What should we think of this sharia affair? Could it be that we have supported the insurgents of Benghazi, only to discover, when it's all over, a State that forbids divorce and re-establishes polygamy? Details. Explanations.
1. It all began with one phrase. A single phrase. Of course, this phrase didn't come from just anyone, since it was uttered by Mustafa Abdeljalil, the President of the National Transitional Council and father of the victory. But, president or not, Abdeljalil is a member of a Council whose decisions are collegial. And this Council is, as its name indicates, an organ of transition whose purpose is not to decree the laws of the future Libya.
Abdeljalil expressed an opinion.
Perhaps a wish.
Perhaps it wasn't even a wish, rather a pledge granted the minority of Islamist fighters who paid the heaviest price in lives for this liberation.
And although he may have expressed what he really thinks, what weight should his opinion carry, considering that he, like all the members of the NTC, has promised not to seek any office in post-transitional Libya?
In order to know what this future Libya will look like, we must wait for the Constituent Assembly in eight months. Then the general elections. And then what type of government will be the result. To behave as though this little phrase, uttered in the heat of a rally by a man who is highly respected but about to leave the scene, were enough to "topple" the country amounts to malevolence, a biased standpoint.
2. There is sharia, and then there is sharia. And before going on and on about regression and glaciation, we would do well to know what we're talking about.
Sharia, first of all, is not an obscene word.
Like "jihad" (which means "a spiritual effort", and which the Islamists ultimately interpreted as a "holy war"), and "fatwa" (which means "religious advice" and which, due to the Rushdie affair, everyone has come to understand as "condemnation to death") the very word sharia is at the heart of a merciless war of semantics but, fortunately, continues to signify something eminently respectable for the majority of Muslims.
It is a term that appears five times in the Koran and that French translations render as "path".
It is not the name of a code, even less of an exhaustive straightjacket of rules, but that of a body of values subject to the interpretation of Doctors of the religion.
It is a generic term; in other words, it is the task of the legislators to propose an application of sharia that is more or less progressive or more or less strict.
Taking this into consideration, virtually all Muslim countries refer to sharia.
Most of them, including Gaddafi's Libya, from 1993 on, make it one of the sources of law.
When they do not, as is the case of Morocco, it is because Islam is already the State religion.
And the whole problem amounts to knowing what, then, is included in this term: the stoning of adulteresses, as in Iran? the amputation of thieves' limbs, as in Saudi Arabia? Or rather a sum of moral precepts one strives to combine with the Napoleonic Code, as is the case in Egypt?
3. In light of this problem, the question of what "path" Libya will chose is to be expected.
It goes without saying that we can anticipate a new battle, an ideological one in which the task will be to arbitrate between the minority who interpret sharia as the fanatics do and those who wish to see a compromise between sharia and the democratic ideal.
It is obvious that those of us who are among the friends of the new Libya, the allies who contributed to her liberation from one of the most bloodthirsty dictatorships of our times, have a role to play in aiding the country not to fall under the yoke of another kind of tyranny.
But, for pity's sake, no bad faith.
Let's not pull the number of a civil version of the proverbial "quagmire", when, after a week of air strikes, time already seemed to be dragging on, on the Libyans again.
And let's not demand of this Libya, crushed by 42 years of despotism, let us not ask of this country with neither a State nor a judicial tradition, without an actual civil society, to become in the space of three months a society of human rights.
Thirty years after Solidarnosc, Polish democracy is still in the stage of self-searching. Russia is still in its Putin phase.
France went through the Terror, the Restoration, two Empires and several blood baths before it was able to embody the republican ideal of 1789, and after that the ideal of a secular society.
And we expect Libya, itself, to pass from a dark night into light?
The battle will be rough.
There will be swerves, steps backward, moments of wandering off course.
But I know the men and women who wanted this revolution, in Benghazi or Misrata, well enough to know that they will not allow the rights they have won after such an intense struggle to be confiscated.
Post-Gaddafi Libya has become a major forefront of the great schism that is rippling through the Muslim world, the historic (and, from now on, democratic) confrontation between the two Islams, that of the Enlightenment and that of the shadows, that of the moderates and that of the extremists, the one that reaches out to Europe and that of the clash of civilizations. And I am willing to bet that, upon this stage, the friends of liberty will be victorious.
Gilbert Doumit: Libya Threatened By an Unknown Future
Katherine Marshall: Clash of Civilizations or Hope For Harmony?
Farzana Hassan: Human Rights Trump Religious Freedom in Polygamy Case
Kamran Bokhari and Farid Senzai: The Many Shades of Islamists
Translated into normal language:
"God forbid they choose their own goverment we don't like. We put them in power we own Lybia now"
I can say this for one reason: In these countries where it seems that literally EVERYONE has a AK 47 under their bed, WHY DO THESE PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THIS BEHAVIOR?
For one reason and one reason only: It's the way they want it.
The people of those countries want freedom just as much as anyone else does, but until the Arab spring, we made sure their dictators stayed in power and kept control of the people. Their resulting form of government might not look like ours (who would want the dysfunctional system we have?), but after a decade or so of growing pains, they'll settle into something that works for them, UNLESS we decide it's our right to go in and interfere again.
As for the second, not so much.
The people who live there do not want freedom as much as anyone else, as can be told by their history (Iran). It is a continuous line of brutal dictatorships and theocracies, stretching back to the Persians. While the overthrow of the Shah was completely understandable ( although there are probably many today who would find him enlightened and far less repressive), the subsequent formation of the oppressive theocratic gov't in power since 1979, has been the type of thing that seems to take place in the middle east, and near east in general. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the family/clan/tribe structure that worked at one time for protection, does not seem to be able to be modified sufficiently to allow for the modernization of thought processes that can allow the lifting of individuals (and families), without bringing suspicion and ill will from those, who through inability, unwillingness, or lack of potential are left behind.
There's a passage here that worries me though:
"It is obvious that those of us who are among the friends of the new Libya, the allies who contributed to her liberation...have a role to play in aiding the country not to fall under the yoke of another kind of tyranny."
Like Sharia, that sentence is also open to a dangerous kind of interpretation. Naturally, we have a duty to ensure that the new fledgling government stands, but beyond that, I think the west should keep its hands clean. Besides, if an arch-conservative Sharia law is the other kind of tyranny the author is referring to, and it is voted in place via the democratic process, it will be a tyranny of the electorate's own choosing. The west shouldn't superimpose it's own values on Libya.
There is a well known saying of Muhammad(pbuh). He was returning from a battle. He said,
Quote “WE RETURN FROM THE LITTLE JIHAD TO THE GREATER JIHAD”.
The little Jihad he mentioned was the battle and the greater Jihad he mentioned was conquering the forces of evil in oneself and in one’s own society in all the details of daily life.
The Quran amplifies this forcefully, quote
“ Had God not driven back the people, some by the means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted ; but God is merciful unto all beings.”
When the people of a territory were chased out of their land like morbid dogs by the merciless hordes and aggressors ( as it happened in Palestine) the people of Palestine can engage in Jihad but strictly under the laws of Islam following their spiritual leader. You want a present day example , you got one.
The Quran says
“Fighting is an evil thing, but to bar people from God’s way, disbelief in Him and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it ---that is more evil in God’s sight. And persecution is worse than
killing.” Holy Quran 2: 213. So the example the persecuted Palestinians have every right to do Jihad.
A great God based and morality based religion is not worth the name religion at all if it does not support JIHAD that is : taking efforts, struggling hard and if necessary taking arms by the good against the evil.
Did not the Americans carry out Jihad in various countries fighting against aggression, oppression, occupation, persecution, tyranny, discrimination, human right violations and injustice. If Muslims do it as per strict religious rules why brand with a different name.
In Islam JIHAD signifies a physical, moral , spiritual and intellectual effort. There are plenty of Arabic words denoting armed combat, such as HARB (War), SIRA’A( Combat), MA’ARAKU (Battle) QITAL ( Killing).
The Quran could have easily used these words if was had been the Muslims’ principal way of engaging in this effort. Instead the Quran chooses a vaguer, richer word with a wide range of connotations. The Jihad is not one of the five pillars of Islam. It is not the central prop of
the religion despite the common view of non-Muslims.
But it was and remains a duty for Muslims to commit themselves to a struggle on all fronts- moral, spiritual and political---to create a just and decent society, where the poor and the vulnerable are not exploited, in the way that God had intended man to live.
Fighting is/ was only a minor part of the whole JIHAD
I have the utmost respect for Islam. I really admire it. I happen to be ethnically Jewish and I will also point out that "Israel" has a similar meaning, it means "Struggle with God". That is also open to misinterpretation and misuse.
Anyways, while it certainly bodes ill for the secular prospects of the country, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions either about how much they will influence the country's transition. I know that fundamentalists made up a portion of the rebel army, but of equal importance is the background of those who make up the transitional council. Their self-proclaimed mission is to bring about democratic government in Libya, and if that happens, the fundamentalists' power in the new state will be limited to their popularity.
I don't have a problem with it. If you are so freaked out about it, maybe we can do something about all those death ritual cruxifixs I see all over the USA. Seriously, as a Jewish person I would start with Christian symbols but I personally don't think that flags and other symbols are a big deal.
I also know that Robert Spencer will be forgotten as a lying fanatic.
Peel back the onion....
It was a production. Staged. Top to bottom. This is what they do.
“It is obvious that those of us who are among the friends of Palestine want her liberation from one of the most bloodthirsty dictatorships of our times, have a role to play in aiding the country not to remain under the yoke of this kind of tyranny.
But let's not demand of Israel, crushing Palestinians with 63 years of despotism, let us not ask of Israel without any equality, justice, or sense of common decency, to become a society of human rights.”
I hope that Mr. Levy’s charm about liberating Libya can be applied to Palestine as well. For after all, I’m sure this is what he meant.