Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

CSN News ^ | June 21, 2005 | Melanie Hunter

[BMC1]

An Islamic civil rights and advocacy group is calling on North Carolina judges to allow people to use the Koran when taking an oath, saying the use of the Bible exclusively represents "an inappropriate state endorsement of religion."

The request by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) comes after Guilford County judges said they would not allow use of Korans in their courtrooms.

"An oath of the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," said W. Douglas Albright, Guilford's senior resident Superior Court judge. According to state law, swearing an oath constitutes putting one's hand on the "Holy Scriptures."

Those who do not wish to take an oath using the Bible may make an "affirmation."

"By stating that only one book qualifies as 'Holy Scriptures,' the court may be making an inappropriate endorsement of a single set of religious beliefs," said CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar.

"Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one's own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person's testimony," Iftikhar added.

North Carolina's Administrative Office of the Courts last week issued a preliminary opinion saying that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Koran rather than a Bible, CAIR noted.

According to Iftikhar, CAIR will offer a free copy of the Koran to any judge in North Carolina or nationwide for use in oaths or "for personal awareness of the holy text."

[Gunrunner2]

Provided the historical precedent of the whole tradition.

Back in the middle ages there was much fear as to what God would do to your soul if you swore to tell the truth to Him and deliberately lied. For 'slimes the opposite is true.

Why allow 'slimes to swear on a book that specifically allows lying to the infidel?

Makes no sense.

Imagine: "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, unless you are an infidel, and then all bets are off."

[chris1]

We are finished and are dying the death of a thousand cuts. When we the majority start accomodating the militant minority we have ceded ourt authority.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

OK, how does one distinguish between a Marine currently serving and a marine that is now living a civilian life?

[Gunrunner2]

LOL!

[ncountylee]

Just great.......They will want "special" Koran "handlers" hired and absent that will be suing and appealing verdicts based upon "desecration"issues.

[tomkat]

[softwarecreator]

CAIR won't be satisfied until Sharia is the law of the land

And why should they be satisfied?

We are handing the world over to them little-by-little.  The way every country keeps bending over for them is shameful.   They tested the waters in Europe and Canada and saw that everyone will just go out of their way to appease the "Religion of Peace©".

And now they are bringing it here.  9-11 had one side effect that I'm sure Osama and his boyz never thought of ... guilt by the American Left.  They know it now and are using it to wedge their way in and have no reason to stop until it's too late.

Why haven't there been any new terrorist attacks?  They don't need to, they have something on their side even more lethal than a WMD ... The American Civil Liberties Union {{spit}} and their team of lawyers.

We came so close to electing Kerry and if that had happened we would have been on the Highway to Bhurka-ville.

If, in 2008, we elect Hildabeast ... stick a fork in us, we are done.

[SittinYonder]

some Freepers are afraid that letting a Muslim swear on a Koran will lead to the downfall of America

Many Muslims, including the founder of CAIR, have stated outright that they want sharia to be the law of the land in America and they want America to be a Muslim country. I think many Freepers are pointing out instances where CAIR incrimentally attempts to achieve this goal.

[Gunrunner2]

>>What book should Satanists use?<<

The CBS News Ethics Manual?

[ShandaLear]

No, we will end up swearing on nothing.

[Mr. Mojo]

So do you think it's perfectly acceptable for Satanists to use this book in American courts when taking an oath?

[jolie560]

Indeed--it is amusing-- ...."...a book that orders its followers to lie in order to deceive unbelievers, is supposed to be used as proof that people using it are telling the truth?"...

[Redcloak]

Can they also require the courts to warn jurors that some Muslims believe that lying to "kuffar" like them is an acceptable practice?

[ShandaLear]

I am wondering how this would be done. Isn't it an offense to Islam to have the Korn handled by an infidel?

[ShandaLear]

Korn? LOL! Koran, of course.

[Pete98]

ACLU?

[Roccus]

There is none. Once a Marine, always a Marine.

Former squid.

[oldbrowser]

"By stating that only one book qualifies as 'Holy Scriptures,' the court may be making an inappropriate endorsement of a single set of religious beliefs," said CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar.

As taken from another posting:

Non - Muslims living in Muslim countries have inferior status under Islamic law, they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammed who said " Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia ", non _ Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build churches, possess Bibles etc.

So, based on Muhammed's teaching that two religions cannot exist in their country, don't you think it is a little disingenuous of them to want to use their book in our country ?

[Bombardier]

I smell the reek of the ACLU in this.....

[andyk]

As to whether the judges can decide whether to honor an establishment of religion (Bible but none others), I think the 1st Amendment is very clear on that.

Don't worry about the Andy Griffith references; I get 'em all the time (friends really love immitating Aunt Bea).

I have an archaic opinion when it comes to the establishment clause. I believe that it's sole purpose was to prevent the establishment of a national church. I don't believe that endorsing or favoring equates to establishment. Establishment would be forced tithing, outlawed alternative religions, forced attendence, a state-controlled church authority, etc.

My reference to what judges could do in this case was based on the fact that this is actually a request (I'm picturing CAIR dumping a piece of paper in a suggestion box), and not part of a lawsuit.

In that case, I suppose the judges could do whatever they want, assuming it does not contravene existing state law. IOW, I don't think they could rule a law unconstitutional without a case before them actually challenging the law.