Libya Nostalgic for the 7th Century

The 7th century was the century during which the religion of Islam was founded and subsequently spread across Western Asia and Northern Africa via the Muslim conquests.  Since then, Muslims societies have advanced (or liberalized) inconsistently, with some remaining relatively primitive and with others modernizing significantly (in various ways).

There exist about 46 sovereign nations with Muslim majority populations.  These countries are located in Northern Africa (examples: Mauritania, Tunisia and Morocco), Western Asia (examples: Azerbaijan, Yemen, and Iraq), Central Asia (examples: Afghanistan, Iran, and Uzbekistan), South Asia (examples: the Maldives, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), Southeast Asia (examples: Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia), Subsaharan Africa (examples: Somalia, Niger, and Djibouti), and even Europe (Albania and its sovereignty-lacking neighbor, Kosovo).  A full list of countries by Muslim population is available here.  Interestingly, one of the least Muslim countries in the world, Armenia, is located very close to the Middle East.  And something else I found interesting was another country with a very low Muslim population, Malta, is both located very close to Tunisia and has an official language, Maltese, that is derived from Arabic.  

Now, my nerdy inclinations and their requisite history and geography lessons aside, the newly liberated nation of Libya (or at least its de facto interim president) appears to be nostalgic for the aforementioned 7th century (h/t Instapundit):

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council and de fact president, had already declared that Libyan laws in future would have Sharia, the Islamic code, as its "basic source". 

But that formulation can be interpreted in many ways - it was also the basis of Egypt's largely secular constitution under President Hosni Mubarak, and remains so after his fall. 

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi's era that he said was in conflict with Sharia - that banning polygamy. 

In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya's economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. "Interest creates disease and hatred among people," he said.  

...

Libya is already the most conservative state in north Africa, banning the sale of alcohol. Mr Abdul-Jalil's decision - made in advance of the introduction of any democratic process - will please the Islamists who have played a strong role in opposition to Col Gaddafi's rule and in the uprising but worry the many young liberal Libyans who, while usually observant Muslims, take their political cues from the West.

Given Obama's and the United States' role in the usurpation of Muammar Gaddafi's rule over Libya by the rebels, I believe he has the responsibility to ensure that the new Libyan government doesn't reduce the freedom that Libyans have.  It is irresponsible, and probably dangerous, to allow an Islamofascist to return Libya to its state of tyranny (not that that will necessarily happen, but it becomes more likely with the incorporation of Sharia law into Libyan law).  Furthermore, the West doesn't need more enemies, and Sharia law is already undermining Western values in Europe.  If Obama cares about Western, Judeo-Christain-based values (which is questionable), he should not sit idly by during Libya's transition.  

So Much Death

At least 43 people have died in a train crash in China.

Six people were killed at a shooting at a birthday party in Texas.

Thousands are thought to be dead as the result of the famine in Somalia.

And the death toll of the attacks in Norway has risen to 94.

So why is Amy Winehouse receiving so much attention?  Yes, she died, and that is unfortunate, but how is her death any more tragic than those of the thousands of other people who died?  What has Amy Winehouse contributed to society that is so significant that her death should receive so much attention?  I do not understand this.  I do not understand why celebrities are placed on these pedestals that elevate them above the rest of society.  I do not mean any disrespect to Amy Winehouse or her family.  I just don't understand the inequality.

More on South Sudan

The independence of South Sudan marks a great accomplishment for the West, as it represents the liberation of people opressed by Islamic tyranny and marks a major victory in a brutal fight for freedom.  

A new nation was being born in what used to be a forlorn, war-racked patch of Africa, and to many it seemed nothing short of miraculous. After more than five decades of an underdog, guerrilla struggle and two million lives lost, the Republic of South Sudan, Africa’s 54th state, was about to declare its independence in front of a who’s who of Africa, including the president of the country letting it go: Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, a war-crimes suspect.
From the mid-1950s, even before Sudan shook off its colonial yoke in 1956, the southern Sudanese were chafing for more rights. Sudan had an unusually clear fault line, reinforced by British colonizers, with the southern third mostly animist and Christian and the northern part majority Muslim and long dominated by Arabs.The southern struggle blew up into a full-fledged rebellion in the 1960s and then again in the 1980s, and the Sudanese government responded brutally, bombing villages and unleashing Arab militias that massacred civilians and enslaved southern Sudanese children. Many of the same scorched-earth tactics associated with the crisis in Darfur, in Sudan’s west, in the mid-2000s, were tried and tested long before that here in southern Sudan. (The International Criminal Court has indicted Mr. Bashir on genocide charges for the Darfur massacres.)Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to near the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede.On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said “Thank You George Bush.”The American-backed treaty set the stage for a referendum this January in which southerners voted by 98.8 percent for independence.At 1:20 p.m. on Saturday, the southerners officially proclaimed their freedom.South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, wearing his signature black cowboy hat given to him by Mr. Bush, signed the interim Constitution.

I must commend George W. Bush for engineering this process.  Thanks to GayPatriot for the link.  

A New Nation

Earlier today, a new nation, South Sudan, was formed.