So I was reading the BBC today:
BBC News - Libya's new rulers declare country liberated
BBC News - After Gaddafi: Libyan revolution 'still has far to go'

Both articles talk about what the new Libyan government will look like, or if the NTC will survive at all. One thing however did catch my eye which is a line from the first article
Mr Abdul Jalil said the new Libya would take Islamic law as its foundation. Interest for bank loans would be capped, he said, and restrictions on the number of wives Libyan men could take would be lifted.
If, and its a really big if, we take this to mean the new Libyan government, in what I assume to be a response to the general desire of its people, will find its guiding principles in Islamic law will this is an acceptable outcome? By acceptable I mean if Libya is a democracy, as they say they intend to be, but has a strong underflow of Islamic law will we still consider it a victory? For example if the new Libyan government decides to afford its citizens the freedom of worship, but makes it legal to marry as many women as one likes? That would reflect its people's consideration of Islam in politics, just as in the United States we'd never allow a man to marry more than one woman and its a hell of a fight trying to allow homosexuals to marry, because of many people's consideration of Christianity in politics.

Now its important to remember when I say Islam or Christianity, I mean these people's specific versions of that religion. I don't mean Islam or Christianity are the same everywhere, I'm talking about these specific people's view on what their religion is and what it means. So for example you could argue that marrying several women isn't contrary to Christianity because you're a Mormon of a particular sect, however that's not the prevailing view in the United States. That's what I'm talking about, the fact that people's view of their own religion play into there politics.