PHOTOS: Libyans Applaud President Obama And International Allies With Large Thank You

because it's neither wrong nor uninformed. Until you point me to a third option, then I'll ask what people prefer.

I made the same argument because two different posters had the same complaint in two different threads. I'd like for one of them if not both to answer the simple yes or no question.

 

Your simple yes or no question is obviously misleading as it implies that the only options are Gaddafi or a constitution that puts Sharia law above everything else.

This is far from true. Gaddafi has not even been captured yet. We don't know when the rebels will officially be in power and which factions among them will prevail in a discussion about the constitution. Who knows, Djibril or someone else who doesn't see himself on a religious mission might prevail and turn out to be a proponent of a separation of church and state (like Atatürk).

We just don't know yet.

Therefore, what you posted is both wrong and uninformed, as, again, it implies that there is only one alternative.

 

Is that pre-constitution that seems to be the source of complaint from the rebels which included Djibril? If it is then that is the other option to Qaddafi.

If it isn't, then why would people whine and complain about it.

If there is a third option of forces who opposed Qaddafi please let me know about them.

If there isn't a third option(so far you haven't provided one.), then those are the two options we have.

 

Is that relevant? I would rather Islam not exist. It's the greatest threat in the world to me and mine.

 

I won't do it, but I am wondering if this is reportable.

 

Hmmm... I would say ignorance is a greater threat.

Yes my question was relevant. We had Qaddafi the dictator who supported Islamic terrorism, and was a dictator, or we had the group of rebels who were fighting him.

You are complaining about the rebels, so it is relevant if you would prefer the option of the terrorist supporting dictator.

 

It is Islamophobia and ignorant, but I don't know if it's reportable since it wasn't directed at any particular poster here.

But of course based on statistics it's a silly and ignorant thing to say. Heart disease, violent crime from members of the posters same race, auto-accident, and any number of things are a far greater threat to him and his.

 

so your argument with franchiseblade is that we don't know what's going to happen but your argument here is that they already have their article one of their constitution written?

 

as far as comparing khaddafi with the taliban you do realize khaddafi shares responsiblity for one of the worst terror attacks in history right?

 

I am suggesting that Islam sucks and so will the new government. The old government sucked too. The new Libya will be just as intolerant as the old Libya because the same ****ty beliefs are still prevalent amongst the population.

 

do you fear this when you are out in the shopping malls or out in public? I am trying not to be sarcastic, but honest- do you honestly think our society will be overrun by muslim zombies out to behead us all under the rule of Sharia Law?

 

Libya isn't going to just go from Qaddafi's era to being a modern liberal democracy in one day. You need public education, experience with the voting and legislative process, etc. and they take time. However, having some kind of government that isn't totally corrupt and has some mechanism of responding to the people's desires, including the desire for the policy of the country to better reflect Islamic ideals, is a step forward compared to where things were. A government needs some degree of legitimacy and if, in Libya today, this requires the government to have some religous orientation, then the religious orientation preferable to a country with a secular(ish) corrupt dictator. Also, I really doubt that the Libyans want Taliban-style Sharia law. My guess is folks there would rather be like Turkey than Afghanistan.

The only real worry is for things descend into mass violence like how Iraq got.

 

You are the only one whining and complaining. Nowhere in that blog post does it say whether or not it included Djibril or anyone else. Even that blog post explicitly says the authenticity is in question.

First, the authenticity of that draft is not even confirmed. Second, there is no information at all about the source of the draft, and which factions might be behind it and opposed to it. Therefore, your continued attempt to make it seem like the only alternative is Gaddafi or Sharia is ridiculous.

 

Islam spreads very very quickly. Look at Europe. And where Islam goes, Sharia follows. As to your question, I fear my kids living in a world with a greater Muslim population. Anyone who enjoys not being killed for their beliefs obviously should.

 

The greatest threats to you and yours are heart/respiratory disease, cancer, and car accidents. "Islam" isn't even a blip on the radar. However, based on your posting history, I'd say that ignorance is probably giving cancer a run for its money.

 

I tend to agree with most of this post. But there is a difference between "some religious orientation"/"Islamic ideals" and "Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)."

 

You don't understand what 'me and mine' is. How could you?

 

To those complaining about Islam (primarily Tallanvor), how do you reconcile the intolerant and in many cases openly violent Christian governments in Lebanon's history? (primarily in the 70s when Christian militias wiped out opposing Muslim militias and communities - many times with American and Israeli soldiers backing them up)

Perhaps there's a bit more to this than ISLAM IS BAD. There is a history of tribalism and communalism that predates Islam itself and this tribal structure is still quite rampant. On top of that you have a series of Post WWII countries that were arbitrarily drawn and ended up creating power vacuums that encouraged tribal infighting. It just so happens that most of these states were Islamic but even in Lebanon the Christian majority there at the time of independence did plenty to assert its power with a blatant constitution that to this day prohibits Muslims from being president or holding a majority of the parliament. (despite Muslims being a majority of the country)

But we'll overlook that absurd constitution because they're christian (or ignore the blatant religious discrimination against Arab-Israeli citizens) and instead focus on the Muslim countries despite the fact that the non-Muslims in the region have the same tribal and communal mentalities.

 

oh brother

can you see it already.

Brother Mohammad v. Joe

Supreme Court ruling (5-4)

Majority opinion (Chief Justice Abdaal Mushareff): The entire time we were doing it wrong! Let's embrace Sharia law! The 87th Amendment permits alternative methods of jurisprudence not based on the Consitution, because it was voted in by the 2/3rds majority in Congress and 38 state legislatures controlled by the Muslim Party.

seriously, wut.

 

Yes, that is part of my argument with FranchiseBlade

No, that is not my argument here. My argument here is with Carl Herrera's

Nowhere am I implying that they already have their article one of their constitution written. I am merely applying Carl Herrera's "logic" in this post ("hey it's ok if that were to be their article 1 of their constitution because it is a majority Muslim country") to the USA, which is a majority Christian country. I am pretty sure that he would be opposed to this being article 1 of the US constitution just because it is a majority Christian country, and rightly so. So I am pointing out that somewhere in his sarcastic post, a double standard is hidden.

I can also already predict the response: You cannot compare a mature democracy with a country that just comes out of decades of an uninterrupted dictatorship.

My response to this would be: No matter what the starting point is, I, personally, think that a separation of church and state is better for any country.