We tried to tell you. With another Wilsonian adventure well underway, our political establishment learned nothing in Iraq about trusting the thin veneer of a moderate, tolerant society that peeled off like cheap car window tinting as soon as the regime fell. Western governments proceeded on a rank oversimplification of “good” and “bad” sides in Libya, funding what was believed to be the former without questioning or investigation.
As reported below, there is Sharia at every turn, and the West hopes against hope for the Paper Sharia of academic exercises to emerge: Sharia as advertised, as opposed to Sharia as observed.
Coming soon: buyer’s remorse. “Libya could fall into hands of extremists, Nato warns,” by Thomas Harding, Ruth Sherlock, and Richard Spencer for the Telegraph, September 12:
Libya is in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if a stable government is not rapidly established, Nato’s secretary-general warned last night. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Islamic extremists would “try to exploit” any weaknesses created as the country tried to rebuild after four decades of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s rule.
The solution should not be to throw money blindly at people who seem to tell them what they want to hear.
Mr Rasmussen was speaking amid growing evidence of splits in the rebel leadership in Tripoli. His words will cast a damper over the euphoria sweeping Tripoli in the wake of the revolution.
His warning came as the head of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, told cheering crowds in Tripoli that Islamic shariah law would be the “main source” of legislation in the new Libya.
NOooooooooooo!!!!!!
Just today I read that the transitional leaders are claiming Libya will be ruled as a ”moderate” Islamic state, not an extreme one.
BBC had it.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil: We are a Muslim nation, with a moderate Islam, and we will maintain that. You are with us and support us – you are our weapon against whoever tries to hijack the revolution.
……..But he also warned against secularism, envisaging a state “where sharia [Islamic law] is the main source for legislation”.
So, when he says, women would play an active role in the new Libya, who knows what he means.
It could mean as a stay-at-home baby factory.
(It is an active role.)
Or, it could mean something entirely different.
No telling.
Ya think?