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.

Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslim countries, have pioneered the development of Sharia-compliant banks which charge fees rather than interest for loans but they normally run alongside western-style banks.

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html



Wow, who could have predicted this? I'm waiting for everyone on the Glade who supported this 'revolution' to eat their words now.

Why would anyone eat their words? Revolutionaries pulling down oppressive regimes always deserve their shot at freedom, regardless of what they do with it. I support their next revolution as well.

So you are perfectly fine with it if they pass laws requiring women to be escorted in public, cover their faces, not drive, and be excluded from other privileges (such as an education)? It seems their society might become more oppressive.

Revolutionaries pulling down oppressive regimes always deserve their shot at freedom, regardless of what they do with it. I support their next revolution as well.

They had their shot at freedom and got what they wanted. They can now democratically pass any laws they want, including very oppressive ones. They are now free to impose the tyranny of the majority.

They aren't as culturally advanced as the West, as they haven't experienced their own "enlightenment" to date. I liken the Arab Spring to Cromwell's revolution. There will be more to follow, and progress will be made in each.

Previously people could freely drink alcohol on their property, now they can't. Seems like a regression to me.

People have a right to decide what form their government takes.

It wouldn't be my choice, but if that's what they want, they should go for it.

I think you guys are all missing the point. And that point is, "Yay! We created another Iran!"

I think you guys are all missing the point. And that point is, "Yay! We created another Iran!"

Also these former rebels have no relevant job experience in administering large oil companies. I wonder what will happen with that.

[ The Spice must flow.