Libya: Sharia will be basis of legislation, all laws contradicting Islamic teaching will be nullified

It will be a toss up between the Trojans bringing that horse in, and this...

"Americans elected this dangerous Muslim-born U.S. president. He is furthering the most extreme interpretation of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa."

Well, wildjew,

Obama ran against McCain. McCain is notable for his support of Obama's actions in Libya, except he criticized Obama for not being more active in supporting the Libyan revolutionaries.

Do you really believe the Republican candidate would have been better?

Do I really believe McCain would have been better? I reluctantly voted for McCain, November 2008. McCain and our state's U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, are on the same page. Both support Obama's misguided Libyan policy. Like McCain, Rubio criticizes Obama for not being more aggressive. Would McCain have been better? Do you think McCain would have been as bad as Obama?

"Do you think McCain would have been as bad as Obama?"

I don't know. I think we need to stop looking at Presidents and focus on the Congress. I think that most people more or less understand the dangers of allowing in more Muslims and pretending that Islam is just another religion. That's why the Muslim organizations like CAIR are so focused on "Islamophobia". They're really losing the battle, and their only hope is to mobilize the elite political class, just like they have in England.

Fortunately, in the US, the power of the bureaucracy is really more or less under the Congress. In England, the privileged civil servants do pretty much as they please.

It's time to stop looking at the stratified air of the US Presidency, and encourage Congress to reassert its authority. Also, they should stop being so polite, and speak plainly.

Sorry for going on and on, but we need to reform our campaign finance laws to allow unlimited donations by any US citizen or corporation, as long as 1)the contribution is open and 2)it would be a felony to give any type reward or privilege in direct or indirect exchange for contributions. We need Congressmen who are not beholden to special interest groups, or to any type of public approval, other than the electorate.

I agree with your take, RolandB, on what has to happen to campaign finance laws, to wit, full disclosure, only American citizens (including corporations) allowed to contribute and any quid pro quo for contributions a felony, all as you wrote.

Respecting McCain versus Obama, I do not believe he would have been as abjectly deferential to the Islamic world as Obama has been, but he still would have acted in clueless fashion regularly where man's worst religion is concerned. But I have zero doubt he would have been far better fiscally speaking and also regarding executive orders putting more restrictions on business, as Obama has done prolifically. Judicial appointments would have also been much better than what Obama has given us and neither would McCain have crapped on Israel as Obama has again and again. McCain would have been somewhere between below average to average, thus being almost infinitely better than Obama, who has been an utter failure, if not a disaster.

I understand your frustration. It's not going to happen. Congress is not going to assert or re-assert its authority. We are supposed to have three co-equal branches of government but it's never been and it never will be. An American president is the closest thing we have to a king. That is why, in terms of national security and foreign policy, Spencer focuses so much attention on the candidates for U.S. president.

"The word "sharia" is no where to be found in the piece...."

That seems to be the case:

“We are an Islamic country,” Mr. Abdel-Jalil, the chairman of the Transitional National Council, said as the sun descended. “We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government. The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion.” He also promised that Islamic banks would be established in the new Libya."

Libya is an Islamic country based upon faith in God and so is America:

President Eisenhower once said: "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what that faith is."

Eisenhower was instrumental in the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 saying: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Eisenhower was also instrumental in the 1956 adoption of "In God We Trust" as the motto of the United States, and its 1957 introduction on paper currency.

The democratic goal of a wall between religion and politics seems impossible to achieve especially in America, probably the most Christian nation on earth.

So instead of a secular democracy America developed a Republic with a "civil religion":

“In the United States, “Tocqueville said, “religion … is mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism, whence it derives a peculiar force.” The mingling of religion and patriotism is evident in America's civil religion. Writing in the 1960s, Robert Bellah defined civil religion, “at its best” as a “genuine apprehension of universal and transcendent religious reality as seen in or, one could almost say, as revealed through the experience of the American people.”

Civil religion enables Americans to bring together their secular politics and their religious society, to marry God and country, so as to give religious sanctity to their patriotism and nationalist legitimacy to their religious beliefs, and thus to merge what could be conflicting loyalties into loyalty to a religiously endowed country.

America's civil religion provides a religious blessing to what Americans feel they have in common. It is perfectly compatible with each American belonging to his or her own denomination, believing in a Christian or non-Christian god, or being Deist, as were several of the Founding Fathers. It is not compatible, however, with being atheist, for it is a religion, invoking a transcendental Being apart from the terrestrial human world.

So don't expect that the new Libya should be less religious than America or able to achieve the secular goal of total seperation between politics and religion. It is easy to do on paper called a Constitution and an establishment clause. The problem is how to get it into the heads of people who strongly and truly believe in a transcendental Being, and base their political worldview on this belief.

Do you think that is what we will see in Lybia? A civil religion?

Gadafi was a socialist, and from what I have heard he rejected the Sunnah of Muhammad, which in the eyes of most Muslims made him a non-Muslim. That's primarily the reason why he was fought against.

You'll find only such things in America, only. Libya is a Muslim majority country with Political Islam written all over it. They are definitely not going to be secular. Yes, I mean DEFINITELY not.

"extreme interpretation" I don't know why we use these buzz words... In Islam there is no such thing as "extreme interpretation" "interpretations" of the Qur'an are not vastly different from each other. It's all secular development or ignorance that brings about one's degree of faith in Islam. Not interpretations.

Fortunately, Ole Hartling, America rooted its trust in the Christian religion (and implicitly its predecessor Judaism) as a guide for government, though not a control of government, and for all of society more directly. Put another way, the Founding Fathers of America, many of whom (though not all as sometimes asserted) were skeptics, wanted a secular government infused by Judeo-Christian ethical standards and a society guided more directly by the Christian faith.

The short and long of this all is that Christianity and Judaism work wonderfully well with democratic tenets but there's no way that Islam works well at all with these same tenets. Many Americans though, including great and shrewd ones like Dwight Eisenhower, have assumed, erroneously but understandably, that any major religion will due. Well, this just isn't the case.

Hinduism and Buddhism are OK, but their de-emphasis on the importance of the individual human being, because of multiple lives and collectivist thought, can pose obstacles to full democratic implementation, though these obstacles can indeed be overcome and both of these religions ultimately pose no threat to Western concepts of liberty. Judaism and Christianity, as I have often contended, are optimal respecting religious outlooks which go most effortlessly with democratic tenets. And Islam, putrid take on the human condition that it is---slaves of Allah and no criticism allowed of said religion and all such rot---will always remain a dagger pointed at the heart of what makes up democracy more than anything else---and that is liberty.

Who are you rallying? The reality of the situation needs to be addressed. We have a lot of debt, disunity, hatred, ignorance, and self-styled experts and no solid strategy of dealing with the revived institution of an Islamic State. Most people don't even know what it is, even among anti-jihad circles.

David Dowse,
I recall reading that sharia compliant banks, though they do not charge interest, end up charging it in various indirect ways -- because interest, within reason, is economically necessary and justified.

Interest takes the place of reciprocity. When economic life was simpler, for example, one farmer, when in need, would borrow farm stuff from a neighboring farmer not in need, and there was no interest, because there was an understanding that in the future, the farmer who had made the loan might be in need, and could count on reciprocity from the neighbor who had received a loan in the past. But as economic life evolved and became more complicated, those making loans were strangers to those receiving them, so future reciprocity could no longer be counted on in the same way, and consequently interest took the place of reciprocity of the older, informal sort.

I doubt it very much. History is already struggling to remember Islamic atrocities and genocides within living memory, which points to the revisionists and haters of civilisation doing a fine job.

Let's face it, democratic timidity trembling under the cloak of politeness is no match for a cancer that through the centuries has obliterated not just cultures, religions and people but also traces of their existence, whilst claiming to be the innocent victim.

My prediction stands, that this century will witness Sharia-legal public floggings in a Western nation, followed by Sharia-legal amputations and executions. That said, it really doesn't matter to Allah if I am out by a generation or two.

lilredbird, thanks for the tip, I didn't know the candidate to whom you refer had Walid Phares as advisor. Well, we'll see how long it lasts. That candidate is already taking flak for it.

Wildjew

Yeah, I believe McCain would have been as bad as Obama. So I don't blame the American public for rejecting him. With McCain, the recent record proved that he'd be a RINO, but follow all (D) policies.

The current Libyan civil war - he was one of those who urged Obama to intervene on behalf of the rebels, so why would anyone think that had he been president, the results would have been any different? In fact, on this democracy in the Middle East deal, the Republicans have been just as, if not more, clueless about what democracy means when Muslims are involved, and that's not just the RINOs, or anti-Semitic Republicans such as Pat Buchanan, Darryl Issa, John Sununu and so on. Part of the problem has been everybody completely swallowing Natan Sharansky's theories about democracy being an antidote to war, w/o factoring in the murderous implications it brings w/ it when it comes to Muslims. After all, Pakistan is a democracy, but tell that to its Christians, Kalash, Sikhs and Hindus.

So no, none of the Republicans I can see would have been better than Obama in this case. On Israel, a lot of them would have, but a number of them would also have been as blind to Pakistan's mischief as Bush was. So on this unravelling of Arab countries, neither would have been better. But I do hope Syria plunges into a full scale civil war, and not an ouster of Assad and his replacement by the Ikhwan.

"graduating from the department of Shari'a and Law in the Arabic Language and Islamic Studies faculty of University of Libya"

Wow! What impressive credentials! University of Libya - My, my! Swoon. Imagine the intellectual atmosphere from those feverish Islamic brains!

Afghan Knight: you are not quite right there. It was the countries buying the Libyan oil who paid for it.
Most oil countries have this in common, that they can afford to keep the citizens happy. All of the above mentioned by you is ultimately largely paid for by the West, wouldn't you say?

"Just the other day I heard a Republican senator, from Illinois I think it was, talking to Monica Crowley on the radio. The senator seemed to think that Libya, unlike Egypt, was not at that moment inclining toward sharia or the Muslim Brotherhood. Looks like that senator got it wrong."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Might it have been Mark Kirk?

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Sen. John McCain said Thursday during a trip to Libya to meet with the nation's new rulers that the Libyan people "have inspired the world."
"They have paid an enormous price for their freedom, but the sacrifice of the Libyan people has delivered their great nation to the shores of a new world full of new hope; a chance for all Libyans to know lasting peace, dignity and justice," he told reporters at a news conference.

McCain was joined by three other Republican senators in the highest-profile American delegation to visit the country since the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Qaddafi.

McCain, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida met with the head of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, and other high-ranking officials of the group that is now governing Libya after the rebels forced Qaddafi from power.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/29/us-senators-travel-to-libya-to-meet-with-post-qaddafi-leaders/#ixzz1bhSyCBJd

Poor pathetic Islamic world - contributed nothing but more Muslims and oil, a geographical accident.

Hey "Knight" - Everything you use and have was invented by the WEST! Why, the very computer and keyboard you're using to spew your abject ignorance! Ha-Ha!

That the fighters alluha akbarred back and forth across the desert was perfectly obvious, especially if you bothered with a bit of lip reading.

Those with a brain aren't shocked by any of this. Unfortunately, far too many of our politicians and media figures are politically correct poltroons who lie to us. Yes, Cameron, you've wasted £2 billion on your vanity project - that of toppling Gaddafi, all in aid of political capital and the pursuit of taking attention away from the disasters of your foot in bucket administration which looks more than a Carry On farce with every passing day. If they were still alive, I'd expect Sid James, Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey to appear somewhere in your administration. You haven't grown up. You're still an overgrown Etonian schoolboy buffoon, with your head stuck up your backside and your mind closed to reality. You've presided over soaring unemployment, soaring taxation, and given the Jihad the biggest uplift it has seen since 1453. And people are getting poorer in Britain on your watch. Your administration is robbing ordinary people hand over fist, and all you can do is lie your head off. And now the Jihad is on the march - first through the Middle East and North Africa, then elsewhere. You have aided and abetted our enemies. You have enabled an administration in Libya that will be amongst our greatest enemies within two or three years. You are tightening the noose around Israel's neck. History won't be kind to you, but above all, the future will look increasingly grim for us thanks to you.

Please stop this, if you want to debate make a point, don't whine and mock. If there is a statistic that you want to pull then do it. You are a disgrace to the early Muslims.

Yes, of course, Traeh - BUT I ASSURE YOU, and I have the documents to prove it- it WAS CALLED INTEREST!

The document I am looking at right now from SABB bank states: Principal...then...interest@ 6 1/2%.
__________________________________________

I would not make this up...

So what is your bloody point, huh?

That Moammar should have lived?

Just Fu**ing make your point!

I doubt it very much. History is already struggling to remember Islamic atrocities and genocides within living memory, which points to the revisionists and haters of civilisation doing a fine job.

More like forgetting within a week, let alone in living memory. If atrocities are carried out against Israeli Jews by hate filled Muslim Arabs, they're never described as atrocities.