Correct.
So this debate is not about them, it's about ordinary civil muslims.
When an Imam calls for jihad, you are telling me that "ordinary Muslims" have no obligation to comply? If you are going there, there is virtually no limit to the number of Surahs mandating every Muslim to action.
Would they be more likely to be held to their oath if they swore on a Koran rather than using a Bible or not using any book at all just the oath?
Likely or not, they would be so permitted.
From everything posted here and all I can find, it would be a terrible sin for a Muslim to swear on a Koran and then lie.
To be expiated by simple fasting.
So the bottom line seems to be that the use of a Koran would compel a Muslim to keep to the truth better than not having one.
I don't think you can safely conclude that.
And if that's what it takes to establsih justice in the courtroom, then let them have it.
As far as I can tell, it won't.
That's what I'm saying. Are you claiming that every Muslim in the world is a jihadi willing to strap on a bomb-belt and blow up a kindergarden? If you do, there's no reason to continue this conversation as I can't penetrate that level of tin-foil hattery.
If you are going there, there is virtually no limit to the number of Surahs mandating every Muslim to action.
Just like the non-existant ones that people here claim allow a Muslim to lie in court with impunity?
[A lie under oath for a Muslim] To be expiated by simple fasting.
That's more than the simple Catholic expedient of confessing to your priest and saying a "Hail Mary" or two. What religious punishment is there for Protestants who lie under oath?
I don't think you can safely conclude that [Muslims would feel an additional compunction not to lie if they have to swear on a Koran].
Then you are arguing for eliminating Bibles from the courtroom too, if neither the Bible nor the Koran adds any additional coercion on someone to tell the truth. Is that your real goal?