SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?

Wilmington Journal ^ | 8/06/05 | CASH MICHAELS

[so_real]

The standard in this country for God's-honest-truth is the Bible. I'm going to get flamed for this, I know. But those who don't feel comfortable with our standard might be more comfortable in some other country. And anyone who swears on a Bible, but feels justified in lie-ing because they don't believe in the Bible ... well too bad ... they're held accountable and punished for perjury regardless. I see no reason to change our traditional standards for contemporary immigrants. Melt in the pot or get out. My two cents :-)

[michigander]

The constitutional issue is whether or not the state is establishing A religion by requiring only the Bible to be used in sweraing in witnesses. I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes and thus it's unconstitutional.

I'll capitulate to that and render my basic "No" answer in reply 21 void.

Should I as a potential, or sitting, juror be able to question someone, directly, as to why they would refuse to swear an oath on the "Bible" a opposed to wanting to swear an oath on the "Qu’ran"?

[Walkenfree]

BINGO!

[jwalsh07]

OK by me.

[zerosix]

Not in the Constitution but is cited in Federalist Papers.

[michigander]

OK by me.

That's nice. However, your opinion won't be the issue.

[Shalom Israel]

SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?

No. The bathroom.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, that's for dang sure.

[FreedomCalls]

Do we want to allow them to swear by a document (Koran) that tells Muslims that it is okay to LIE to a non-Muslim?

Do you know where that is in the Koran? I can't find it.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Doesn't the Qu'ran advocate lying to your enemies? The Below from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Some Sunnis assert that Taqiyya is an act of hypocrisy that serves to conceal the truth. According to them, Taqiyya constitutes a lack of faith and trust in God because the person who conceals his beliefs to spare himself from danger is fearful of humans, when he should be fearful of God only. The practice was a method of self-preservation for the Shi'as who historically were the minority and persecuted by Sunni Muslims. Sunnis would sometimes force Shi'as to curse the House of Ali - believing that no devout Shi'a could commit such an act. As a result of this persecution, the idea of Taqiyya emerged. In other words, if a Shi'a Muslim's life is in danger, he may lie as long as he holds his faith true in his heart. Shi'as justify the practice using the following verse from the Qur'an: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. Sura 16:106 And the following [Shakir 3:28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends (awliyaa) rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard (tattaqoo) yourselves against them, guarding carefully (tuqatan); and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. According to Shi'a interpretation of these verses, 3:28 is telling that believers should not take unbelievers as Walis rather the believers, those who do it will lose the wilayat (5:55) of God, that is unless they are using taqiya/protecting them self, and doing so with caution. And God knows what is in your heart, so fear his wrath, for nobody escapes God. Taqiyya, like any other Islamic tenet, has guidelines and limits. According to many Shi'a Muslims, Taqiyya can only be legally used by a Muslim verbally when he or she is being wrongly persecuted. The situation may be when no matter whichever course of action an individual chooses he has to commit an evil. In that case, he should select the lesser evil. Shi'as cite the first use of Taqiyya historically during the time of Muhammad when Muslims were beginning to be tortured by the Quraishites. Ammar ibn Yasir, a follower of Muhammad, whose friends had been killed for being Muslim by the Quraish, was confronted by a Quraishite. 'Ammar pretended to renounce Islam and thus saved his life. Many Sunnis criticize Ammar for his actions or question the reliability of the story. Sunnis cite the examples of many Muslims who were tortured and murdered merely based on their belief during the time of Muhammad, Umayyad and Abbasids but didn't renounce their faith. Sunnis believe that God decides when someone is going to die. Therefore, it's wrong to deny the faith in order to escape torture or death. By contrast, the Shi'a believe that life is a gift from God and should be preserved. In a life-threatening emergency, the preservation of life takes precedence over anything else. Critics of the Argentinian president Carlos Saúl Menem of Syrian descent have dismissed his early conversion to Christianity as taqiyya. The Druze, a Levantine religion influenced by Islam, allow disguising their Druzeness and the simulation of being Muslim or Christian to avoid the frequent persecutions by the local majorities.

[AdmSmith]

You are right.

[FreedomCalls]

I would even go further and state that former Muslims tell us that their Prophet Mohammad states in the Koran that it is permissible to lie to an infidel so what does it matter which book a Muslim swears to tell the truth by?

I can't find that in the Koran. Can you point out where it says that?

[Hacksaw]

The constitutional issue is whether or not the state is establishing A religion by requiring only the Bible to be used in sweraing in witnesses. I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes and thus it's unconstitutional.

Then one would have to believe that a state religion has existed in this nation for over 200 years - we just didn't know about it until some progressive types pointed it out.

No, using a bible for an oath does not establish a religion any more than putting up a manger scene on a court during the federal holiday of Christmas does. Non believers are also allowed to take an oath without a bible. Since our nation was founded by Christians, we use a bible to swear in witnesses. It is not our responsibility to change our traditions to adapt to every malcontent who is offended by them. This is nothing more than PC nonsense.

[Marine_Uncle]

Sorry, the site does not do well with cut/pastes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya

[lastchance]

We have freedom of religion in this country. Something not enjoyed in most Muslim ruled nations. I think it is right and proper to have a Koran in the courtroom. I do not regard it as holy but a devout Muslim certainly does. Will this prevent dishonest ones from lying? No more than a Bible prevents dishonest Christians from lying. But it will remind the faithful and honest of the seriousness of their oaths.

[Shazolene]

If you do not want to swear on the Bible, make an AFFIRMATION instead of an OATH.

It's part of the law.

This is (should be) a non-issue.

[TheForceOfOne]

That's a first! LOL


My wife always tells me I'm wrong.

[jwalsh07]

For you to be correct, a state or local would have to be able to put up a manger scene on public property while denying the Menorah. It's not PC friend, it's the Constitituion.

[AdamSelene235]

Not in the Constitution but is cited in Federalist Papers.

Well apparently it wasn't anything worth including in the Constitution itself.

[Isabelle]

Perhaps this is the first step to having Islamic law recognized in this "Christian" country. Beware!