Mustafa Abdul Jalil’s announcement last month that Islamic sharia would form the basic source of legislation in the new Libya, and that all laws contradicting the sharia were immediately null and void, came as a surprise for Western observers. Given that the chair of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) wears the sign of his piety on his forehead in the form of the darkened “prayer bump” or zabibah created through vigorous prostration during prayer, it probably should not have.
Western observers had always been determined to see the anti-Qaddafi rebellion in Libya as a “democracy movement.” They were encouraged to do so by English-language NTC statements replete with soothing — if not indeed downright soporific — boilerplate that had undoubtedly been composed with the aid of Western advisers or PR agencies. But from the very start of the rebellion, clear evidence was available that the most fervent opponents of Qaddafi rejected his rule not as undemocratic, but, above all, as un-Islamic.
Advertisement
The anti-Qaddafi revolution is sometimes known as the “February 17th” revolution in honor of the February 17, 2011, protests in Benghazi that are widely credited with instigating the uprising. The date of those protests, incidentally, was chosen to commemorate protests in Benghazi five years earlier that were sparked by the famous “Mohammed cartoons”: the Islamist source of outrage par excellence. (For the details, see my “Our Principles? The Libyan Insurrection and the Mohammed Cartoons.”)
The 2011 protests were sponsored by a London-based umbrella group named the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO). On February 15, just two days before the protests, the NCLO website posted an Arabic-language text titled “Qaddafi: Islam’s Enemy No. 1.” (A Google cache of the Arabic text is available here. An online commentator named Andy Stone was the first to draw attention to the document.)
The text, of which an English translation is available here, amounts to an indictment of Qaddafi for a long list of alleged crimes against Islamic orthodoxy. It ends with a rhetorical question: “Have you heard of any tyrant who has done to Islam and its people what the criminal Qaddafi has done?” The list of charges includes Qaddafi’s discouraging women from wearing the traditional Islamic “veil,” his suggestion that Jews and Christians should be allowed to visit Mecca, and, perhaps most importantly, his rejection of the sunna.
The sunna are the traditional Muslim practices that derive not from the Koran, but rather from accounts of Mohammed’s acts and teachings: the so-called hadith. The term “Sunni Islam” refers to the sunna, and strict fidelity to the sunna is at the heart of contemporary fundamentalist movements in Islam. It is hardly surprising that an Arab leader who rejects the sunna would be regarded as a very great heretic indeed. Toppling Qaddafi had long been a goal of Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda and the local Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
Not to worry. No doubt Obama and Hillary! are "focused like a laser" on engaging the "moderate" Muslims in the new government in Tripoli towards recognizing the "rights" of minority religions, women, gays, et al . . . right after they finish "focusing like a laser" on begging the Russians and Chinese to at least abstain on a Security Council vote to apply more sanctions against Iran, and finish "focusing like a laser" on jobs, jobs, jobs.
Regarding the Russians, Putin would probably be more inclined to play ball if he could just get a photo op with Barry "shaking hands" as he did with the Saudi king . . . and the Japanese prime minister . . . only Putin would be bare chested in the pic . . .
In summary, yet ANOTHER Islamic country is radicalizing on Obama's watch.
After listening to NPR for 30 minutes this morning, I realize that it should never surprise conservatives that the "media" miss anything, such as say, scandalous stories involving OWS protesters. From their perspective, such news announcements must never be a political disadvantage for the administration or the media itself that backs the administration, and so, such news stories are simply ignored.
Thus, no one on the left ever has to openly admit that they might have been wrong. That is the singular most important criterion the media has when editing news.
I hope that Americans reject this awful news media as much as I also hope they eject Obama from Washington next fall. I'm much more optimistic about the latter, but the former is important too.
The 'arab spring' is nothing more than a coordinated effort. By whom will be later proven. We are led to believe that the events in these countries are but a 'cry for democracy'. Yet we don't quite ever seem to hear that 'cry' from those doing the insurrections. Anti dictator movements...certainly. However, the replacement governments may likely be Muslim and Sharia ...and the 'new' countries cogs in a coalition that will be forged by the coming events between Israel and Iran.
Islamic rhetoric is the one common theme the LIFG could find to unite and bond the numerous and fractured collection of rebel groups fighting against Qadaffi. Why is it such a surprise now that they would use that same uniting theme in trying to build a coalition government and prevent a civil war. Oligarchy will undoubtedly result from this and the only thing going for those in power is to placate the masses with pro-sharia and islamist rhetoric that the uneducated cannot dispell or be seen to argue against. "If you don't support us, then you must not be a good muslim." No one in the new Libya can afford that, and so the oppression continues with a new group of faces.
Isn't that from the same playbook the left uses? Accusing detractors of being "haters," "phobics" of one sort of another, "neo-conservatives" (oops...that was soooooo 2004) in order to garner support from an electorate that cannot bear to be disliked, regardless of the consequences. Same old, same old.
"Democracy" was always just an excuse. An excuse for our invasion of Iraq. An excuse for our invasion of Afghanistan. An excuse for our bombing of Libya.
Why do we find it surprising when the scorpion bites? It is what scorpions do.
Amazing how deceptive the appearances and how confused our civilization! The Left, meant to be democratic, humanitarian and multiculturalist, is superciliouly racist. It thinks everybody's dying to imitate its ways and become secular and "enlightened." Surely the “backward” tribes do! Well, some of those, as it turns out, in their turn look down on great liberators like George Soros and prefer their medieval religion to his trade in furnuture of the dead and his vision of global government. Alas!
In a theocracy, dogma always determines policy. If we want to have a good relationship with Arab countries we have to realize that we are dealing with people who are 400 years behind us in the development of democracy. I'm generalizing of course. There are many Arabs who recognize the problems associated with theocratic government and want change but they are very definitely in the minority.
Hindsight tells us that trying to impose American values on Iraq and Afghanistan was a colossal waste of blood and treasure. Sure, the wars were essentially necessary to demonstrate to the world that an attack on America was akin to suicide but after the political infrastructure was destroyed we should have gotten the h### out of there. The regimes that emerged would have realized that attacking us was, at best, a zero sum game.
I think the Libyan intervention was a success. The emerging government might be awful and maybe even worse than Gaddafi but we have no control over that. We only gave them an opportunity. What they do with that is their business. Meanwhile, we can all be proud of of our long tradition of trying to make the world a safer place. It really is better than doing nothing.
No. Not 400 years behind us. Not behind us at all. That would imply they're headed in the same direction. That would imply that the Middle East is an analog of the west, wearing funny hats 400 years out of style. That's not how it is.
We are told constantly that we must distinguish Islamism from main stream Islam. The recent statements and events out of Libya highlighted by Mr. Rosenthal argue once again that it would be hard to insert a credit card between the two.
It is a particular brand of debasement that Obama and the state department have sunk to in cow-towing to the "arab spring" islamists. It is humiliating on the order of Chamberlin and Hitler. Just wait and see.
