Libyan rebels may be drafting a constitution based on Sharia law, does Barack Obama support this?
It now appears all but certain that Moammar Gadhafi’s reign as leader of Libya is over, and I am not sorry in the least to see this terrorist removed from power, but the question remains; who will replace him?
If this report is correct, and as of yet we do not know if it is true, the rebels have drafted a constitution in which Sharia law will be the new law of the land.
Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.
Much like in Egypt, where Barack Obama supported the rebels without knowing who they were–and it turns out that al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood made up at least a portion of the rebels, Barack Obama supported the rebels in Libya without knowing exactly who they were and it now appears as if they are on the verge of implementing Sharia law in Libya.
Barack Obama’s justification for invading Libya was his claim that the United States has an obligation to fight when our values are at stake, but I would ask the president if Sharia law is consistent with America’s values? The answer to that question is obvious, but the answer to the question as to why we were supporting these rebels in the first place remains unanswered.
While the American people might not have been aware of who the rebels protesting in Egypt were, and while the American people might not be aware of who the rebels fighting in Libya are, we all know that the president has access to information that the American people are not privy to. It is beyond belief to me that the president did not have even a small inkling as to who the United States was siding with in these conflicts when you consider the information that the president has at his disposal.
Either Barack Obama did not know who the rebels were, and if this is the case he was woefully negligent and dangerously imprudent in involving the United States military, or he knew who the rebels were and supported their cause. Neither scenario casts the president in a flattering light.
I have made my position clear; I do not believe that Barack Obama would blindly pledge allegiance to–and throw his support behind–a rebel group without fully knowing who the United States was supporting.