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.
America's Watchtower 
Common sense says the the best organized and ruthless group will gain control and that is not the Youths for Freedom, is it? The Muslim Brotherhood will come to power in Egypt and a similar group will eventually take control of Libya, IMO.
LikeLike
I am afraid that you are right. In a region as unbalanced as the Middle East it stands to reason that the most ruthless and cut-throat groups will eventually gain power because of their ruthlessness, and I am afraid that is what is going to happen in these two cases.
LikeLike
I don’t know where to start. I suppose first would be to question why anyone would spend time commenting on a rumor. It’s one thing to report it – that’s what journalists do, as long as they also report that it’s a rumor. But why not wait a while to see if it’s true?
BUT . . . Since you brought it up – isn’t this exactly what so many conservatives want for this country, a Constitution that starts out stating “All legislation will be based on the word of God.”? In fact, plenty of conservatives spend a lot of time spinning on their eyebrows trying to convince the rest of us that the Constitution, and our nation, really is based on the Bible. And look where we are without it – a land where we have to sit by and permit people to exercise the free will God gave them, instead of dictate their lives from beginning to end.
Heaven forbid, though, that any other nation get away with doing what the turbos have been prevented from getting away with here. After all, Libya is 97% Islam – does anyone care to place a bet on how that language would fare in a popular referendum? Among people who’ve been controlled by their clergy for untold generations? Remember, Kadaffi wasn’t a religious tyrant against whom his people rebelled – he came to power in a military coup.
Personally, I think it’d be a shame if Libya’s new constitution were to include the language about Islam being the source of law, but unless we’re given some special right to dictate to the Libyans what they may and may not have in their Constitution, I don’t think my opinion is going to mean a great deal to them. And the fact that the rebel victory was made possible with some amount of American assistance doesn’t make us complicit in the establishment of a theocratic dictatorship in Libya (if that’s where this thing goes). It WILL mean that we played a role, but the current state of events, I think it’s pretty clear, would have happened sooner or later, with or without our help.
Or are there those among us who are nostalgic for Mubarak and Kaddafi because the forces that overthrew them aren’t any more likely to acquiesce as we pursue our interests in the region?
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I have never claimed to be a journalist, I try to cover the issues while they are ongoing and sometimes that leaves me with egg on my face but I accept that as part of the downside to covering fluid events. The article I linked to did in fact state that this was unconfirmed and I mentioned it as well.
Personally I do not believe that “all legislation is the word of God” and I also disagree with the notion that the government cannot take away rights which are God given because we see this happen everyday.
I also agree that sovereign nations should set up the governments they choose, if they want Sharia law so be it, but isn’t our involvement in Libya with the overthrow of that nation’s leader also an attempt at changing that nation’s government? Using this logic, what right does Obama have to go into Libya to “defend American values” when Libya couldn’t care less about American values?
LikeLike
When it became clear that Iraq wasn’t harboring WMDs, the right, without missing a step, started harping on just what a bad fellow Saddam Hussein was, and insisted that that fact alone justified the deflection of our military effort from Afghanistan to Iraq.
This fellow Kaddaffi is a similarly bad fellow, his attempts to be rehabilitated by the Bush regime notwithstanding. President Obama had the same right to support the rebels in Libya as President Bush did to invade Iraq.
As to whether or not you’re a journalist, I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were somehow violating any code of journalistic ethics or behavior – you’re a commentator, an editorialist. I was just calling into question your devotion of time and brainpower commenting on something that we all knew upfront was a rumor (and yes, you alerted us to the report’s status right upfront).
The other American interest in play here, of course, is economic. From what I hear on the news, the price of crude oil is expected to decline significantly once Kaddaffi is out of power, which should definitely benefit us all.
LikeLike
The reason I chose to write about this is because if we are indeed supporting rebels who will be hostile to the United States it deserves attention. If it turns out not to be true than we all can agree that this is a good thing, but as I said, I try to write about issues as they are ongoing and I thought this was an interesting turn of events.
LikeLike
We had no interests in Libya, except the fact that Ghadaffi exported terrorism. But now even NATO concedes elements of al qaeda and HAMAS steer the “rebels.” What have we accomplished other than give al qaeda an unlimited oil fueled source of terrorist funding.
LikeLike
I don’t see where accomplished much of anything at all.
LikeLike
http://articlesofinterest-kelley.blogspot.com/2011/10/very-interesting-real-reason-why.html
No interest in Libya……watch this and think again….
LikeLike
But now people are going to have to make a decision – either you think Obama is a marxist or you think he’s a muslim. He cannot be both.
Religious beliefs are anathema to marxists, and popular rule is anathema to religionists, especially muslims.
TGY
LikeLike
Or he could be a facist.
LikeLike
How do you define fascist?
LikeLike
The comment was made partially with tongue in cheek.
Fascism is hard to define because it has taken on many forms in the past, but I think I know where you are going with this. Fascism is usually considered dictatorship from the right, how could a leftist like Obama be a fascist? Fascists have been nationalists and used patriotism to gain power, usually support a strong military, and in some cases have used forced abortion and sterilization to ensure racial purity. They have been anti-union and sometimes are in a partnership with businesses. Most of this–less abortion and sterilization–can be said of the Tea Party and I think you were you might have been about to make the point that the Tea Party is closer to a fascist movement than Barack Obama is, and I actually do understand that point. But fascism can also be a religious political movement and Sharia law would make Islamic law the law of the land in Libya, therefore if Obama was supporting this type of fascist rebels it could be said that he is supporting a fascist movement.
LikeLike
Much easier to impose an Islamic caliphate on a Marxist controlled society than it would be a free one.
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
I agree with you Steve, Mr. Obama new exactly what he was supporting when he authorized the bombing of Libya,his beloved Islam.
LikeLike
It is just too hard to believe that with all of the classified reports the president has at his disposal that he didn’t know who these rebels were; hopefully this report is wrong, but if it isn’t then Barack Obama chose Sharia law over the status quo.
LikeLike
Yeh – just like we nailed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism. And we’re right on top of what’s going on in China as well, aren’t we?
It may have escaped you fellows, but infiltrating groups like AQ and Hamas isn’t all that easy despite our wealth, because not only does it require someone who can act certifiably insane, but also matches their general ethnic appearance.
To my knowledge, the Libyan rebels didn’t exist in any organized form more than 6 or 7 months ago, making reliable intelligence about them kind of hard to come by.
Sorry, I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that just because the President sits atop the largest intelligence organization in the world, he’s got accurate intelligence about anything that goes on worldwide.
LikeLike
A good point TGY and you may very well be right, but doesn’t this make Obama’s support of these rebels without knowing who they were a little irresponsible?
LikeLike
This doesn’t surprise me Steve. This administration has had a pattern of being on the wrong side of history since the get-go. What’s one more time.
LikeLike
He doesn’t have a very good track record to this point. Sooner or later he has to get something right, doesn’t he?
LikeLike
When you believe in “change” you don’t really know what kind you’re getting.
LikeLike
Change is not always a good thing, is it?
LikeLike
Change can be whatever you want it to be. So a revolution in the eyes of some becomes an example of freedom when, to the eyes of the population rising up it becomes the right to choose Sharia Law.
LikeLike
Exactly, and if these rebels are different groups who came together against a common enemy these groups probably will have differing opinions on exactly what they feel the change should be.
LikeLike
And they’re backed, in part, by al Qaeda.
LikeLike
Yes they are, and our Dear Leader has thrown his support behind them. That tells us all we need to know about Barack Obama.
LikeLike
After Reagan planted a 500 pound bomb a few yards from his tent, Kahadaffy Duck became notably silent. Lately, he has presented few problems for the US. Obama has knowingly supported jihadists in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere. The President is the most dangerous of individuals. He projects Jimmy Stewart sincerity to hide Aldrich Ames treachery.
LikeLike
Heritage reported and Bob Bennett were talking about it this AM. What another sewer we just stepped into. I suggest we take a look at the film “Lawrence of Arabia” for a quick history lesson.
LikeLike
Why would he not support the Rebels?? He’s thrown Israel under the bus!! He’s done everything possible (thru Eric Holder) to demean the CIA!!
LikeLike
Great post, by the way I just moved to AZ & I have joined global community communications alliance. It is a superb community for those who are looking for spiritual & moral guidance. global community communications alliance has many outreach programs and services for both members of the church as well as people from the surrounding communities.
LikeLike