veiled4allah: right to keep and bear arms

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

For those who are interested, here is another article that makes the same argument, but focuses on the history of African-Americans and gun laws.

adnan said:

Total comments: 7

in a country like America, people should have the right to own a gun for protection purposes...
and of course, government tyranny...

dita said:

Total comments: 6

maybe a study must be conducted to weigh the benefits of legalizing civil gun possession and the losses caused by gun misuse...

if you ask me, i'd rather no one is allowed to have guns including the military. but then, who would've deal with people who decide to misuse guns?

Carol said:

Total comments: 17

It should be obvious that the meat of the 2nd amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The comments about well-regulated militia are barely prefatory.

Having just rebelled, and won, against their "lawful" ruler, there is no way the founding fathers would have put a limit on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Besides, as should now be obvious since Michale Belleisles (sp?) has been exposed as a liar and a scoundrel, the people had to have arms for hunting and protection in the countryside. This country would never have survived its early years if the people had been depending on non-existent law enforcement to protect them from bad guys.

Last, you need to know, if you don't already (general, plural "you" for all readers) that now that England has effectively banned the private ownership of firearms, their murder rate and crime rate in general is higher than the US. So much for the happy world of no private ownership of guns. Theives will happily walk right up to you on the street and bash your skull in just to take your cell phone if they like, and the police will happily throw you in jail if you attempt to defend yourself in any way, shape or form. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.

And just think of what life would be like for Saudi or Kuwaiti women if they could carry guns. They could dress any way they like, and not be entombed in mobile shrouds if they were armed and woe betide the first man who dared to look at them lustfully, much less decided to rape them because he knew bloody well that under sharia he could get away with it.

I do sometimes think that men should not be allowed to have guns but women should. AFter all, who is more likely to commit an agressive crime against a woman's person? But since most men I know are kind and decent, I only think that after reading particularly egregious news stories.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Wow, Carol, I hardly know where to start. But here goes...

First, rape is a captial offense under the Shari'a. Unfortunately, some Muslim countries (particularly Pakistan) have enacted laws that make it very difficult to convict a man of rape, but this is not the original intent of the Shari'a.

Under the Shari'a, a woman is not only permitted but is expected to defend herself against rape, and she may kill her rapist in self-defense if necessary. If she dies while attempting to defend herself, she is considered a martyr. You can read all about this here. This is a ruling given by a prominent Saudi scholar, by the way.

Second, I'm sorry that you consider veiling to be a "mobile shroud". I do not agree with the state enforcing the rules of veiling, and have said so here. I wear my veils out of my own free choice. I find the garments comfortable in both summer and winter, when appropriate fabrics are worn. I do not feel "entombed" in them at all. What I would find uncomfortable is men giving me the eye all the time because I was dressed in revealing clothes. You may feel differently of course, but I consider my body to be my own business and I don't choose to display it for just anybody.

It's true that some Muslims say that women who don't wear veiling are "asking for it" but under Islam, each person has his or her own set of responsibilities to fulfill. A man is commanded to lower his gaze from looking too much at women (Surah an-Nur verse 24:30) and the Quran states clearly that any man who seeks beyond his wife is a transgressor (Surah al-Muminun verses 23:5-7). Men are also commanded to avoid being alone in private with women they are not married or related to, and to avoid unnecessary physical contact with them (commands given by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him). Any man who violates these rules is a sinner and will be punished accordingly by God. If a woman has some fault in her own behavior, she would be punished as well, but that does NOT lift the responsibility off the man to act right.

Carol, PLEASE, you need to take the time to learn more about Islam and what it commands. I have cited the textual sources of Islam and the rulings of well-known scholars to refute your claims. Are you still going to say in spite of this evidence that I'm wrong, because why else would Muslim men act that way? Has it ever occurred to you that Muslims are just as capable as anybody else of failing to live up to their religion, of violating the commands of their religion, and of making false and specious justifications for their actions?

You are condemning my religion for something that it does not teach or advocate. I have given you evidence to refute your claims. I hope that you will take the time to read it and to consider it with an open mind.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

On the topic of guns, for those who are unfamiliar with it, there was a book by Michael Bellesiles supporting the gun control position, which was exposed as a lot of falsified research. See here. I believe this is what Carol is referring to.

The article that I have linked to in my post (you can use this link as well), is definitely pro-gun, which even a cursory reading will show. The author cites many sources in English common law and early colonial writings to support his thesis that the Second Amendment was seen largely in the context of a defense against tyranny. Anybody who argues with this claim should please read the article and provide a refutation of its sources and points rather than simply saying "it's obvious that..."

There is also the aspect of self-defense against crime, about which the author remarks in a footnote The right to keep and bear arms is also closely connected with the fundamental right of self-defense, but an extensive discussion of that right is beyond the scope of this comment. In my first comment on the blog entry (see above), I linked to another article (here). This second article makes the same "defense against tyranny" argument as the original article, but also discusses the question of self-defense in a bit more depth (the particular focus of the article is that gun control laws have historically been used to keep guns out of the hands of racial minorities, thus making them easier to victimize)

I posted these links because I hoped we could have a discussion of the articles and their merits, as well as other issues related to guns. I hope that we can rise above bashing Islam and get to the real debate, with sources and evidence to back up our positions.

Carol said:

Total comments: 17

It has not been my day: first my vaccuum cleaner died and having a dog and three cats, this is bad news indeed, then I touched a hot burner on the stove without checking the control panel first (forunately I reacted quickly) and then my ISP cut me off again right as I was posting my response to your response. So I'm going to try this again:

First, I am not "bashing Islam". Just as a point of comparison, for example, I would never propose that you can't practice your religion here but your co-religionists are not so generous in their countries: I am completely forbidden to practice my religion in Saudi Arabia. That many members of your religion do not behave well does nto mean that you all do or that Islam is necessarily at fault.

I don't think you read my whole comment but instead decided to read just the one paragraph about Islamic countries. My point is that women who are armed can do pretty much what they want and be as virtuous as they want (or not, if they chose) but only if they are free. If you cannot protect yourself, you are not free but are a prisoner of those who you are dependent on for protection.

There is no virtue in being forced to act in a way that others have determined is virtuous. In other words, there is no virtue for a Saudi woman to be veiled because she is forced to do so by law and the threat of violence at the hands of the mutaween. If you think veiling is virtuous (and I know you do) then it is indeed virtuous for you to do so because you are fortunate enough to live in a country where you are free to stop doing it at any moment.

If women in Saudi Arabia had at their disposal a way to fight back against they mutaween and they could decide for themselves if they wanted to be completely covered, then they could do it or not do it: IT WOULD BE THEIR CHOICE BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEIR CHOICE. Although I do hope Mao Tse Tung is burning in hell, he was right that ultimately, all Human power does come from the barrel of a gun. If you can't defend your choice, then you don't really have a choice.

Notice how all dictators - left, right, religious, secular - always make sure they have a disarmed populace.

With respect to your internship, don't overlook options such as civil rights organizations. They are under much greater pressue to practice what they preach (non-discrimination) than your average legal organization. And you might have some luck with government - either the public defender's office or local equivalent - or the prosecutor's office. Of course all of this depends on the part of the country you live in...

I have comments about the article you sent me but they have nothing to do with guns. Besides, I keep getting cut off and I have to do some other stuff before the work-week starts up again.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

I chose in my first response to concentrate on the issue of Islam because that really jumped out at me, your saying that men can get away with rape under the Shari'a.

Returning to your point about veiling and Islam, if you do read the link I gave you about veiling, you will see that I agree that governments should not force women to veil, and it is for the reason that you mentioned. What reward or virtue is there in what someone is forced to do? In my article I in fact argue that such laws are contrary to the Quran, which states "There is no compulsion in religion" (Surah al-Baqarat verse 2:256).

The same verse also condemns the discriminatory laws that Saudi Arabia has against members of other religions. You should know that historically, non-Muslims have been free to live in Islamic countries and to practice their religion. Because an Islamic state has laws based on Islamic law, non-Muslims are not expected to have to follow those laws (since they don't believe in Islam). Instead, they have lived in autonomous communities where they handle their own internal affairs and can run them according to the rules of their own religion. This is how Muslims are supposed to treat non-Muslims, not like Saudi Arabia does, no matter how "Islamic" Saudi Arabia claims to be. If you wish, I can provide further information about non-Muslims in Islamic lands, but most of my sources are offline books so I would have to type it in.

Once again, I do encourage you to keep looking and keep asking questions before you make a judgment about Islam. Most Muslims are agreed that there is no country today that implements Islamic law correctly, and we are aware that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan claim or have claimed to be doing so.

The Muslim world is a mess, no two ways about it. Whether Islam is the cause of that mess because those societies are a direct result of implementing Islam, is another question entirely. Many Muslims feel that the societies are a mess because they've abandoned Islam.

Sorry to keep going on and on about this.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

And thanks for the tip about the internship. As I think I mentioned in an earlier post in this blog (about my class schedule), one of the courses I'm planning to take next quarter involves a "Community Justice Project" which is a brief internship (24 hours) at some organization that provides legal services to the disadvantaged. A lot of people do internships at civil rights organizations so I may end up doing that!

P.S. My ISP also disconnects me for "lack of activity" after about fifteen minutes. Apparently typing doesn't count as an activity because more than once I've been disconnected in the middle of writing a long email, post, or comment. Darned ISPs!

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah