-
Behind the Iraq Protests
April 18, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Turkey, Iraq, and Oil
April 5, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Sunni Reachout to the Shia Crescent
March 7, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Anti-Islamism in an Islamic Civil War
January 24, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Iraq: Playing the Sectarian Crisis Card
January 2, 2013 | 3 comments
At Large
Libya Heading Towards Islamism
That means ever more visible links to al Qaeda.
Amid all the debate as to what lies in store for Libya, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Islamism will be the dominant political force in the country.
Indeed, this trend should already have been clear in the treatment of David Gerbi, a Libyan Jew residing in Italy who returned to his ancestral homeland in the summer to fight alongside the rebels against Gaddafi. Yet when he tried to rebuild and reopen the abandoned and desolate synagogue in Tripoli, he faced death threats, intimidation and protests, such that he was eventually deported. The National Transitional Council (NTC) dismissed this matter as one of no importance.
In this context, it is noteworthy that the treatment of Gerbi was in accordance with traditional Islamic law’s views on the status of dhimmis (i.e. Jews or Christians), for dhimmis are not allowed to reconstruct their buildings of worship or build new synagogues and churches.
Linked to the point about Islamic law are the recent announcements of Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman and de facto president of the NTC, that Sharia will be the “basic source” of all law in Libya. Coming to specifics, Abdul-Jalil declared that a Gaddafi-era law that banned polygamy would be lifted, saying that it was “contrary to Sharia and must be stopped.”
The NTC chairman is of course correct that Sharia traditionally permits polygamy, being rooted in Quran 4:3, which allows a man to take as many as four wives. While the verse exhorts a man who has more than one wife to “deal justly” with all of them, on traditional interpretations this does not mean treating them equally. Rather, as Ibn Kathir puts it, doing so is only “recommended,” and even without equal treatment, “there is no harm on him.”
Abdul-Jalil further declared the need for future bank regulations to comply with Sharia, claiming that “interest creates disease and hatred among people.” One should also compare his statements on the role of Sharia with the draft Constitution for the Libyan opposition, as reported on in late August. As Andrew Bostom notes, the most striking feature is the opening (Part 1, Article 1), which affirms that “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia).”
The emphasis on the definite article before “principal source” is my own. It is an undeniably Islamist outlook. It must be contrasted with, for example, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law bloc, which only views Sharia as a source of legislation, and not necessarily the main one.
Assuming that Abdul-Jalil (who, with a Zabibah-marking on his forehead from performing the Muslim prayer ritual, certainly conveys an image of fervent devotion) is not necessarily sincere in his Islamist pronouncements is hardly reassuring, because then it follows that he feels a need to pander to a very powerful Islamist faction in the country.
In any event, the implications of the trend towards imposing Sharia are truly alarming, yet unfortunately, as Hussein Ibish says, “there is an intellectually and politically indefensible rush to recast the leading Arab Islamist parties as more moderate or pluralistic than they actually are… it’ s simply foolish not to recognize that they remain in every meaningful sense radical and retain their totalitarian impulses. That they would like to broadly and severely restrict the rights of individuals, women and minorities in the name of religion is obvious.”
Quite so, and while Ibish is also right that strong constitutional checks on the government’s powers could force some Islamists to moderate their ideology, the signs for such a development in Libya are virtually non-existent. There is no discussion in NTC circles remotely along the lines of what Ibish advocates regarding the relationship between government and democracy.
More specifically, reports in Benghazi have pointed out the presence of one variant of the al Qaeda flag on top of Benghazi’s courthouse (displaying the full Shahadah — declaration of Islamic faith — and a circle underneath against a black background). As Sherif Elhelwa further notes: “According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, ‘Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,’ a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.”
Some observers have been quick to dismiss Elhelwa’s account as an isolated example, but John Rosenthal has drawn attention to more photos of demonstrators waving al Qaeda flags, bearing another familiar pattern of the first half of the Shahadah — la illa ha ill allah (“there is no deity but God”) — and a circle underneath bearing the slogan “Allah, Rasul Mohammed” (“God, Prophet Mohammed”): compare with the flag of al-Shabaab, a Somali al Qaeda affiliate.
This development simply cannot be downplayed, and it is notable anyway how Elhelwa was threatened by a security guard for taking photos of the flag on the Benghazi courthouse. The guard reportedly said to her, “Whosoever speaks ill of this flag, we will cut off his tongue. I recommend that you don’t publish these. You will bring trouble to yourself.”
Readers may wonder why some of the flags have a black background, and some a white background. The answer is that the black flag represents al-Qa’ ida’ s war banner in the struggle against Dar al-Harb (consisting of non-Muslims or Muslim ‘heretics’ to be subdued under Islamic law), while the white flag symbolizes Dar al-Islam. In the case of the former, the demonstrators may have in mind targets outside Libya, or some of the rebel militias from Misrata and Zintan who have grown alarmed at the Islamist presence in the west of the country — particularly in Tripoli — and have thus formed a coalition to try to compete with the Islamists for influence, vying for control of the capital’ s harbor and airports.
Meanwhile, outside the headquarters of the NTC, hundreds of Libyan Islamists, who had of course aided the effort to overthrow Gaddafi, have held protests calling on the NTC to pressure Baghdad into halting the execution of Libyan foreign fighters imprisoned in the country.
About the Author
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University. His website is http://www.aymennjawad.org.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/09/libya-heading-towards-islamism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
POST American| 11.9.11 @ 6:23AM
---Oxford-Fabian Globalism, and its 'fave'
instrument of change, the CON-trolled dialectic,
chugs on.
Jack in Wi| 11.9.11 @ 7:03AM
The whole neocon project of bringing democracy to the middle East has been a complete and abject failure. The wars they pushed have made the USA one of the most hated coutries in the world. The wars have radicalized populations all over the Muslim world. We have wasted trillions, displaced, killed, and wounded millions, all so the friends of Iran can rule Iraq. The rest of the Arab tyrants we put in power and supported with hundreds of billions are either gone or going. We should get the hell out and leave these people alone. The more we do in these countries, the more enemies we make. These countries have to sell their oil to live. We have huge deposits of enegy right here that go undeveloped. We are not and never have been needed in that neighborhood.
Jack von Bauer| 11.9.11 @ 7:41AM
"The wars (SIC) have radicalized populations all over the Muslim world. "
Huh? You are joking right? That's like saying that it was the Beatles in the 60's that first made teenagers start thinking about sex.
You do know that the "radicalized" Taliban was created in the 1990s by the ISI -- Pakistan's Intelligence agency run by the military.
The Pakis wanted to kill dead the growing ties between Indian and Afghanistan. Not many "neocon Hindus" in India -- whatever you mean by "neocon" -- the most hackneyed political term around.
But who was president then -- oh yes, that famous conservative Bill Clinton.
You just don't get it -- the Islamists have been radicalizing themselves for the past 30 years based on their own conviction that the west is in decline and Islam is back on the rise after 200 years of
Maybe you could blame the American war of independence for the later "radicalization" of Islam.
Lee Ghume| 11.9.11 @ 7:52AM
Anything that makes Muslims stronger anywhere around the globe our Barry favours.
DTOM| 11.9.11 @ 8:54AM
JvB;
I don't know whether the have gone radical because they thought the West was in decline, or becuase they wanted to put us there. I'm thinking the big decline didn't begin until October of 2008.
And when they called it the Arab Spring, were they maybe talking about tornado and flash-flood season? Looks like it. Maybe they were thinking cherry blossoms of liberty then, tornadoes and floods now...
Doctor Right| 11.9.11 @ 1:42PM
Don't waste your time arguing with Jack.
His sole purpose in life is to blame the "neo-cons" (ie, the Jews) for all of our problems, perceived or imagined.
Jack is a Paul-Bot who buys into Ron Paul's crack-pot theories about the middle east. Talk to Jack long enough and you'll find he's a "Truther"...
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:45PM
Dr R,
This is like watching a live action version of Caliphate. In my conversation with the author (a GREAT way to spend a birthday), he was noting the same thing happening. Not much hope for those in bondage to an evil child molesting mass murdering thief.
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:53PM
Right, Jack. And when we get the hell out, they won't try to hunt us down and kill us, as they are the Religion of Peace.
Wow, with your acute perception of reality, you must have made an awesome CEO.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.11 @ 4:41PM
America's internal problem will overshadow anything radical muslims do.
And there's Anne Coulter and her over the top exhortation to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
Coulter is as 'het up' as Post American.
TrueBlue| 11.9.11 @ 6:48PM
No need to invade, just drop a non-nuclear bomb on their ruling body when they're in session every time one of their leaders makes a threat against us or our allies. They'll get the idea eventually, and won't require any ground forces.
Alan Brooks| 11.9.11 @ 10:46PM
so tell it to Twiggy Coulter.
OregonBuzz| 11.9.11 @ 7:59AM
"Libya is heading toward Islamism." This is news?
Jack von Bauer| 11.9.11 @ 8:10AM
Only to the Obama cultists, the State Department, Democrats in congress and Hillary Clintoon.
Guess they never saw THAT ONE coming.
Funny and scary at the same time.
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:46PM
And Ron Paul and his allies.
John| 11.9.11 @ 11:29AM
The left will attempt to co-opt the leaders of these new “Arab Spring” regimes: money, prostitutes, whatever it takes. Depending on how devout these leaders are will determine the left’s success. See "Vox populi, vox Mohammad?" Regardless, the formerly mainstream media will find examples of Islamic extremism “unfit to print.” This may work for a time, however, by election time this major Obama foreign policy victory will turn out to be a major embarrassment.
POST American| 11.9.11 @ 8:02AM
----ALL this as the immigration flood,
initiated in the late 70s ---is 'by design'
destroying Britain and Europe.
This, on top of the systematic degradation
of the cultures, again, directed by the
'heir is toxic--rat' and usury 'councils',
ensure there will be NO possibility of
a unified voice of opposition
to EVER again effectively emerge.
-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012---------
--------------------(London chapter)---------------------
DTOM| 11.9.11 @ 8:56AM
Islam is NOT a religion - it is a political party! It does not get separation of church and state protections.
Mike Hawk| 11.9.11 @ 10:09AM
In Islam, the religion, the state and the culture are one and inseparable.
DTOM| 11.9.11 @ 4:10PM
Ergo, it's not a religion.
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:47PM
It does right now. Perhaps in the future, there will be a ruling...
Intelligent Design| 11.9.11 @ 8:03AM
So Obama has spent about $1.2 billion of our money removing Gaddafi so that he could be replaced by al Qaeda. Brilliant move.
What is Islam all about? It's about the merger of state and so-called religion, forbidding and precluding the practice of any other religion, to form a totalitarian government where freedom is dead. Nothing could be more hostile to the U.S. Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and human rights everywhere on earth. Labels such as "moderate Muslim" or "radical Islamist" are irrelevant, since there is no difference. Islam is a 7th century political ideology, not actually a religion at all. It is the embodiment of evil, whereas true religions oppose evil. As the Ayatollah Khomeini said, "Islam is politics or it is nothing".
Truth to Power| 11.9.11 @ 8:09AM
Mission Accomplished, Obama style.
David W| 11.9.11 @ 8:36AM
Is there a country anywhere in the world, where Islam is the driving force, where any non-muslim is safe? The answer is no. Every country with a majority muslim population that is not under the thumb of a secular government treats non-muslims like dirt. Even countries that might be considered secular have muslims treating non-muslims like dirt. Every country in the middle east, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, are basically sharia compliant, and non-muslims are leaving in droves (except for the ones who are unable to move because they were killed by muslims).
The same threat is already in parts of Europe, and thanks to Obama and his administration is know-nothings it is happening here (though it appears that some in the Republican party are helping it along quite nicely).
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.11 @ 8:49AM
Mr. Tamimi,
Just where are you coming from?
Are you a Christian?
Are you an apostate Muslim who decided to turn your back on Satan’s troops?
Are you a secularist looking forward only to becoming a dog-food donor?
I most urgently advise you to read the “Joel C. Rosenberg series of novels
Beginning with “The Last Jihad”.
You might also profit from reading my own book; www.americaalonesaidno.com
We are genuinely approaching the climax of history. Fasten your seat-belt.
Delta Zelda| 11.9.11 @ 8:56PM
Old Texican, I just bought your book and I'm looking forward to reading it!
W| 11.9.11 @ 10:25AM
Jimmy Carter let Iran fall to the Islamists. Jimmy Hussein Obama let Libya fall to the Islamists.
cicero| 11.9.11 @ 10:57AM
A review of the history of the Arab/Islamic world indicates that the normal mode of regime change is the violent overthrow of whoever happens to be in power at any point of time. Power is acquired by violence, and lost in violence. The only difference this time is that the Libyan arab islamists managed to get the western powers to do their dirty work for them.
Either we are being represented by a very foolish administration, or a very evil one.
Patrick| 11.9.11 @ 12:44PM
I believe that the current administration is rather both foolish and evil.
Intelligent Design| 11.9.11 @ 2:16PM
How about "profoundly stupid" or "sinister"?
SCM| 11.9.11 @ 5:46PM
Why not both?
Mistral| 11.9.11 @ 11:40AM
Well done the coalition - Sarkozy, Cameron and Hussein Obama. This should ensure that the Libyan population will be at each others throats for a generation to come. Powerful stuff this democracy!
nohussein| 11.9.11 @ 11:51AM
The hussein's MB marches on, pathetic.
C Smith| 11.9.11 @ 11:54AM
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Seven Other Spirits
When Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander reported "flickers" of al Qaeda and Hezbollah involvement within ranks of the Libyan rebels, he was soundly reproved. National security officials quickly denied the affiliation, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton immediately mitigated the allegation. However, as the Western coalition continues to facilitate rebellion within the Arab League, a vacuum is undeniably being created. The obvious question: what is going to fill the vacuum? There is an obvious answer, but is won't be forthcoming from Obama or Clinton, or Cameron or Sarkozy:
"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation" (Mathew 12:43-45).
http://the-day-of-the-lord.blo.....irits.html
Michael Tomlinson| 11.9.11 @ 12:08PM
This is another "victory" for Barack Obama who is steadily turning the Middle East into a fundamentalist "hell hole."
All American American| 11.9.11 @ 12:21PM
What's an "islamist?" To me it simply looks like they're following the lead set by the pedophile mohammed and his phony moon god, allah.
Connect the dots folks---
1 - Turn our back on Israel? check.
2 - Tunr a blind eye to Iran? check.
3 - Depose Mubarek and install Muslim Brotherhood? check.
4 - Depose Ghadaffi and install Muslim Brotherhood? check.
Dot-dot-dot-dot. What's next for Barry the muslim usurper?
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:48PM
Perfect post, triple A.
nathan| 11.9.11 @ 1:45PM
Jack has it right. The neocon imperialists who want us to intervene everywhere and wanted us to get rid of the evil Khaddafy just as we just had to get rid of the evil Saddam, well, beware of what you ask for. In Iraq, the so called victory there is 200-400,000 dead Iraqi civilians, a "democracy" that is sharia based (any of you neocons planning to move there anytime soon?), a Christian community, largely untouched by Saddam now completely destroyed and in poverty stricken exile throughout the region, call that "victory" all you want. We're going to get the same kind of "victory" in Libya. Maybe, just maybe we'll learn sooner or later that the neocons don't have the faintest idea what they're about?
And @ W. Please Carter lost Iran? You don't think that maybe, just maybe Eisenhower greenlighting the coup against the perfectly legal Mossadegh government who wasn't threatening us, had committed no act of war against us, was not planning to do anything to us, you don't think that coup which most people might consider an unprovoked act of war on our part, followed by our installing a kleptomaniac human rights violator and keeping him in power for a few decades, you don't think that maybe had a "little" something to do with it? That maybe if we had minded our own business in 1953 something we have a real hard time doing, Iran might be a whole lot different today? Another reason to quit listening to these neocon interventionists who clearly don't know what they're talking about? Just maybe?
And @All American. Mubarak was also a kleptomaniac human rights violator who stole what 30/40/50 billion dollars? Kept Egypt at the bottom of the economic ladder? And horribly abused those people for decades while president after president enabled him? Explain to everyone here with a million people in the streets of Cairo having been reduced to what did Jefferson call it, a state of despotism, and what did Jefferson say people in that situation have both a right and an obligation to do, act against the despot in this case Mubarak? Well what possibly could Obama say to those million people in the streets of Cairo that would have made the slightest difference? You're the president. You tell us what you could have done which would have changed their minds as they went all Thomas Jefferson on a hated despot. Or do only Americans get to play "Declaration of Independence" on evil dictators?
conservative bob| 11.9.11 @ 2:12PM
So to recap Obama who just did a victory lap for freeing Lybia for the Islamists is a Neocon?
DO I understand your point correctly?
All American American| 11.9.11 @ 3:58PM
Muslims went "all Jefferson?" Bwahahahahaha!
If I were president we wouldn't have a "muslim" problem---muslims would have an America problem.
nathan| 11.9.11 @ 7:02PM
@All American. Charming but you didn't answer my question so let me try again. I'll make it easy for you. Here's what Jefferson said directly from the Declaration of Independence.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
With regards to Hosni Mubarak, there is no question, none whatsoever, that Egypt had been reduced to absolute despotism. Mubarak stole the country blind, (a lot of your taxpayers dollars by the way), the secret police under his control routinely tortured and abused people. He met any definition you care to use regarding being a tyrant, a despot, a dictator, all of them. Not one of you who believe Obama should have "done something" would have spent a single hour under his rule. So the Egyptians did exactly what Jefferson said they had not only a right but an obligation to do, throw off such a government.
Now tell us what Obama should have done regarding people who were doing what Jefferson said they should be doing. What was he supposed to say to a million people in the streets of Cairo who were doing what Jefferson said they had not just a right but an obligation to do. Should he side with a kleptomaniac human rights violating despot against the people who were exercising there Jeffersonian imperative here?
All of you, think about this. On what basis should we back despots against the people seeking to remove them? As "conservatives" heirs to Founders, did we want Obama to tell the people of Egypt that they should go on being abused, being tortured, being robbed blind? Really? If you were an Egyptian, would you have just sat there and continued to live under this despot and do nothing? While his secret police haul your son off to one of his prisons and torture him? Or you? All American tell us what you would have done. Patrick Henry asked 200 years ago, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet [even with the Israelis] as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" All of you tell us how the Egyptians were supposed to answer that question after decades of oppression and abuse at the hands of Mubarak? Try answering the question. Or am I being just a tad unreasonable here? Can I get an answer to the questions I ask instead of just jingoism?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.11 @ 7:58PM
Nathan,
you are sorta' stupid. All these slaves have done is name a new despot under Sharia.
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:49PM
I don't seem to recall Jefferson putting George III in a drain pipe and then beating him to death. But, of course, I'm not as educated and erudite as you, Clint (I mean nathan---so many nom de plumes).
nathan| 11.10.11 @ 8:10AM
That sir really didn't answer my question did it? Mubarak was a horrible dictator. He oppressed his people for decades. You're the president OC. Tell us all what you would have told the million people in Cairo that would have made difference to them after decades of oppression. But OC I'll ask you another question and see if I can get an answer. (I'm not holding my breath.) Did we, the Americans have an ethical or moral right to ask/demand the Egyptians to continue to be oppressed by Mubarak? To go on letting him steal the country blind? (One figure was something like 70 billion dollars, a fair amount of it our tax dollars.) Did you see where Egypt ranked on the economic list in the bottom 10 or so? And largely because of his gross mismanagement. So OC did we have a moral or ethical right to ask the people of that country or any country for any reason to continue to endure crushing poverty and horrible abuse? Did Obama have any right whatsoever to voice any support for a man who arguably was as bad if not worse than Saddam was, you remember the guy we spent over a trillion dollars removing? Care to give a real answer to this question? Just wondering.
Conservatives claim to be heirs to the Founders. I don't believe for a single moment the Founders would have gone anywhere near this guy. But then again both Washington and Jefferson voiced strong opposition to entangling alliances. Go back and look at Washington's speech on this subject. Tell us all where and why he's wrong here.
If we're conservatives can we actually start acting like it? Which means can the neocons who want to drag us into every conflict in every country despite not knowing anything about these countries all leave the room? Thank you.
All American American| 11.10.11 @ 8:06AM
If I were an Egyptian who cared about freedom in the way you mean (Jeffersonian) I would have done the following:
1 - Left Egypt. Probably would have come to America, where we still have some freedom left.
2 - Left the Darkness that is islam. There is no freedom in islam, which is the giant purple elephant in the room you're missing. In islam there is only Darkness and submission to allah/mohammed/Satan. One and the same.
3 - Given my life to Christ, Who is Light.
4 - Buy lots of land and lots of guns.
Hope that clears it up for you.
nathan| 11.10.11 @ 9:55AM
No "lives, fortunes, sacred honor" for you I guess.
Given that these folks, and most of the people we're talking about have like zero money thanks to the people oppressing them, option 4 is not going to work.
I'm all in favor of 3, but we're talking about a secular situation here. Jefferson after all, as well as most of the the Founders, contrary to common myth, was not a Christian but a deist. He actually took several Bibles apart, cut out the sections he didn't like and reassembled one that exists today. That Bible, with all references to Jesus removed is on display somewhere. Christian, no as were most of the Founders including Tom Paine who was an atheist.
1. This assumes you have somewhere to go and a country that will take you in. Throughout the world today, most countries, ours included, are starting to slam the door on immigration. Where were 20 million, whatever the number poverty stricken Egyptians supposed to go and who were going to support them? But also what if the Founders in 1776 had bailed to Mexico or Florida instead of risking "lives, fortunes, sacred honor" and places like Mount Vernon to go against what was considered the America (world's greatest superpower) of its day? Then we their successors have nothing.
Nice try. NEXT!
All American American| 11.10.11 @ 10:14AM
Nathan the difference between you and me is you make excuses for islam; I want to eradicate it.
You asked me what I'd do and I told you. Take your circle jerk somewhere else because its not flying here. The Egyptian people are no more interested in Jeffersonian ideals about freedom than the squirrel currently gathering nuts in my back yard is. Islam is not compatable with Jeffersonian freedom, which is the point you miss.
To even argue muslims want to live in some sort of free society is indicative of a poor to non-existent understanding of islam. By definition there is no freedom in islam. Muslims are not like Westerners. Never have been, never will be. The sooner we in the West understand that, the better.
All American American| 11.10.11 @ 10:26AM
Hey Nate I got an idea for you.
Since you think the Egyptian peoples are just longing for Jeffersonian freedoms, why don't YOU be their Tom Jefferson? Go to Egypt, get a koran and cut out all the parts of it that refer to killing, torturing, murdering, raping, pillaging lying to, and robbing infidels (just a hint, there won't be much left). You know, kinda like that Bible you said Jefferson made but somehow you just don't remember where it is *cough cough*. Anyway go and do that and see how long you last in Tahrir square or heck even at the university of Cairo for that matter.
Come on man history is waiting for you Nate. Time to nut up and put your "life, fortune, and sacred honor" where you big ignorant mouth is.
Clinton| 11.9.11 @ 2:00PM
Thank God for Israel the only people of couarge and freedom in the Middle East. Also I wish the neocons in the Bush administration were in power, because this never would have happened and we wouldn't be betraying Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran.
Intelligent Design| 11.9.11 @ 2:22PM
Why did Obama and Napolitano allow the Muslim, Mohammed Elibiary, to serve as a Homeland Security Advisor?
http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....ick-perry/
Mohammed Elibiary praises the Muslim Brotherhood and the Ayatollah Khomeini. The MB's objective is the destruction of Western civilization, and it is actively engaged in subversive activities here in the U.S. via mosques, campus groups, and fake charities. The Ayatollah Khomeini said, "Islam is politics or it is nothing."
Allah| 11.9.11 @ 3:50PM
Give me a male child till he is 7 and he will follow the way of Mohammed. Praise be given to the male Muslim child Barry.
gary siebel| 11.9.11 @ 8:58PM
Interesting, that bit about "for dhimmis are not allowed to reconstruct their buildings of worship or build new synagogues and churches." I wasn't aware of that detail, but it fits into my general view that Islam is designed specifically to take advantage of the "niceness" (e.g., turn the other cheek -- little of which is evident in the AS forums) of Christians, and democracies.
I cannot remember the particular battle, unfortunately, but I am reminded of what I call the Battle of Nocked Arrows, in which one king cleverly had his archers reduce the width of the nock in their arrows so they could not be picked up by the enemy for return fire -- they wouldn't fit around the bowstring. That is the basic policy of Islam; take every freedom offered, but yield nothing in return. Like Nazi's, Islamic hardliners would get into government as a minority, and then usurp their way into the power to reduce freedom in general. Chancellor Hitler indeed. We should probably start calling Islamic hardliners Nazi's, because that's how they behave.
However, human nature will out in the long run -- both China and Russia provide modern evidence of that. If we had nuked China as Macarthur wanted, they wouldn't be making all of our products today (hmmmm...). Nor would they be inclined to be friendly at all. But through patience, fits and starts, and our steady example (and pressure) they are inching toward greater freedom. The genie has been let out of the bottle.
Even the most fervent hardliner in Libya will not be believed if they declare the US a direct enemy after our help in bringing down Qaddafi, who definitely had to go anyway (remember Lockerbie -- btw, how is that "dying" doctor doing these days?). Also, Libya, being closer to Europe, will have a harder time in the long run avoiding Euro influences than Iran. And that's what these revolutions really are: the beginnings of a very long run.
In my view, the proposed 911 mosque in NYC is just another example of the reduced nock arrow. It will be a shrine to the hijackers in the long run. Human nature will out, and shrines are a big part of human nature, regardless of religious ideology. Obama pretty much conceded that point when he had OBL buried at sea.
Occam's Tool| 11.9.11 @ 9:51PM
Gary, take a look at Caliphate, the novel by Tom Kratman (my good friend, but NOT me). As Tom is an expert in Laws of War, he goes into some detail about what Islamic law will and will not allow regarding kaffirs and dhimmis.
Farooque| 11.9.11 @ 11:41PM
Aymenn, it appears you're writing for whoever is paying your keep and for your college. Good luck.
john fisher| 11.14.11 @ 12:49AM
Libya will now get on with the business of killing each other. They will kill men, women, children, Jews, Christians, Shias, Sunnis and anyone who they have some perceived grievance with. There is not enough blood on earth to satisfy their blood lust. All of this in the name of God.
jjfisher
wedding dresses | 11.14.11 @ 3:16AM
Even the most fervent hardliner in Libya will not be believed if they declare the US a direct enemy after our help in bringing down Qaddafi, who definitely had to go anyway (remember Lockerbie -- btw, how is that "dying" doctor doing these days?). Also, Libya, being closer to Europe, will have a harder time in the long run avoiding Euro influences than Iran. And that's what these revolutions really are: the beginnings of a very long run.