A jihadi will do whatever he wants regardless of whether there is an Koran in the courtroom or not. So this debate is not about them, it's about ordinary civil muslims. 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? 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. 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. And if that's what it takes to establsih justice in the courtroom, then let them have it.
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.