the hardcore version. It's not really our right to say yes or no.

But hardly anyone of us will likely be happy with this spooky Halloween treat. How about the flag of al Qaeda in Iraq being flown surreptitiously above the flag of new Libya, over the NTC headquarters-cum-capitol building in Benghazi?
Via Libya S.O.S., a video and a story from Vice.com. Excerpts:
... [A]ccording to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.
[...]
According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, "Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West," a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

Earlier this week, I went to the Benghazi courthouse and confirmed the rumors: an al Qaeda flag was clearly visible; its Arabic script declaring that “there is no God but Allah” and a full moon underneath. When I tried to take pictures, a Salafi-looking guard, wearing a green camouflage outfit, rushed towards me and demanded to know what I was doing. My response was straightforward: I was taking a picture of the flag. He gave me an intimidating look and hissed, "Whomever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off his tongue. I recommend that you don't publish these. You will bring trouble to yourself.”

He followed me inside the courthouse, but luckily my driver Khaled was close by, and interceded on my behalf. According to Khaled, the guard had angrily threatened to harm me. When I again engaged him in conversation, he told me "this flag is the true flag of Islam," and was unresponsive when I argued with him that historically Islam has never been represented by a single flag. The guard claimed repeatedly that there is no al Qaeda in Libya, and that the flag flying atop the courthouse is “dark black,” while the al Qaeda flag is charcoal black.

De-bunks or anything?

The final part about the special pay only for the aQ-linked Belhaj brigade in Tripoli is also interesting. NTC-approved structural inducements to steer their fighters towards these elements within their armed forces?
 
The flag might be an aberration, a holdover from a rally by Ilsamists in Benghazi last week. Tying in with the recent flap over Mr. Jalil'snod to Sharia polygamy and greater modesty and subservience among women, the NYT talks about it and shows those rallying with the same flag (dark black or charcoal black?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/w...ring-polygamy-stirs-anger.html?_r=2&ref=world
TRIPOLI, Libya — It was just a passing reference to marriage in a leader’s soberly delivered speech, but all week it has unsettled women here as well as allies abroad.

In announcing the success of the Libyan revolution and calling for a new, more pious nation, the head of the interim government, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, also seemed to clear the way for unrestricted polygamy in a Muslim country where it has been limited and rare for decades.

It looked like a sizable step backward for women at a moment when much here — institutions, laws, social relations — is still in play after the end of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s 42 years of authoritarian rule.

In his speech, Mr. Abdel-Jalil declared that a Qaddafi-era law that placed restrictions on multiple marriages, which is a tenet of Islamic law, or Shariah, would be done away with. The law, which stated that a first wife had to give permission before others were added, for instance, had kept polygamy rare here.

“This law is contrary to Shariah and must be stopped,” Mr. Abdel-Jalil told the crowd, vowing that the new government would adhere more faithfully to Shariah. The next day he reiterated the point to reporters at a news conference: “Shariah allows polygamy,” he said. Mr. Abdel-Jalil is known for his piety.

He also remarked cryptically, “We will not abolish any law.”
No mention of the flags, they're just shown.
 
In a sort of odd development that's making front-page news in the Birmingham newspaper, it turns out that Libya's National Transitional Council has elected as Prime Minister Dr. Abdurrahim el-Keib, a dual US/Libyan citizen who is (or was, anyway) a tenured professor at the University of Alabama and taught electrical engineering there for twenty years.

Dr. el-Keib helped found the Islamic Center in Tuscaloosa (where UA is located), and after 9/11 would speak at Alabama churches along with other members of Alabama's Muslim community.

One of the comments on that article amused me greatly: "Congratulations and best of luck Dr. el-Keib and of course, Roll Tide!" So this still probably counts as an "ominous development" to Auburn fans.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit early to see what version of Islamic Law survives the next few years of growing pains in Libya.

Take a look at who is doing well in Tunisia, if you are interested in seeing a little political opportunism in action, then look at a slightly different state of play in Egypt, another "beneficiary" of the Arab Spring.

They are all a work in progress.

"The West" wanted change. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have it.

Enjoy.

Change has indeed arrived.

Maybe we should been so eager to crush arab nationalism which in great part secular during the Cold War or support leaders which were unpopular in their own nations. Well, now we pay the consequences.
 
Maybe we should been so eager to crush arab nationalism which in great part secular during the Cold War or support leaders which were unpopular in their own nations. Well, now we pay the consequences.
No use kicking ourselves for 'playing the game' - ie having one's own interests dictate our foreign policies. Everyone that can do it usually does. Sometimes it bites us in the rump - the Shah is a good example, other times supporting a popular leader doesn't really mean squat, see USSR & Nasser. My point? No need for scapegoats here. The current/future makeup of Arabic countries regarding their religious/ideological leanings is not really something we could have necessarily changed by doing something different in the past.
 
No use kicking ourselves for 'playing the game' - ie having one's own interests dictate our foreign policies. Everyone that can do it usually does. Sometimes it bites us in the rump - the Shah is a good example, other times supporting a popular leader doesn't really mean squat, see USSR & Nasser. My point? No need for scapegoats here. The current/future makeup of Arabic countries regarding their religious/ideological leanings is not really something we could have necessarily changed by doing something different in the past.

It´s not using a scapegoat, but it´s manning up and assuming we kinda dropped the ball on the matter.
 
It´s not using a scapegoat, but it´s manning up and assuming we kinda dropped the ball on the matter.
I knew what you meant, whether you want to call it "dropping the ball" or define it the way I do, it's basically the same thing - the presumption that things could have ended up differently if 'we' did things differently. My point is that this isn't always the case, and in the context of Libya, supporting the rebels doesn't guarantee a palatable government for those who intervened. Conversely not supporting the rebels wouldn't guarantee a more pliable Gaddafi. Taking this a step further, is no military intervention in places like Syria or Bahrain where there has been similar protests "dropping the ball?" Maybe. Those people could carry a grudge regarding what they perceive as 'selective' intervention. Then again, maybe the same uncertainty would exist there if we intervened as we see in Libya and other countries that jumped on the 'Arab Spring' bandwagon now. See what I'm saying?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom