The Best Argument for the 2nd Amendment: Sharia Prevents All Non-Muslims from Keeping or Bearing Arms

Executive Summary

  • The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is confusingly written.
  • The best support for the right to keep and bear arms is actually from Muslim sources.


The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is tremendously contentious in the US. Gun control is also the issue about the US that makes Europeans the angriest of any US issue. Meanwhile, most US gun proponents see the 2nd Amendment as being a cut and dried issue, however, the reasons given for the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment, are not the normal ones given by gun rights advocates.

In this article, I will cover the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, the reason the 2nd Amendment was crafted as it was, and finish with the strongest support for the right to keep and bear arms coming from an unlikely place.

Our References

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

The Most Persuasive Argument for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Figuring out the 2nd Amendment is extremely confusing. It requires reading a large number of sources, and those sources often are contradictory. The crafters were self-centered, and had to dance around the issue of slavery. There is a debate as to what even the term “militia” means which does not have a satisfactory resolution. I have no desire to interpret the term in any particular way, and I could debate myself for hours on the topic, just because of the contradictory sources.

Something very disappointing is that the crafters of the 2nd Amendment seemed far more interested in allowing the citizens to keep and bear arms for the government’s purposes (to keep slaves in line, to allow the citizens to be called up to defend the country), rather than the right to keep and bear arms for the personal reasons of the citizens. There were very obvious other reasons to have the citizens keep and bear arms, and 2nd Amendment does not address them at all. This is something I cover in the article The Complicated and Confusing History of the 2nd Amendment.

Furthermore, these other reasons are nowhere in the intermediate versions of the 2nd Amendment that they debated before settling on the current 2nd Amendment that was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. This shows they were nowhere in the minds of the delegates. And furthermore, the current 2nd Amendment is probably the worst and most obscure version of all of the drafts of the 2nd Amendment. The only logical reason I can see for this is that the authors were trying to obscure as much as reveal. Also, the 2nd Amendment is ridiculously short which is a major part of its weakness.

However, I came upon something that was immediately persuasive that US citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. It is simple and unequivocal and is the best evidence I have ever seen. It is the following quote related to what are the rights of non-Muslims to keep and bear arms in Muslim lands.

Non-Muslim Weapon Rights Under Sharia

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms. However, in times of civil strife or internal violence, this right can be temporarily suspended to keep peace and prevent harm, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari’ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari’ah).[37][38] Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. In exchange they do not need to pay the zakat. – Wikipedia

Under Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as a type of second class citizen. Islam proposes the violent subjugation of non-believers that is designed to humiliate non-believers and to promote them to convert to Islam. According to Mohammed non-believers were lower than “dogs and pigs,” and were “the worst of creatures.” So naturally, you would not want such creatures to be armed? You wouldn’t.

Secondly, under Sharia, Muslims are allowed to keep and bear arms while non-Muslims are not. What does this tell us about the power dynamic that was set up under Muslim conquered lands between Muslims and non-Muslims?


If Muslims under Sharia prevented non-Muslims from keeping and bearing arms, for Muslim controlled lands, then this should be all the evidence necessary to convince a reasonable person that citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.