Libyan leader seeks to calm West on Sharia fears

[Turborama]

Source: AP

Updated 05:36 p.m., Monday, October 24, 2011

TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — After giving a speech that emphasized the Islamization of Libya, the head of the transitional government on Monday tried to reassure the Western powers who helped topple Moammar Gadhafi that the country's new leaders are moderate Muslims.

Just as in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, Islamists have emerged from yet another Arab Spring uprising as the most powerful group in the country. How far they will go will be decided at the ballot box — in Tunisia this week, in Egypt in November and in Libya within eight months.

National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil said Sunday that Islamic Sharia law would be the main source of legislation, that laws contradicting its tenets would be nullified, and that polygamy would be legalized.

"I would like to assure the international community that we as Libyans are moderate Muslims," said Abdul-Jalil, who added that he was dismayed by the focus abroad on his comments Sunday on polygamy. A State Department spokeswoman said the U.S. was encouraged that he had clarified his earlier statement.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Libya-leader-orders-investigation-of-Gadhafi-death-2233622.php

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Moderate polygamy: only three wives?

I'm glad it won't be the theocratic kind of sharia law, n'shallah.

[daleo]

2. I thought they were allowing 4 wives

It's their version of moderation in male-female relationships. NATO taxpayers, including female taxpayers, helped pay for this.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[psychopomp]

62. Suck on it

This Is Africa. I don't see what's wrong with a different cultural interpretation of marriage.

[tabatha]

11. Apparently, that was allowed under Gaddafi

and very few Libyans followed it.

The reason for doing this is that so many men have been killed that the ratio of women to men is very high.

[harmonicon]

13. Do you think being stupid hurts?

How many pain killers do you have in your house? One of my teeth is hurting me now, but I don't have any pain killers. How about you?

[tabatha]

17. Explain. I am too stupid to understand what you are saying.

By the way, everything I stated was derived from statements from Libyans.

[No Elephants]

39. Any reason to accept their statements at face value, then state them as fact?

That was the same reason Brigham Young gave for plural marriage originally--not enough men for the surviving women.

No one gave up plural marriage (or some of the abuses that seem to accompany it), though until states started prosecuting for bigamy.

I am not saying anything about plural marriage or the Muslim religion. I am just saying I know of no reason to accept statements of people I know nothing about at face value.

Especially when they are saying something to try to overcome objections from people they'll probably want to back them in one way or another. They may not need our money, but there are many other things the West can provide.

[Fool Count]

49. Yeah, "statements from Libyans", that world-renown source of truth.

[Amonester]

21. Projecting, much? n t

[harmonicon]

22. My tooth REALLY hurts a lot. nt.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pbrower2a]

18. Qaddafi was a heretic and a criminal

The late dictator practiced a heretical form of Islam that denied anything not in the Quran.

Look -- Libya is a Muslim country and we shouldn't expect it to suddenly allow drunken orgies and nude beaches, let alone drunken orgies at nude beaches.

[rpannier]

3. Clarified How Exactly?

He didn't call the US the Great Satan?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amonester]

5. Saudi Arabia imposes a very radical version of sharia law...

Egypt, a less radical one. Tunisia, even less, as does Libya.

The Saudis are some of the most radical ones... and we don't 'fear' Saudi Arabia.

Why would we suddenly have to 'fear' moderate sharia law countries more than the Saudi's version?

Doesn't make any sense.

[Turborama]

6. Citing an article from the Moonie Times

Need I say more?

[Amonester]

8. Yep. FeaRmongeRing and ThieveRy is their moto. n t

[TheWraith]

7. Bing!

Unfortunately many people are too ignorant to realize that "Sharia law" is to "theocracy" as "English common law" is to "police state." One may be a basis for the other, but it's not automatic, and assuming it is is frankly ignorant and insulting to the intelligence of the Libyans.

[Amonester]

9. Tunisians, Libyans, and to a certain extent, Egyptians...

(since Egypt's ones are already developped to a certain extent) have to focus their national efforts on developping very friendly and welcoming infrastructures for both western and Islamic tourism.

Tunisia and Libya have some of the best climate around, and especially in Libya (not to mention their historic architectures and arts), because once all the oil will be gone in more CO2.... (estimates are at 20-25 years left of reserves there), they will have some alternatives.

I forgot to mention, also most Emirates have a more radical interpretation of sharia law than Tunisia and Libya.

[dkf]

25. Did Afghanistan have such a severe version of Sharia law before the Taliban?

What does it matter what the history is? The question is how those in charge are interpreting it.

[Amonester]

Those in charge will interpret it moderately in both Tunisia and Libya.

It's in their culture.

If they don't, and start looking for troubles, do you really think the U.N. and NATO will let them get away with it?

[dkf]

28. So what happened in Afghanistan?

[Amonester]

30. You do know 'where' Afghanistan is located on a map, I presume.

Next to Pakistan... and Iran...

Very different surroundings.

And last I checked, taliban don't (really) rule there anymore... (for how long, I don't know...)

[dkf]

31. Yeah no Taliban in Afghanistan...whatever.

[Amonester]

34. Where did I say "no Taliban in Afghanistan" up there?

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

36. So they are to determine their own fate..

Unless of course they choose a fate that the UN and NATO disapprove of?

:crazy:

[Amonester]

44. You mean, the U.N. and NATO (and the EU) disapprove terrorism?

Including state-sponsored terrorism? :eyes:

Because, this is all the non-explicitely expressed 'concerns' are about in these never-ending complaints.

Do you really think such 'violent activism' would not 'trigger' any 'diplomatic' reactions from the above mentionned entities???

(Diplomatic, at first...)

Do you really believe the 'new' Libyan (and Tunisian) soon-to-be elected politicians do not already KNOW 'that' fact?

If you do... there's nothing more to say... :nopity:

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Sharia law is, by definition, theocracy; English Common Law is a rational and secular tradition

This is ridiculous.

For all its faults, Christianity has a built-in precept of secularism as one renders unto Caesar. Islam has no such concept.

All religions are not equivalent; some are much nastier than others.

[joshcryer]

55. "All religions are not equivalent; some are much nastier than others."

And it all becomes clear, in one instant.

[Turborama]

63. I had a zero tolerance purge using Ignore when 'Pastor' Jones was going to burn the Quran

Judging by what you've quoted I'm glad all I can see is a large amount of "Ignored" in the reply trees and none of their replies when I scroll down.

I only put people on Ignore for blatant bigotry, and once on they never come off.


Is there going to be a 3rd "Wrapup"? :hi:

[harmonicon]

14. You don't fear Saudi Arabia?

I do, and I think 99.9999% of fear of terrorism is bullshit. The fact remains that Saudis financed and carried out the largest terrorist attack in world history. I didn't think it was something worth tanking our entire country over, but I did think it was pretty fucking scary.

[Amonester]

15. One question, if you don't mind, do you think launching tomahawk

missiles over Islamist people's heads for one percenters to get their oil is not f*cking scary too for the Islamist people living there? (Not talking about Saudis here, and those you are f*cking scared of are not representative of the majority of all the peoples there, BTW, since they were 'financed' by the CIA at the beginning of 1980).

[harmonicon]

23. I'm certain that it's terrifying.

I don't see what that has to do with my statement though.

[DCBob]

19. You think the Saudi government financed the 9/11 attacks??

please go here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[harmonicon]

24. Cute.

Who carried out those attacks? Is admitting someone's nationality now enter the world of conspiracy theory?

[DCBob]

26. You fear all Saudi Arabians??

Yeah, those "Arabs" are all alike.

[harmonicon]

27. Nope, just the country.

I'm not so into royals... or theocracies... or institutionalized misogyny, but that's just me.

America scares the shit out of me too, but I'm not jumpy when I look in the mirror.

[DCBob]

29. You do reallize OBL hated Saudi Arabia for being too "western" and pro US..

and that is what fueled the AQ movement and resulted in 9/11. So, seems you should actually "fear" any US involvement in Islamic countries.

[harmonicon]

32. I don't fear imperialism because it's such a known quantity.

I don't like it. I don't like the imperialist overthrow of the government of Libya, for instance, but it's old hat - we've been doing that shit for over 100 years now.

I think you're really taking a very limited view of what causes terrorism if you think there was/has been a "movement" called al qaeda. The US government did fund and train Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80's (because of imperialism) and is therefore also responsible for him. Instead of creating a boogeyman, perhaps we could hold individuals accountable for their actions and treat terrorism as a threat. If we do that, we see that a number of the foreign terrorists who have attacked in the US were Saudis financed by Saudis.

[DCBob]

33. You seem determined to put the blame for terrorism on the Saudi nation..

because some its citizens financed terrorism. We have lots of crazies here but it not fair to blame the government or America in general. I dont like Saudi's repressive form of Shari law either but much of the blame for the internal anger is more for not being strict enough and allowing too much western influences. I think its tremendously difficult to govern a nation like Saudi Arabia... its a boiling pot of extremism and a potential powder keg that could explode the whole region. That is the real fear.

[harmonicon]

35. Can we really equate monarchy with "government"?

I think that's the larger corollary to what I'm talking about on a smaller scale. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a government as such, but individuals who dictate what the rules are. Don't you think that Saudi Arabia may be this "boiling pot of extremism" because it's ruled by extremists and our government has made a pact to finance them in return for economic and other favours? Wahabis have power in Saudi Arabia because they ARE IN power there.

[DCBob]

40. In that part of the world that seems to be norm..

I am sure that is part of the problem but what can we do about it? We are friendly to SA because they have oil.. they are friendly to us because we are good customer and help them with security. Things are relatively stable and both sides get what they want. Why stir the pot?

[harmonicon]

42. What can we do about it?! We caused it. We made it.

The west made these countries. If you hadn't paid attention to the topic of this thread, when the US and powerful European countries don't like how an Arabic country is acting, we bomb the shit out of them. When it comes to who is in charge in both places, there is no "both sides", but just the super elite, and they do certainly get what they want. How giving a radical right-wing family which finances Wahabism the tools of the world's most advanced military isn't stirring the pot, I don't know what is.

[DCBob]

48. thats a very simplistic view of the situation.

clearly its much more complicated than that.

[Fumesucker]

37. I fear them because they are part owners of Fox News..

Which basically makes Fox News a propaganda arm of the House of Saud.

[DCBob]

16. +1

For some reason many DUers are desperate to label the liberation of Libya as a complete disaster no matter what happens.

[Amonester]

20. Yep. I guess that maybe, and I emphasize....

maybe they would 'call' for the one percenter$' western ground forces to just go there invade them all, to make sure (ah-um) their inner scared feelings of a complete disaster will never happen (ah-um)... evah.

[JCMach1]

10. Says the fanatic with the prayer callous on his forehead...

[Fumesucker]

38. Ouch.. That one is going to leave a mark..

Leave it to someone familiar with the region and culture to notice that little detail..

Thanks..

:hi:

[joshcryer]

50. That "little detail" has been almost universially posted on islamaphobic sites.

It's only a "little detail" in how you chose to interpret it.

Guy prays a lot, does that makes him a fundamentalist militant authoritarian islamist, or merely pious?

[riderinthestorm]

52. JCMach is a Muslim living in an Arab state if I recall correctly.

I think I'm going to take his "inside" view over yours thanks. He's definitely NOT Islamophobic and he's definitely worried about post Gaddafi Libya's initial statements and leaders. Trying to paint anyone who is concerned as some kind of anti-Muslim bigot is extremely tiresome and shuts down debate on a DISCUSSION board.

[joshcryer]

54. That wouldn't preclude him from making unjustified judgements based on visual cues alone.

I personally have not seen any progressive sites pick out a visual characteristic of Jalil and make something of it, but it's http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/more-evidence-us-nato-handing-libya-to-islamists-like-mustafa-abdel-jalil-3959">quite common on right wing islamaphobic sites.

It's has nothing to do with "painting anyone who is concerned" as an "anti-Muslim bigot." It's merely my personal experience with people who make such mundane observations and cannot follow it up with anything substantial. The guy prays a lot, that does not make him a fanatic by any means.

[JCMach1]

57. So, if a Cardinal is wearing a Priest's robe, you don't assume he supports the Pope's positions?

And yes bishops and cardinals do go against some of the church's positions.

However, visual cues do tell us things...

It isn't just interpretation. Jahlil is extreme in his religious practices. It is written on his face. Match that to what he is saying and there definitely is cause for concern.

[riderinthestorm]

61. JCMach's "personal experience" is a whole lot closer to these guys

then your experiences with some "people". JCMach is actually living and working amongst Muslims and attends religious services in the UAE (and presumably elsewhere when he's on the road). And as many of us have pointed out, it's Jahlil's own "substantial" words and history (combined with the obvious signs of batshit crazy religiosity) that make the case for concern.

You can attempt to smear with taunts of "right wing Islamophobia" but that's demonstrably wrong and would appear to indicate more about a willful blindness to a realistic perspective on Libya. I know you've been incredibly involved in keeping DU abreast of the events. I salute your efforts and have a great deal of respect for your work. I would urge you to be very careful tho in staying objective on Libya'saftermath. It does no one any good to suddenly turn into a partisan cheerleader imho, by charging moderate DU Muslims as "anti Muslim bigots" when they point out obvious conclusions based on FACTS. I don't like it. Can't speak for everyone of course.

[JCMach1]

56. Moderate muslims/secularists have been in a war with radicals over here

If he proves himself to be an EXTREMELY PIOUS supporter of Democracy and human rights, then bless him.

Let's just call me skeptical.

[CJCRANE]

41. Devout doesn't always mean fanatical...

in Islam, Christianity or any other religion. (I've met devout muslims - and christians - who are very calm and peaceful people).

And fanatics aren't always devout.

[Amonester]

45. Voila. n t

[JCMach1]

58. This is very true, but there is not a separation of church and state in the Muslim world

with a few notable exceptions (like Turkey).

No, it doesn't mean that he is the Taliban. However, let's talk minority, women's and human rights...

I have known pious Wahabbis who are some of the nicest and most gracious people you would want to meet.

They still won't let their wives and daughters out of the house on their own and I certainly would never be allowed to meet them.

[Turborama]

59. Apart from Indonesia, of course, the largest majority Muslim country in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Indonesia


Edited to add...

Most majority Muslim countries in the world are secular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries

And only 7 out of the 48 majority Muslim countries in the world are Islamic states which have adopted Islam as the ideological foundation for their political institution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Religion_and_state

[riderinthestorm]

65. I don't think your lists are accurate. I looked up the UAE for example

and they have Sharia Law codified in their laws as well as having religious courts but your link doesn't have them listed as an Islamic state (http://www.dubai-information-site.com/sharia-law.html )

To double check, I selected Jordan at random since I know the King is progresive but even Jordan has Sharia court while the UN itself categorizes Bangladesh as an Islamic state which has an Islamic constitution (that their general assembly voted on specifically to amend the older more tolerant version which permitted more religious freedoms). I didn't go any further than that, I was simply checking on the facts of your links and they are demonstrably false.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that religion should play no part in a country's laws or constitution. It's toxic and leads down a treacherous path of discrimination, inequality and injustice. Libya (Tunisia, Egypt etc. etc.) have the chance to get this right from the start. If we cannot emphasize this now, then when?

[JCMach1]

67. Exactly, most have secular law in name only...

[riderinthestorm]

69. Thanks. These lists have been put out there so many times, I decided to actually fact check them

to see exactly what was reality. I don't have time to check all of the countries that are always on those lists but your experience within one country specifically fact checks ME and my very limited research.

Peace.

[JCMach1]

66. But, their laws are essentially transfered from Sharia...

Especially family law...!

[riderinthestorm]

46. Codifying ANY religious law into a country's founding documents is a mistake.

Sharia, Biblical law, the Torah - I don't care, it's the wrong step.

Libya has a chance to create a 21st century document that guarantees human and civil rights. Religious theology of any kind incorporated into such a document would ensure the country's base foundation was severely flawed.

I believe the international community's shock and dismay at Abdul-Jalil's speech is correct. He is religiously devout and truthfully, this is a terrible start for Libya imho. Unless there is some real outside pressure on this transitional council, they will create an intolerable constitution that's unhealthy for women, glbts, religious minorities and more - all the "core tenets" of Sharia which are so alarming.

If we don't speak up now, then when? If we don't have any ability to at least forward some secular constitutional examples to this new council at this stage of the game, then the NATO exercise really was just a major oil grab with the fate of the Libyan people simply left to whoever fills the vacuum (Islamism from the looks of it).

[Zorra]

64. Exactly. Right now, I am so very grateful that the founders of this country

had the common sense and wisdom to protect future generations by legally mandating that church and state be separate from each other. One of the worst things that could ever happen to a group of people is to be ruled by RW religious wackos of any stripe.

I would bet a good sum that most or all of the countries below where being GLBT is a crime have a government where Sharia Law is the law of the land.


Homosexuality illegal on the map above:

Yellow: Minimal penalty
Orange: Large penalty
Red: Life in prison
Brown: Death penalty

[Jacobin]

47. Islam is going to need a Reformation

Much like the Christian Reformation that took some of the crazy out of Christianity. It'll probably take a hundred years or more

[joshcryer]

51. And denying the Arab Spring over "fears" of "islamism" would've simply made it take longer.

I think that by allowing the Arab Spring to foster Islam is going to reform in a much shorter time frame, two generations or thereabouts (the information / internet age will help that).

[pampango]

60. Tunisia Liberals See a Vote for Change, Not Religion

The liberal political parties emerging as surprise runners-up in elections here argued Tuesday that their success had tempered the commanding victory of the Islamists while offering lessons for their secular allies around the region.

The liberals interpreted the results of the vote in Tunisia, the first of the Arab Spring, as a call for change, not necessarily an embrace of religious rule. But they also cautioned that voters had been looking to punish those secular parties that appeared to pick a fight with religion.

The urgent message for liberals in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere across the region was: “Avoid anything like being for a civil war between secularists and Islamists,” said Moncef Marzouki, a veteran human rights activist, whose party, the Congress for the Republic, ranked second to the Islamist party Ennahda in the preliminary tally.

“We owe our success,” Mr. Marzouki said, “to the fact that we talked to the secularists, saying: ‘Look, all of us come from a very important human rights background, and we are going to fight for civil liberties. But we are not going to fight against Islamists. We don’t want an ideological war between secularists and Islamists.’ ”The message to Islamists, he added, was: “ ‘We are for Islam to be the religion of the state, but you must be very cautious. We are not going to give up our fight for civil freedoms.’ I am profoundly convinced that we can promote human rights and women’s rights, etc., without fighting against Islamists.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/world/africa/tunisia-liberals-see-a-vote-for-change-not-just-for-islamists.html

[JCMach1]

68. Completely misses the mark because it takes the Western viewpoint

Muslims do not see a difference between religion, government and society (nor can conceive of a separation without going the extremes that countries like Turkey have done)... they are one and the same...

This is the Muslim concept of Ummah.