Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Polygamy was against the law in Libya,now it won't be under Sharia law.
Libya has had sharia law for over 40 years, and that is a fact. Very few muslim countries interpret sharia law the same say, - some are very strict and some lenient. Practically all muslims countries have elements of sharia law in their legal systems. This is non-news, especially when the person making the comment said it will be applied to banking and marriage/divorce issues.
Am I concerned? Not at all.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-24-2011 at 06:01 PM..
If you aren't concerned,you sure post a lot about it...LOL.
I am concerned about people being misinformed. The thread suggests that sharia law is something new and scary in Libya, but the truth is that they have had it for decades, and you didn't even know it. Do you care how many wives a Libyan bedoin has in his tent? Clint Eastwood has had five of them. Where is the outrage?
I am concerned about people being misinformed. The thread suggests that sharia law is something new and scary in Libya, but the truth is that they have had it for decades, and you didn't even know it. Do you care how many wives a Libyan bedoin has in his tent? Clint Eastwood has had five of them. Where is the outrage?
The new government of Libya is wanting to be much more fundamental than under Gaddafi.
That is according to their leader.
So you support polygamy here in the USA,interesting.
The Green Book, Gaddafi's outline of his political and economic philosophy for Libya, officially accepts religion and customary law as sources of law for society. In 1977, the Libyan government promulgated the Declaration of People's Power, which superseded the constitution; this also stated that the Qur'an was the source of legislation for Libya.However, throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi repeatedly emphasised in speeches that Islamic law was an insufficient basis for modern economic and social relations, and that the traditional Islamic guidelines for property and commerce had no legal standing. In practise, secular policies overrode religion as a source of law. Thus, by 1990, Ann Elizabeth Mayer of the University of Pennsylvania described Gaddafi's actual progress towards the Islamisation of Libyan law as "very modest", and largely aimed not at reviving specific sharia rules, but enforcing public morality consistent with Libyan values.
One area in particular in which Libyan laws are inconsistent with sharia is in the penal law, where the punishments are lighter than those mandated by traditional hudud, especially in the case of needy offenders. Mayer analyses this as leniency inspired by the Libyan government's socialist principles. The Libyan government also viewed sharia's protection of private property, along with principles of Islamic law regarding contracts and commerce, as incompatible with a socialist economic programme. However, Libyan law follows the sharia rules of evidence; the testimony of women and non-Muslims is not accepted in criminal matters. The Maliki school continued to be used as the source of Islamic law; however, if Maliki sources do not cover a certain question, reference is made to the Libyan Penal Code and the Libyan Code of Penal Procedure, rather than other schools of sharia law. The practical aim of this procedure seems to have been to limit the number and scope of sharia laws applied.
Directly targeting another nations leader is wrong...
I am sure you agree?
No, I don't agree, and I'll tell you why. There are "leaders" and then there are "legitimate leaders". Each situation is different, just like each of my patients is different.
My frame of reference is our own history. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Please read the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
Muammar Gaddafi seized power in a military coup d'etat in 1969. NOBODY elected him dog catcher, let alone head of state. He scrapped the constitution, crushed internal dissent, and sponsored international terrorism. His people did not bestow upon him ANY legitimacy. They did not give their consent to his tyranny. Gaddafi had no legitimacy.
After more than 40 years of oppression, his people rose up in arms, put their lives on the line, spilt their own blood to get rid of him. I have to admire that. Gaddafi was killing them from the air while the rebels didn't have air support. So NATO (and the US) evened out the field. I'm OK with that.
So yeah, Gaddafi deserved to be killed, and he died at the hands of the very people he abused for decades. I am not a Republican, but I applauded Reagan's action back in '86.
The new government of Libya is wanting to be much more fundamental than under Gaddafi. That is according to their leader.
Link please.
Gadaffi executed people in public and then made the TV stations broadcast it over and over. You think the new leader will be worse? Heck, you don't even know who the new leader will be, yet you pretend to know he will be really, really baaaaaad.
No, I don't agree, and I'll tell you why. There are "leaders" and then there are "legitimate leaders". Each situation is different, just like each of my patients is different.
My frame of reference is our own history. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Please read the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
Muammar Gaddafi seized power in a military coup d'etat in 1969. NOBODY elected him dog catcher, let alone head of state. He scrapped the constitution, crushed internal dissent, and sponsored international terrorism. His people did not bestow upon him ANY legitimacy. They did not give their consent to his tyranny. Gaddafi had no legitimacy.
After more than 40 years of oppression, his people rose up in arms, put their lives on the line, spilt their own blood to get rid of him. I have to admire that. Gaddafi was killing them from the air while the rebels didn't have air support. So NATO (and the US) evened out the field. I'm OK with that.
So yeah, Gaddafi deserved to be killed, and he died at the hands of the very people he abused for decades. I am not a Republican, but I applauded Reagan's action back in '86.
So you support killing the leader of Yemen,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Syria,North Korea,etc,etc,etc....
Quite bloodthirsty aren't you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
