[greyhound]

OK, since there seems to be some recent threads about loss of rights here in the U.S., here's a slightly goofy example.

So good ole Osama and friends have stated their desire to bring the whole world under Islamic control/law. Also, though this is controversial here in the states, a few Islamic clerics/CAIR types have said that through legal, democratic means they mean to overturn the U.S. Constitution and institute Sharia. (No, I don't have any examples off the top of my head but I clearly recall a column by one zealous U.S. citizen convert (ever notice how converts to all things are always the most zealous?) about how he fantasized walking through a clean, orderly American city, marveling at the happy women in their burkas, hearing the call to prayer echo down Main Street, etc, etc).

Anyway, my kinda whimsical point is: would gun owners be better off under an Islamic law type system than the current one? I say this because it seems like you can't swing a cat in the Middle East without hitting someone blasting an AK 47 into the air. Now maybe some countries have gun control, but at least in Iraq, the Palestinians, and Afghanistan (I know, not technically part of the ME) the people are heavily armed.

I don't think for a second that we'd be better off having full auto AR15s if we also had to get a hand chopped off or beheaded for minor crimes, or have all women enslaved. But it is somewhat interesting to me to ponder on as I wonder if these extremists are serious and really do believe the world is going to fall under Islamic law.

I swear I'm not wearing my tin foil beanie, this post is mostly made in jest at idiots who really believe they are going to conquer the world, and the irony that (at least some) Islamic countries are heavily armed (and also, to be fair, in almost constant conflicts).

Just to be safe I'll let my beard grow.:D

[Mark Tyson]

In many past Islamic civilizations such as much of the Ottoman empire, people had a right to carry arms except for women, slaves and non-Muslims. However, these civlizations exist no longer, and modern muslim states are often heavily repressive in every eay, including RKBA. Only in wild tribal areas like Kurdistan and Yemen do you see people packing regularly (in Kurdistan, interestingly enough, the women pack too). It stands to reason that under a modern Islamic government that implemented Sharia there would be no right to arms except for the servants of the government or those groups allied with the government.

[Malone LaVeigh]

My brother is kind of incorrigible, but one of my favorite quotes of his was from back during the fighting in Afghanistan. He said, "They call us the land of the free, but I can't smoke opium and walk around with an AK-47."

[El Tejon]

Malone, I can walk about with an AK here, I just can't smoke opium.

However, I can have a beer!:D

Only Muslim males have rights under Sharia. Which does me no good as I despise facial hair.:)

[KC]

"They call us the land of the free, but I can't smoke opium and walk around with an AK-47."

I don't have to:
-pray according to some arbitrary schedule (5 times a day?)
-dont have to donate a large fraction of my income to charity (which frequently wind up being what passes for government).
-I can eat dead cow, sheep, pig, shellfish, etc. with equal abandon
-I may consume alcohol along with it/them
-I am not required by religious law to scrub my posterior with my bare left hand after every bowl movement. Indeed, I am not treated as a social pariah because I am left, not right handed.
-my wife and daughters may have a mind and life of their own
-I do not have loosers who couldn't handle the real world and thusly became clerics telling me what new technologies are permitted by the Qur'an
-I do not have the aforementioned bearded loosers telling me that anyone not of my faith is fair game to rob, abuse, and kill until such time as they convert
-I can petition my government to change it's law about carrying around AK47's and smoking hash without fear that I will be thrown into a ****hole prison until they get around to killing me or amputating my right hand and left foot. (This may be changing, however.)
-I am a Human, posessing of Natural Rights, guaranteed by law, not subject of some bearded loosers interpertation of what the Qur'an means that day. I am not required by law to humble myself before ANY god or deity or pantheon if I do not voluntarily choose to do so.
-If I want to celebrate Hanuka, Christmas, the Winter Solstice, Saturnalia, burn incence to win the favor of Bast, etc., all in my own family, without fear of persecution by the religious cops, I can
-I do not need to worry about religious cops breaking into my home to make sure that I and mine are following every dictate in the Quran
-I do not have supreme religious leaders instructing university professors in cosmology and astrology. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, where the highest religious authority announced that the Earth was indeed the center of the Universe, outside of god.)
-My political canidates do not need official sanction from a thesistic star chamber in order to run for office
-I have political canidates, not a nepotic appointee
-"Apostacy" is not a capital, nor any other crime

There are others, but that should be adequate.
Anyone who believes that living in a Islamic state might be preferable, needs to do a little bit more research before they pack their bags (I would hope.)


Sorry, this is a touchy issue for me, and has the same place in my heart as "Neo-Nazis", and people who think, "Kings...what a good idea!"

[HBK]

KC is correct on this one. It always amazes me that some of the feminist organizations seem sympathetic to Islam, which basically enslaves women. Diversity...Tolerance...:uhoh: :barf:

[Don Gwinn]

It won't happen by peaceful and legal means, thank goodness. No, no way would we be better off.


Got nothing against Muslims or Islam, but I'm not in a hurry to join up.

[KC]

Holy crap...somebody agrees, even in part, with something I said?
Maybe I've been arguing with agricola too much.

[HBK]

Don't let it go to your head.:neener:

[Gray Peterson]

I would be a dead man under Sharia Law. See my sig.

[erikm]

Sharia is one good example of why I loathe public religious organisations more or less equally (I have no problem with private worship or privately living according to a code). Cults and religions always seem to spawn 'moral behaviour' codes and religous laws. I'm not knocking islam in particular here, christianity is just as bad but several rounds of religious warfare in europe (hint: 30 years' war) seems to have cooled tempers there a bit.

I am a big fan of the separation of church and state. To the point of denying elected office to the clergy/officers of any religion with a base of 1% or more of the population.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

[longeyes]

The right to keep and bear arms is the outward sign of the inward
political freedom. The gun is a tool that extends the human soul.
I don't see any free souls under Islamic Law. Our guns are part of
our cultural heritage of freedom. Armed citizens of a free republic and
warlords and their hoplites are two very different phenomena.

[KC]

"I'm not knocking islam in particular here, christianity is just as bad but several rounds of religious warfare in europe (hint: 30 years' war) seems to have cooled tempers there a bit."

Excellent point. (I was not trying to debase Islam in particular; I don't agree with most organized religions.) The experiences and changes in doctorine that Europe endured in the 100-odd years between the Reformation, the Counter Reformation, and the 30 Years War (say, 1550-1648) is something that Islam has never been through. Yes, they have had internal religious wars, but they never came to the point that, exhaused and bloodied, they were even grudgingly willing to admit that the other side had more rights to their beliefs or lives than a stray dog.

Once Islam gets itself through a "Reformation"-like process, assuming that it survives, and the rest of the world is not so completely PO'd that it works to extinguish Islam, then it ought to be more more tractible society. Given that more and more Americans identify themselves as Muslims (apparently there are mosques on a bunch of aircraft carriers now,) will there be in the coming years sufficiently strong a voice in the Islamic world for for that level of social change?

[longeyes]

"Once Islam gets itself through a "Reformation"-like process, assuming that it
survives, and the rest of the world is not so completely PO'd that it works to
extinguish Islam, then it ought to be more more tractible society. Given that more
and more Americans identify themselves as Muslims (apparently there are
mosques on a bunch of aircraft carriers now,) will there be in the coming years
sufficiently strong a voice in the Islamic world for for that level of social change?"

Don't hold your breath.

[KC]

"Don't hold your breath."

Oh, I'm not...

Incidently, back to the original topic of this thread.
Legal theory in Islam is very community oriented at the local level, and dominated by a single ruler at the national level.
The Sharia states that the True Believer should live according to the laws of God, and work with his neighbors toward building ummah, an idealistic Muslim community. If you live in a community that believes that guns cause crime and no one but the police should have them, even if if disagree, you should get rid of any firearms that you may posess so long as you live in that community. At the national level, the ruler of an Islamic state is bound to follow the Qur'an and the laws of the Sharia. So long as he does this, he is to be considered a just ruler and is to be followed and obeyed by his subjects. Thus, if the king decides that for the safety of the state/ummah, no-one but his police forces should be allowed to carry, then you as a good Muslim are bound by your religion to follow his dictates without question.
Remember, Islam (in theory, at least) does not make any distinction between the concepts and practice of 'religion' and 'politics'.

[Mr Kablammo]

For first-hand reference to the effect of Sharia Law on non-moslems one can consult "The Reliance of the Traveller" by Al-Misri, trans. by Nuh Ha Mim Keller; and "The Ordinances of Governence (sp)" by Al-Mawardi, trans. forgotten. Dhimmies (second-class infidel citizens) are completely forbidden to possess arms. Indeed, anything less than complete acceptance of second class status entails heavy punishments and death.

In the event that all in the US should become professors of the untrue religion of Islam, then firearms would still be forbidden. Please note virtually every country with majority Islamic populations is a despotism of one sort or another. Despots, by definition, usurp a monopoly on the use of force. I do not believe there is anything in the Sharia that forbids individual ownership of firearms, However, disarmament is in the best interest of the Caliph and the tyrannous majority. No doubt, if you want to carry a firearm the best way to do so is kill and rape on behalf of the 'Strong Man' i.e. Saddam, Qadaffi, etc.

KC has made many salient observations.

[longeyes]

Greyhound,

You grow your beard. Just in case. I'll be shaving mine.