N.C. judge: Witnesses may swear oath on religious text of their choice
posted at 6:04 pm on May 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Specifically, in this case, the Koran:
Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway ruled that a witness or juror can take a court oath using a text “most sacred and obligatory upon their conscience,” citing common law and precedent of the state Supreme Court.
The judge didn’t declare the law unconstitutional or rule on whether the term “Holy Scriptures” could be reasonably interpreted to mean any sacred text other than the Bible. But the ACLU still considered the ruling favorable…
State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over “the Holy Scriptures,” by saying “so help me God” without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols…
In January, the ruling was reversed by an unanimous three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals, after the ACLU had added Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In its decision, the appeals court cited Mateen’s claim that her request to place her hand on the Koran as a witness in a domestic violence case in Guilford County was denied in 2003.
I’ve gotten a couple of “wow” e-mails about this story and can’t understand why. It’s a no-brainer. Like I said when the issue came up during the Keith Ellison/Dennis Prager brouhaha:
[I]f the oath is a way of impressing upon the swearer the seriousness of his duties then it’s stupid to have him swear on a book he doesn’t regard with the utmost seriousness. If the oath is a way of demanding allegiance to America’s Judeo-Christian heritage then it’s a violation of the Constitution’s “religious test” clause.
Arguably there’s no “religious test” violation here because we’re not dealing with qualifications for a public “office,” but that’s irrelevant; it’s a violation of the Establishment Clause in any event. Is anyone seriously arguing that people should be forced to swear on a Bible regardless of their own religious affiliation, particularly when the statute authorizes oaths that eschew religion entirely?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Allah?
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I’d swear on Hitchens’ new book :) I imagine the jury would not trust me though.
BJ* on May 25, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Xenu.
MoxArgon on May 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM
A Jedi cannot lie
Number 2 on May 25, 2007 at 6:14 PM
My fourteen year old wants to know if that means if it would be legal to take the oath on a Harry Potter novel?
todd76705 on May 25, 2007 at 6:15 PM
So how long until some dumb @ss testifies in his own drug trial after swearing an oath on a a copy of High Times?
rw on May 25, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Yep, this one passes the “yep, that’s obvious” test.
jeffshultz on May 25, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’ll bet you can swear on a bible in Saudi Arabia too?
Mojave Mark on May 25, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Red herring much?
Nonfactor on May 25, 2007 at 6:19 PM
AP - I must say, when it comes to most things religious, we aren’t usually on the same side. However, from the Keith Ellison flap to this, I’ve been with you both times. The point isn’t to get someone to swear on The Bible. The point is to get them to think twice before lying. If you don’t care squat about The Bible what does it matter if you take an oath on it.
In reality though, I think the people that are going to lie will lie regardless of their sworn oath and the people that were planning on being honest in their testimony will be honest regardless of whether they swore to or not.
JadeNYU on May 25, 2007 at 6:20 PM
1. “Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
“I do.”
2. “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.” — Qur’an 3:28
3. “Allah said next, ‘unless you indeed fear a danger from them,’ [or as above, 'unless it be that ye but guard yourselves against them'] meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya, or religious deception] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.’” — Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Qur’an 3:28
4. “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as patrons, rather than, that is, instead of, the believers - for whoever does that, that is, [whoever] takes them as patrons, does not belong to, the religion of, God in anyway - unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts: this was before the hegemony of Islam and [the dispensation] applies to any individual residing in a land with no say in it.” — the Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Qur’an 3:28
So now North Carolinians can swear to tell the truth on a book that has been interpreted by its mainstream commentators as allowing for deceptive words to be spoken to unbelievers.
Links to sources at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016608.php
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Agreed. But, will they be any less likely to be deceptive (if that’s their plan) if they swear on The Bible or to God or just affirm in general?
JadeNYU on May 25, 2007 at 6:27 PM
If they’re going to lie, though, then they’re going to lie no matter which book we make them swear on. Surely we’ve got a better shot at their conscience with the Koran than with the Bible.
Allahpundit on May 25, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Although I am not a fan of what is going on in the Middle East, whether its a comic book or the Koran, as long as the person swears to tell the whole truth is where it boils down for me.
Although I would prefer the bible, having them swear authority to a book they don’t believe in would be like me having to swear upon the book of Mormon (sorry Mitt!).
Move on people, there’s nothing to see here.
Darnell Clayton on May 25, 2007 at 6:33 PM
For what it’s worth, a Mormon would swear on a copy of the King James Bible when swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
But, I understand your analogy. :)
JadeNYU on May 25, 2007 at 6:35 PM
This isn’t the news you should follow in NC. THIS was passed by our democrat party-controlled Senate!
SB 954: Popular Election
Would direct the state’s Electoral College delegates to vote for the presidential candidate with the most votes nationwide — not the one with the most votes in the state — if a national movement to make such changes proves successful.
Scroll down a bit to find it.
This is exactly what the founding fathers didn’t want!
SouthernGent on May 25, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I swear on the cute little booty of Miss Chance, a stripper at Solid Gold who knows how to get a rise from the audience.
Grouper on May 25, 2007 at 6:37 PM
So what? I’ve testified before and I didn’t want to put it on the King James Bible but they had a copy of the old testament there so I did it on that. Jews prefer not to swear on something like hte king james bible because that feels more like a false oath.
Defector01 on May 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM
True. And, of course, christians never lie.
mybad
locomotivebreath1901 on May 25, 2007 at 6:39 PM
No one has ever claimed that making people swear on the Bible was a fail-safe against perjury. The important point in this story is that the books, and their attendant traditions, are being treated as equivalent in content, which they are not. And that in turn has important implications for where we are heading as a society.
And as for “surely we’ve got a better shot at their conscience with the Koran than with the Bible,” why would that be so, given the material I posted above?
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I just finished your book “The Truth About Mohammad” and it was VERY informative. Thank you for doing the Lord’s work in writing it. I admire your courage and academic prowess.
Mojave Mark on May 25, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Robert Spencer is right.
This may sound strange, but I think when you’re saying this you’re actually taking the relationship of a Christian to the Bible and projecting it as the same between a Muslim and the Koran. I believe you’re seeing it from the context of American culture that has interacted with Judeo-Christian values that revere the truth. I don’t think it’s an analogy that works.
INC on May 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Are muslim women allowed to testify against men? I’m just asking.
SouthernGent on May 25, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Mojave Mark:
Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Mr. Spencer, I would also like to thank you very much for your courageous and important work.
INC on May 25, 2007 at 6:48 PM
crap like this was predicted 35 years ago by Schaeffer. Eventually there will be a movement to remove swearing on the Bible or any document except maybe “An Inconvient Truth” in the courtroom and they will tell us using the Bible is a violation of “seperation of church and state”, even though everyone of the founders did this and Washington is full of Christian references.
jp on May 25, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I choose Elvish. The squiggles are cooler.
HerrMorgenholz on May 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Exit Question: what conscience ?
jp on May 25, 2007 at 7:05 PM
So does this mean that Scientologists will swear on a copy of “Battlefield Earth”?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 25, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
No.
- The Cat
P.S. Has anyone ever tried this? I mean what’s the law on it?
MirCat on May 25, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Gee, Robert, are you saying that the Koran is incompatible with the American legal system? (Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Thanks for all you do.)
HerrMorgenholz on May 25, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Since we’re directed as Christians not to swear by anything, but let “yes be yes and no be no”–that is, to tell the truth in every circumstance, I’m not too sad to see this particular tradition go.
Do we need a reminder to people that they’re in court, testifying? Yep. But asking someone to violate their own conscience in the way they do it is unquestionably wrong.
I get that the point of the tradition was to remind each of us that we’re speaking before God and man, and that God has some pretty tough words for those who might be contemplating giving false testimony. But there does need to be a more generic way to do that. And I’d really rather not see the Koran introduced into our courts, so maybe now’s the time to come up with one.
TexasDan on May 25, 2007 at 7:07 PM
G. Gordon Libby did it in the Watergate burglary trial. Prosticutor had not the first clue what to do…
HerrMorgenholz on May 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Or Liddy, depending on who’s history you read…PIMF.
HerrMorgenholz on May 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM
As far as my admittedly incomplete research goes, the swearing on the Bible deal is traditional but unenforcable.
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Schaeffer’s predictions were very insightful, and most of them have either happened or are on the horizon. Don’t forget that his solution was not simply to push back, but to go for heart transformation of the society.
The book is “How should we then live” for those who haven’t read it yet.
TexasDan on May 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM
This is why you are also allowed to affirm that you will tell the truth (without swearing on any holy book or to God).
I think most (all?) Quakers do this for their court testimonies.
Also, during the WWII war crime trials in Japan, they had the Japanese soldiers affirm they would tell the truth because the soldiers didn’t want to swear on The Bible and the US officials believed that the honor of the soldiers was such that their word would be enough to guarantee they were being truthful.
JadeNYU on May 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I’m not sure that that’s true. I think the content of the book is less important than the degree to which the swearer holds it sacred.
I mean, what’s the point of swearing on a bible anyway? Is it not that one is making a show before one’s god of committing oneself to telling the truth? In which case, wouldn’t it make more sense to use the book that the swearer actually DOES hold sacred?
Farmer_Joe on May 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Farmer Joe,
This assumes that if someone holds something sacred, swearing by it will make him more likely to tell the truth. This is the same assumption that “Allahpundit” made above. But the equation of “holding something sacred” with “truth-telling” is a Christian assumption. If the sacred book and the sacred traditions sanction lying to unbelievers under certain circumstances, why would someone who believes in that sacred book and those sacred traditions believe that an oath on that sacred book compelled him to tell the truth?
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Verses from the Koran:
Do not withhold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. [2:283]
O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe GOD, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor, GOD takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then GOD is fully Cognizant of
everything you do.[4:135]
Whereas taqiyya is seen as the ability to lie to preserve oneself in the face of mortal danger. I have read that taqiyya is not considered permissable to avoid legal punishment, but of course someone who will lie to do that is going to do it anyway. One cite on the first google hit at lexiorient:
This argument about and overemphasis on taqiyya gets tiresome. But beyond that, using it as an argument that your average muslim is more prone to lie under oath while swearing on a koran than your average Christian, Jew, atheist, etc., is ridiculous.
Mostly because it’s besides the point for a legal decision to evaluate the individual merits of religions in a legal test like this.
Spencer, like many academics buried neck-deep in a specific topic, can’t see the forest for the Islamic trees.
BillINDC on May 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM
PS - You can go into a detailed explanation of how you think the interpretation of taqiyya is broader than that, Mr. Spencer, but it won’t change the overall point of my argument, nor that I find your opinion on this absotutely silly and off-topic regarding the legal decison mentioned above.
BillINDC on May 25, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Screw all the swearing on stacks of paper and just stick’em in a FMRI(Functional magnetic resonance imager).
liberrocky on May 25, 2007 at 7:35 PM
“…it’s a violation of the Establishment Clause in any event.”
Also a complete violation of the “Unicorn Horn As A Fencing Tool” clause. It states that any mention of religion in the world makes unicorn horns less magical, so religion is illegal. It’s in the Constitution, but most of it is between the actual text, like the Establishment clause. Trust me.
If we’re going to make up clauses and say they’re in the Constitution, how ’bout some originality with their names, justices? ‘Establishment Clause’. Sheesh. Let’s change that one to the ‘Buckadoodle Happycat Clause’. I for one would be much happier if my freedom was taken away by something named buckadoodle happycat than something named establishment.
Kevin M on May 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I don’t see how. The point is to impress upon the oathtaker the solemnity of the occasion by reminding him that he’s making a promise before his god. It’s a subjective appeal; whether his faith is objectively equivalent to another faith is besides the point. All we’re trying to do is improve our chances of getting him to tell the truth.
Because some Muslims won’t know their religion well enough to know that the Koran has been interpreted to let them lie to infidels, others will know it but will disregard it because they’ve found some other verse which they believe supersedes it, and still others won’t be thinking about the specifics of the Koran at all because, like most people on the witness stand, they’ll simply take the presentation of the book as a symbolic promise to tell the truth. Moreover, those who do understand themselves to have a license to lie are going to lie no matter which book they swear on. What I don’t understand is how letting someone swear on the Koran would promote lying, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Would a Muslim inclined to tell the truth if handed a Bible suddenly feel compelled to conjure up falsehoods to bedevil the infidel if presented with the Koran? I’m skeptical.
Allahpundit on May 25, 2007 at 7:38 PM
BillINDC:
The arguments aren’t mine. I quoted Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn above. But it is noteworthy that in their commentaries on 2:283 and 4:135 they didn’t say these principles extended even to testimony before unbelievers, and canceled the exception given in 3:28.
I suppose Ibn Kathir and the two Jalals are “academics buried neck-deep in a specific topic” and so “can’t see the forest for the Islamic trees.” And your LexOrient link hardly establishes what you seem to be wishing it to establish — not even the part you quoted.
This happens all the time. I quote Islamic sources, and their intepretation is attributed to me by those who would prefer that they didn’t say things like “believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly” or “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them” or “you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts.” Note also that in the latter quote the two Jalals don’t say this can only be done in extreme circumstances, but whenever a believer fears “something.” I wish they didn’t say things like that. But they do.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Al:
Come on. Let’s not be silly. I didn’t say anything remotely like that.
You’re right that many Muslims will not know the Qur’an or Islam well enough to know this. As I said before, this is not a fail-safe against perjury any more than swearing on the Bible is. This practice is in fact saying something about us, our society, our civilization, and the source of our laws, not about the person giving testimony. But that, of course, was Prager’s argument, and you have already given that a once-over.
And then secondarily, it seems to me to be absurd, and possibly dangerous, to assume that all books that are held sacred are equivalent in the way they are regarded by those who hold them sacred, and in the actions they inspire in those who take them seriously. But that, although it is a public debate we very much need to have in America today, is one we are not allowed to have.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Maybe the real question is, if the Koran authorizes (commands?) Muslims to lie to nonbelievers, why let Muslims testify at all?
Allahpundit on May 25, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Mr. Spencer,
I’m having a hard time with the notion put forward here:
But the equation of “holding something sacred” with “truth-telling” is a Christian assumption.
Oaths and perjury have been around since courts were invented. Is there some different take that I am unfamiliar with?
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Al:
Authorizes, not commands.
I guess this question is a reductio ad absurdum? Anyway, as I have said about 10 trillion times, what Islam teaches is not what any given Muslim necessarily believes, as there is in Islam, just as there is in any religious tradition, a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor. And human nature is everywhere the same. But for the U.S. as a society to ignore the contents of the Qur’an and Sunnah, or to deny that those contents could possibly be any different in their nature or effects than the content of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is perhaps a trifle naive.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 7:48 PM
(it’s like a ping pong tournament here, the masters - I’m riveted!)
Tru2my2 on May 25, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Krydor,
Oaths arose in order to prevent perjury, in an age when Christian faith was strong, and people assumed that one would hesitate to swear before God to tell the truth and then lie.
But all that happened in a Christian context. Why would a knowledgeable and pious Muslim believe that swearing before Allah in a courtroom of unbelievers bind him to tell the truth, if to do so would cause difficulty, when in the Islamic mainstream has always been the idea that one may permissibly lie to unbelievers when under various kinds of pressure?
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Allow me to hagiographize (to borrow a Roman Catholic term) Spencer very briefly. He deals day in and day out with moral equivalists that, once a point is made about the Qur’an and its interpretation and context, immediately want to start talking about Christianity, and the claims in the Bible. It takes a superhuman amount of patience to do this, especially given the fact that he’s trying to save many of you lemmings. To see the level of arrogance by directed by him by Islamic apologists on this website, no less, is really quite appalling.
Did it ever dawn on you that what has been quoted is, in fact, taqiyya about taqiyya?
PRCalDude on May 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
So I’m supposed to be more worried about a Muslim taking an oath on the Koran, which only allows lying to avoid religious persecution, than a Christian taking an oath, an act which is forbidden in the Bible itself? (James 5:12, Matthew 5:33-37)
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Simply, Christians and Jews are instructed to not bear false witness. An oath on a holy text to enforce that formed organically.
Robert, you’re a scholar of Islam. For some reason the movie “Apollo 13″ struck me during this discussion: specifically the scene between Gene Kranz and Cy the engineer. So, to paraphrase, “Let’s look at this from a standpoint of status. Uh, Robert, what do we have on the religion that’s good?”
HerrMorgenholz on May 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM
I think the point is clearly made, though missed by some, that Muslims do not hold the American justice system as having the equivalent authority over them that their Book holds. Therefore, they are prone to employ an allowable deviation from the truth provided for in that book, that undermines the entire concept of swearing/affirming; to compel one not to lie. Ergo, calling upon one’s allegiance to a book that allows lying to ‘infidels’, as a means to feel guaranteed that they won’t lie, is absurd.
Mr. Spencer, you’re a brave and patient soul, given what you fight for (and against).
Freelancer on May 25, 2007 at 8:10 PM
dorkafork:
The sacred texts of both Christianity and Islam do not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be separated from the theological traditions that evolved around and with them.
And in mainstream Christian tradition, oath-taking has always been permitted. Some groups disallowed it, to be sure. But Catholics and Orthodox, who form the overwhelming majority of Christians, have always allowed it. Even most Protestant groups do, as witness in the USA the fact that every President except Franklin Pierce — 40 Protestants — all swore on the Bible when taking the oath of office.
HerrMorgenholz: There’s a lot that’s good in it. I am focused on jihad, and that’s mostly bad news, but I am wrongly characterized as an “Islamophobe.” I love the arresting imagery and poetry of the short, late (chronologically early, late in the book) suras of the Qur’an. There are many admirable things about the spirituality and morality, although an injunction to tell the truth in all circumstances is not among them. Oh, and then there’s the food, which I wish I could stay away from more rigorously. But seriously, one day I will write a book called “What’s Right About Islam” (or some such; I think that title is taken) just to throw everyone off.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 8:13 PM
You guys jumped over the question as absurd, but are you sure it is? How can you trust a truly devout muslim to give you the honest truth if you are not a muslim, and taqiyya is a part of their religion? To be fair, people of all faiths or lack thereof are known to lie when it’s convenient, but wouldn’t you expect it to be more common when someone’s God said it was aok?
The logical conclusion of this train of thought would be that, much like a judge typically believes a cop over they guy who got the ticket, he would be right more often than not believing the non-muslim over the muslim (assuming the judge wasn’t a muslim). You no doubt see the horrible problem with this idea (i.e. equality), but much like statistical profiling of terrorist subjects, could it actually be a good idea?
No idea what this has to do with books people swear on. I just thought I’d toss it out there while Robert Spencer was here, since he appears to have the clearest mind on Islam these days. I doubt their book of choice has any effect on whether they will lie on the stand or not, and it would probably be nothing but a detriment to ask for a different book in front of a jury.
(sorry about the earlier comment, I didn’t realize you guys had a serious discussion going on. Hate the ‘clauses’ though.)
Kevin M on May 25, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Thanks to all those who passed along kind words. I much appreciate them.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM
That sounds about right. Swearing an oath on the Koran would only be meaningful if the court and laws themselves were Muslim.
I would think the presumption that any kind of non-Muslim court was qualified to pass judgment on any Muslim at all, no matter what the crime, could be considered wrongful persecution, and be sufficient grounds for the invocation of taqiyya.
Blacklake on May 25, 2007 at 8:20 PM
After being introduced to you here via Vent, Mr. Spencer, I purchased your last book, and found it to be extremely well-done. Well written and well cited, it was very informative.
Spirit of 1776 on May 25, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Robert,
One could argue that Paul permitted lying to spread the faith:
rokemronnie on May 25, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Everyone have a good Shabbas!
rokemronnie on May 25, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Rokemronnie:
That interpretation of Philippians 1:18 has never been held by any Christian group, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, throughout history or today.
Good Shabbos.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Incidentally, does anyone else find it a bit incongruous that Robert Spencer is responding to a person named “Dorkafork”?
The internet, ladies and gentlemen!
Blacklake on May 25, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Swearing on any document is absurd. It’s similar to asking “do you swear to tell the truth on your mother’s grave?” The entire concept behind an oath isn’t too compelling. If someone wants to lie they will lie, whether or not you made them promise to do something else or not.
Nonfactor on May 25, 2007 at 8:40 PM
As a litigation paralegal, I have been in many trials in Texas. Never have I seen the Bible or any other book brought forward. The bailiff just asks that you raise your right hand and repeat, “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…
Neocon Peg on May 25, 2007 at 8:52 PM
BTW, Robert Spencer, I appreciate all you have done. You have been a beacon of light in an unlighted world. Thank you for your hard work and diligence! It does not go unappreciated.
Neocon Peg on May 25, 2007 at 8:57 PM
It would be advisable for the courts (judges, lawyers, clerks, et al) to read the Koran, first, before judging it “equivalent”. And, thus, “harmless”.
It might be worth asking a Muslim defendant if they accepted a trial by a non-Muslim court, before going any further.
Their answer, if honest, would be instructive.
Kudos to Robert Spencer for showing the patience of a [non-Koranic] Job (and for writing some invigorating books… I can recommend his “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”.
Lucid and enlightening.
Thanks for standing for our Civilization and against the drift of intolerant theocratic irrationalism.
profitsbeard on May 25, 2007 at 8:59 PM
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 9:08 PM
dorkafork:
That’s demonstrably false even from this thread. In my first post above, I quoted not just the Qur’an, but two mainstream Qur’an commentaries, the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn.
Likewise in my books, I do not speak only about the text of the Qur’an, but the way that text has been understood by mainstream commentators.
Perhaps instead of listening to what the truth-challenged flying-spittle crowd alleges about my work, you might try actually reading it before making assertions. I’ll even send you a few books gratis. Just let me know where dorkaforks live.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Robert Spencer hits it right on the head…
Ask Ollie North and Jimmy Half Wit Carter how many times the “Persians” lied. Even though they believe lying is a sin, it was not (and still is not) a sin for them to lie to infidels… Swearing on the Koran is not a good idea.
Zorro on May 25, 2007 at 9:23 PM
But how do you reconcile that with American liberty is the question?
Spirit of 1776 on May 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM
To say that this permits lying doesn’t even pay attention to the context of the passage, in which “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. ”
The Bible contextualizes itself. The Qur’an doesn’t.
PRCalDude on May 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM
This has nothing to do with the Koran or the Bible, lying or telling the truth. Anyone can choose affirmation and reject the Bible. This has everything to do with getting that book in the courtroom. Add this to everything that’s been going on, Target,footbaths for college students and for taxi drivers, while they refuse passengers with alcohol or dogs. The list goes on. They’re pushing us to see how far they can go. Creeping into a neighborhood near you.
appleann on May 25, 2007 at 9:31 PM
You pick and choose, ignoring contrary arguments. Even with the commentaries you cited, you just ignore that lying is only allowed as a form of protection.
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM
appleann
You are spot on! I think Robert would agree with you.
Neocon Peg on May 25, 2007 at 9:38 PM
dorkafork
Sure, I pick and choose. People always tell me that, yet they never seem to come up with what I’m leaving out. Why don’t you post some Islamic interpretations of Qur’an 3:28 that rule out religious deception? I’m sure everyone will be eager to see them.
Meanwhile, I haven’t ignored in the slightest that lying is only allowed as a form of protection. Once again you demonstrate that you aren’t actually reading what I write before attacking. Above at 7:39PM I wrote this:
Obviously if the believer fears “something,” he is lying as a form of protection. Can you think of any circumstances in which someone may fear something in a courtroom, and lie as a form of protection? I can.
Robert Spencer on May 25, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Our (western) view of the righteousness of the truth, telling the truth, does not vary with the religion of the listener, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, whoever. We all know it’s wrong to lie especially in court where American Justice is decided. But the strict interpretation of the Koran as Robert describes allows those who “swear” to tell the truth on the Koran to lie to non-believers with no penalty, no sin. They believe that in fact, they cannot lie to an infidel because an infidel does not have to be treated as the believers equal. Strict believers hold their religious “law” as being above any other law, including ours.
Appleann is on to something in that these demands which just happen to appear now after 200 years of swearing on the Bible or affirmation. Why now?
American Liberty will survive without the Koran in the courtroom.
Zorro on May 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Mr. Spencer,
Thanks for your reply. Is there some part of the dynamic of oaths to prevent perjury pertaining to the Christian faith that I’m missing?
I’m going on 50% memory and refreshed by some quick googling here, but oaths to prevent bearing false witness are recorded in Aristotle’s time.
In your opinion, how is what the Greeks practiced (then aped by the Romans) fundamentally different than swearing an oath on scripture to ensure honesty? It seems to me more like a steady progression as opposed to something unique.
Probably an irrelevant tangent on my part, but I’m a fan of semantics and minutae.
Krydor on May 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Can an Atheist swear on a copy of Hitch’s new book?
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM
If their ideology as per the Qur’an tells them that lying to the unbeliever is ok if it furthers the plan of Allah, then I would have to respectfully disagree with you, A.P. The Bible does not condone lying for any reason. It forbids it. Therein lies the difference.
Connie on May 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Yes, but if you act as obnoxoius as him you’ll be held in contempt.
Wait, what? If we disagree with you we get free stuff? YOU’RE OUT OF LINE AND TOTALLY WRONG SPENCER! NOW GIMME FREE STUFF!
Nah, honestly, I get the concerns about culture, creeping multiculturalism and shari’a, but I agree with Allah on this.
Bad Candy on May 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I’ve seen plenty of commentary on 3:28.
here
here
here (search for “allies\”)
here
In all those cases the context is of what Muslims should do in the face of a hostile majority. They are allowed to conceal their faith.
And there are plenty of hadith regarding oaths and vows. But nobody would know that reading your work.
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 10:41 PM
I’ve seen plenty of commentary on 3:28.
here
here
here
here (search for “allies\”)
here
In all those cases the context is of what Muslims should do in the face of a hostile majority. They are allowed to conceal their faith.
And there are plenty of hadith regarding oaths and vows. But nobody would know that reading your work.
dorkafork on May 25, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I was all ready to say:”Well, if that is their “Holy Book” and it binds them to the Truth..OK”….until I saw Mr Spencer’s post and it stopped me COLD
As usual, he is RIGHT. How can we believe someone who swears an oath that is inherently false? Makes my head spin but so do many much of the Islamic dictats.
labwrs on May 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
My 10:27 “obnoxoius” should be obnoxious *groan*
Bad Candy on May 25, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Wait till somebody whips out the Satanic bible to swear on. This just got interesting folks.
Mojave Mark on May 25, 2007 at 11:07 PM
These citations are making Spencer’s point for him. When are the Muslims in confrontation with the unbelievers? Considering they refer to the land of the infidels ‘Dar al-Harb’ (the land of warfare), all the time. Islamic jurisprudence teaches that Muslims are always in a state of warfare with unbelievers (Surah 9:5, 9:29). Their definition of what constitutes a threat is much different than ours. In light of this, 3:28 can extend to any situation where a Muslim is in contact with an unbeliever. It’s not a matter of how you interpret it, it’s a matter of what the scholarly consensus amongst Muslims is.
PRCalDude on May 25, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Dorkafork, I think the part your missing is that, yes, they are allowed to hide their faith to not be ostracized, but they are also allowed to hide their intentions(such as, “I’m going to blow up your evil church”) as well as their past (such as, “I blew up your evil church). Are you suggesting they can’t do that and stay tight with Islam?
Kevin M on May 25, 2007 at 11:12 PM
On second thought, this is the same garbage that got me booted from dork/BillINDC’s site. Is it too late to bow out?
Kevin M on May 25, 2007 at 11:14 PM
That doctor fellow from the recent vent would likely tell the truth regardless of what book you might present in a courtroom. To the jihadist a koran in a court of law is like planting an American flag on the lunar surface.
Buck Turgidson on May 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Let me repeat - Swearing an oath is wholly symbolic. It doesn’t matter what you swear your oath on–The Bible, The Qur’an, The Two Towers–it’s a symbol. If you like you can be accused of perjury regardless of whether or not you took an oath. If you are on the stand and lie you have committed a crime, the document you swore on doesn’t matter.
Nonfactor on May 25, 2007 at 11:29 PM
If I am ever called to court here in NC, I will demand to swear on Ann Coulter’s “Godless”. I’m sure that’ll be allowed, right? And the ACLU will defend me, right? I really don’t have a problem with this because people lie all the time no matter if they swear on the Bible or the koran or on their mom’s grave. I just fully expect a muslim woman to lie if she’s testifying against a male in an abuse case…surely she would to protect herself. It’s just folly to think otherwise!
SouthernGent on May 25, 2007 at 11:33 PM
People wonder why we are going to hell in a hand basket…ohh ohh /raises hand…shoving God out of everything in this nation may help us! Yes let’s keep doing it and keep sinking…..pretty please?
Highrise on May 25, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I have a feeling if more people saw what the koran said to do with infidels…they just may see it as satanic..but most people have not a clue what is in the koran, sadly…as islam is a religion of pieces..er I mean peace..excuse me hehe.
Highrise on May 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM
You indicate it is possible to be on the stand without taking an oath. Where?
News2Use on May 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Now of course, if you were a smart lawyer, and one of the opposition witnesses was a muslim and swore up and down on the koran, would it not be a perfect opportunity to impeach said witness’s credibility, by using his book against him?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 26, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Even with an oath, according to NcPeg, religious texts are optional. You just raise your right hand and repeat after me.
Buck Turgidson on May 26, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Dorkafork:
Strictly speaking, any Muslim on trial in a non-Muslim court would indeed be faced by a hostile majority, no? How can it be appropriate for infidels to pass judgment on a follower of Allah? And how could infidels even put themselves in the position to do so without becoming persecutors, by definition?
Given the recent emergence of pressures in even Western countries to allow for Muslims to be tried in Muslim courts, at least in some cases, I don’t think you would find this view particularly outside the mainstream of Muslim thought.
Blacklake on May 26, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Yes and no. In an Islamic country, it would be an Islamic assumption.
This I agree with as I stated above.
I look at it this way. The traditional use of the Bible represents an informal contract between the court, the accused, and the jury. The Bible has traditionally been considered representative of man’s obligation of truth to a higher power. It is not a court-endorsement of a particular denomination or of Christians vs Jews. Now AP may have a problem with this as an atheist, but if he could think of it as I suggested, as a 3-party contract in the search for the truth, it might go down a bit easier.
The Qur’an is different because it represents no division between church and state. It is, as I have stated many times over, completely antithetical to our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
For those of you who would say, BUT THEY (Muslims) say things like “it is against Islam to kill the innocent,” remember that according to the Qur’an, no unbeliever is innocent. Learn Muslim-speak and it will become much clearer. Islam is the ultimate Spin-Zone.
Connie on May 26, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »