North Carolina: Muslims push Quran oaths ......

REASON #4352864 that Muhammedans are a pain in the butt. What do these critters add to America? All we get is their Muhammedan theatrics and lawsuits

Posted by: dennisw at July 1, 2005 11:08 AM

more schitzo logic from the fascist "religion of peace". They can stomp on other cultures with impunity and disrespect their traditions but the rest of the world is expected to fawn over the muslim traditions and disembowel themselves for every infantile complaint of insensitivity.

to muslim immigrants to the WEST:

we grew out of the judeo-christian tradition, a free-market based democracy grounded in liberty and EQUAL RIGHTS and the rule of LAW, and.....
YOU KNEW IT WHEN YOU CAME HERE. nothing has changed, nothing will change, unless the majority of Americans believe it is for the good and then vote for it.

Country clubs have rules for their members. If you want to join, you have to agree to obey the rules. if the rules aren't to your liking, you are free to join another club, nobody is forcing you to join. But if you want to join bad enough, you have to accept them, because it's the rules that make the club something worth being a member of. BUT YOU KNEW THAT TOO

Posted by: t-ham at July 1, 2005 11:46 AM

Pandora's box.

If someone has already been allowed to 'swear' upon a Qur'an in a NC courtroom, then the cat's out of the bag.

The logical solution might be to eliminate all references to laying one's hands on the 'Holy Scriptures'.

Better to eliminate the Bible from the courtroom, than to allow the Qur'an into it.

Posted by: PRCS at July 1, 2005 11:57 AM

MUSLIMS SHOULD BE EXPELLED FROM THE U.S.

THEY WILL NEVER BE LOYAL CITIZENS.

WAKE UP AMERICA.

Posted by: angry_kafir at July 1, 2005 12:04 PM

I'd like to see an ostentatious friend of the court brief demonstrating that Muslims are under religious obligation to willfully perjure themselves whenever they think said false witness defends or advances the cause of Islam, or of that of another Muslim, or of themselves in their Muslimness -- even if they are woefully incorrect.

It could possibly convulse the Federal courts over the issue of a 'religious test'.

The courts do recognize the religious scruple of observant Jews who refuse to testify against another Jew, tho' to what extent I am unsure.

Posted by: Loxias at July 1, 2005 12:06 PM

Will we suffer the throws of multiculturalism here to? Beware; the ACLU Attornies our jumping into their limos' and headed out to Greensboro as we speak; let us never mind that their law libraries our the creation of America's founding fathers jurisprudence. Did they not all pass the American Bar to practice American law? Did they not affirm that by placing their hand on the Bible, and not the Quran that they would uphold the American constitution, and the American Bill of rights? Any judge that introduces the Quran as a book to swear to tell the and nothing but the truth,so help me god should be disbarred.

Posted by: Mackie at July 1, 2005 1:01 PM

US must not relent to this muzzie pressure. How many of u guys know tat the song (Vande Mataram) which shuld have been Indian National Anthem wasnt given it's recognition becoz it contained line "My cntry is my God" ofcourse to muzzies Allah is only God. Hence India had to settle wit Jana Gana Mana.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 1, 2005 1:48 PM

NEWSFLASH!

Steven Spielberg's next film project:

It's called, "OATH OF OUR BROTHERS"

Here's a the storyline:

When an American-Muslim is captured for blowing up a day care center(49 children killed, 5 adults), a scrappy female ACLU lawyer comes to his defense when he complains that he can't use the Koran to take his courtroom oath.

Posted by: nuh at July 1, 2005 2:06 PM

Not only should the koran be prohibited from use in courtroom oaths, it should be banned entirely from this country for incitement and sedition. The book is the bible of worldwide terrorism, and is what is sworn on by each and every moslem before he chops off heads or blow up a pizzarias.

Islam itself is a crime, therefore swearing allegiance to it should be an act of treason and punishable to the fullest extent of the law.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at July 1, 2005 2:23 PM

"The courts do recognize the religious scruple of observant Jews who refuse to testify against another Jew, tho' to what extent I am unsure."
--- from a posting above

I find this impossible to believe. It has the ring of a canard, spread for the most transparent of reasons by the usual tribe of zundelites. Poster who innocently (I assume) mentioned this -- kindly check on this again, and see if there is any case-law to back this up. Attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege -- these we all know. But the privilege for the member of one religious group to not testify against another is something I have never heard of, and do not believe.

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2005 2:42 PM

As to the Qur'an, sorry -- Bible or nothing. That should be it. And by the way, what happens in Muslim countries? What do Muslims swear on, or do they not swear on anything? And what do non-Muslims swear on, or do they not swear on anything? And what special provisions will be made for Hindus, Sikhs, Confucians, and others if the special demand of Muslims, uniquely aggressive in their demandingness, is granted.

It is clear that we must oppose every effort to grant Muslim demands. Even those that seem okay. Even those that seem so trivial. Simply to save themselves, Infidels have to oppose Muslim demands, Muslim attempts to climb into positions of authority where they may, for example, influence policy merely by inhibiting others from discussing Islam too openly, and too truthfully. This is a serious problem. And those who naively believe that the best people to inform us about Islam are Muslims are akin to those who would have had journalists from Pravda, or smiling NKVD or KGB men, inform us about Soviet Russia and its glories.

Move heaven and earth -- but get the word out from the "defectors" from Islam, and those who as non-Muslims lived under Islam, and can testify to the nature of the "tolerance" and the "peace" it offers.

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2005 2:47 PM

"The courts do recognize the religious scruple of observant Jews who refuse to testify against another Jew" -Loxious

Hugh is absoluteley correct: This is a total canard and falsehood. Jews do not refuse to testify against other Jews in a court of law, no matter how religious, and the court recognizes no such clause. The writer is either ignorant, confused, or intentionally trying to libel Jews.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at July 1, 2005 3:02 PM

From post above by Hugh: "And by the way, what happens in Muslim countries? "

I think you get hauled into 'court' which consists of a bunch of illiterate old bigots who proceed to call for your death due to your un-Islamic behavior -- Sometimes through an act of compassion, your sentence is reduced to lashes, gouging of eyes, or hand chopping -- sometimes some hapless girl is hauled up and a gang rape is proscribed.... Anyway -- it's different than a Western court...

Posted by: jsla at July 1, 2005 3:59 PM

It's a shame that hardly any of these Judges have read or studied critically the Quran. The book is so full of hatred for the infidels, which of course is them, and you and me. Now that they must accept this book of hate as part of swearing in. Best to be an ignorant dhimmi I guess.

Posted by: reset at July 1, 2005 4:27 PM

mackie wrote... [aclu] Attornies are jumping into their limos' and headed out to Greensboro..

Heading to Greensboro? More likely spreading like wildfire to all the ACLU lawyers throughout the US by the internet. "We got another one where the Christian religion is oppressing Muslim rights! To the courts soldiers!" Uh huh.

Posted by: reset at July 1, 2005 4:34 PM

The courts do recognize the religious scruple of observant Jews who refuse to testify against another Jew, tho' to what extent I am unsure.

Dr. - Patient Privilege / Spousal Privilege / Psychotherapist Privilege / Fifth Amendment privilege / Executive Privilege...

Nope. No "Jew Privilege".

You might be mistaking the "Priest - Penitent Privilege" (which, despite the name, would apply to Jews) for some kind of Jew Privilege.

I forsee the day Muslims will claim this privilege applies to all other Muslims. That's probably a couple years ago, given the level of Islamic pushiness.

Posted by: Beagle at July 1, 2005 4:42 PM

People have to wake up and start educating themselves. Islam has no concept of a nation and therefore can have no loyalty to any nation except its religion, which is Islam.

Thus, no muslim can ever be loyal to the United States, because it goes against their faith.

They come here to make money and one day create terror.

At the end of World War 1, the Calipha was forced to abdicate his throne. In response, muslims in India (which at that time, India included Burma, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Tibet etc etc) began to revolt against the British. The key here is that they revolted not for Indian freedom, but instead for the Calipha, who was considered the ruler of all Islam, even though what took place was in a foreign land to a foreign king.

And if any Pakistani tells you he is descended from Arabs or whatever, its a lie, they are all converted from the Hindus who were captured as slaves by Islamic invaders and forced to convert. They are just too embarassed to admit it.

Sorry for any typos.
-Ayo Gorkhali

Posted by: Gorkhali at July 1, 2005 4:47 PM

I'm starting to feel proud of myself as I begin to understan more and more about the Quran and Islamic thnking and teaching.

Thank you Robert. The convincing evidence for me was this statement you typed..

"How can we be sure he will be telling the truth if he swears on the Qur'an? The Qur'an tells Muslims that they may utter unbelief if "under compulsion":"

Which is exactkly what I was thinking while reading this article before I even arrived to your statement.

Posted by: Avatar at July 1, 2005 5:11 PM

Me: "The courts do recognize the religious scruple of observant Jews who refuse to testify against another Jew, tho' to what extent I am unsure."
--- from a posting above

Hugh: I find this impossible to believe. It has the ring of a canard, spread for the most transparent of reasons by the usual tribe of zundelites. Poster who innocently (I assume) mentioned this -- kindly check on this again, and see if there is any case-law to back this up. Attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege -- these we all know. But the privilege for the member of one religious group to not testify against another is something I have never heard of, and do not believe.

---
I am no Jewish scholar, but I really do recall a bit in at least Ashkenazic law that no Jew can give testimony against another Jew except in recognized beit din (rabbinical court).

It is my understanding that at least in some places (New York being one of them) this scruple is often respected, if only in an unofficial way.

Posted by: Loxias at July 1, 2005 6:11 PM

Actually, I think that the use of both the Koran and the Bible in a court of law is ridiculous and completely medieval, a reminder of the times when people needed to resort to religion to force someone to tell the truth.

I would like to believe that humans evolved since then, but apparently...

Posted by: alex221166 at July 1, 2005 6:56 PM

But if they swear on the Koran, how will you know if they're telling the truth?

Doesn't the Koran allow people to lie for Islam?

Posted by: Voltaire at July 1, 2005 7:28 PM

voltaire-

I've been trying to get some answer from one of the Judges on the Superior Court of NC, and also attempting to get the email address of the main Judge on this case, William D. Albright, to no avail.

Please email his colleague, Judge Hockenbury (whose email tag I found through the Republican Party of North Carolina website) at:

hockenbury@bellsouth.net

-and ask what the status of this 'Koran swearing' controversy (mess) is.

And if he can get you the email contact for his fellow judge.

Albright's snailmail address is:

Judge William D. Albright
P.O. Box 3008
Greensboro, NC 27402

I emailed this following letter to Judge Hockenbury, hoping he would forward it to Albright:

"Wednessday June 22, 2005

Dear Judge Hockenbury,

This is in reference to a current controversy just starting to catch fire in your fine state, as reported in the Greensboro News and Record. That of the demand of a Muslim woman, Syidah Mateen, to be able to "swear" upon a Koran for her courtroom appearance. And the denial, thus far, of her request.

I wanted to give a suggestion to the Judge, now weighing this proposal, about the materials within the Koran itself advocating the 'strategic deception' of one's opponents for tactical advantage, i.e.- "lying"- which would render the Koran inoperative and invalid as a source for an honest "swearing in" as this is understood in our nation's laws.

(There is no Ten Commandments admonition to "NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS" in the Koran. Just the opposite.)

I hope this fateful case can set a permanent precedent to disallow the Koran from insinuating itself into the fabric of our Constitutional Laws.
The Muslim book, while considered 'holy' by some, is inappropriate for this specific usage for the reason mentioned: its advocacy of "taqiyya" -or lying (deception, dissembling, misdirection, and outright perjury) for its own benefit. And for the advantage of its faithful in their ultimate cause: a global Islamic State with their own legal system of Sharia Law ultimately rising to ascendancy.

"War is deceit" is an essential dogma in Islam.

I'm hoping your colleague Judge Albright is reading the Koran right now -in order to find and cull the quotations needed to nullify this attempt at diluting our legal foundations by permitting such an inherently deceptive book to be used for "swearing in" and thus to attach itself to our great system of jurisprudence. And thereby begin its downfall.

Much obliged to your time and, I hope, interest.

Yours,

(My name)

Posted by: BigSleep at July 1, 2005 10:18 PM

"I am no Jewish scholar, but I really do recall a bit in at least Ashkenazic law that no Jew can give testimony against another Jew except in recognized beit din (rabbinical court).

It is my understanding that at least in some places (New York being one of them) this scruple is often respected, if only in an unofficial way."
--- from a posting above, a reply to my previous posting expressing skepticism that the American courts would ever recognize a privilege based on religion, akin to attorney-client or spousal privileges, which permit a refusal to testify.

As to the second reply, I do not know what "Ashkenazic law" is -- what could it possibly be? Religious law of Jews who consider themselves Ashkenazi, but not Sephardic Jews? In any case, whatever rule may have applied in entirely Jewish communities in Eastern Europe, they have no relevance in the American legal system.

As to the vague suggestion that "it is my understanding" that "at least in some places" that "this scruple is often respected" though "only in an unofficial way." Hmmm. Not knowledge but "understanding," and undersanding that "in some places" this scruple [sic] is "often respected" if only in an "unofficial way." Well, you don't have to be W. C. Fields reading the Bible, and looking for loopholes, to see how much evasion is contained in every single one of these clauses. There is one, and only one way, to demonstrate the truth of an assertion which has the effect of reinforcing the tribe of zundelits who like to think that "those Jews" who "won't testify against each other" and "of course get special dispensation" in places "like New York" and so on and so malevolently forth. If the poster is unaware of this, he should not be.

The only prove here is not "in some places" something is "often respected" in an "unofficial way." Nonsense. Either a judge has ruled, or he has not, that this privilege may be invoked.

Well, has he? The common law system is based partly on stare decisis, with statutory law making inroads. So if there is not a single case in which this privilege has been upheld, and there is no statute that provides for it, then there is no such privilege. End of story.

And why, beyond the obvious danger of providing fodder for the inevitable antisemites, is this matter of a "religious privilege" so important to settle once and for all? Well, just imagine all sorts of Muslim demands if such a privilege were to be found. Imagine the howling over special treatment of "Jews" but not of Muslims, who would demand their Shari'a courts, and so on.

Two good reasons why vaguenss is no substitue here for the case law. Cite it, and we will dutifully go off and shepherdize, up and down, whatever relevant case is presented. If none this, that concludes the matter.

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2005 11:10 PM

we will dutifully go off and shepherdize...

Shouldn't that be 'Sephardise'?

Maybe Loxias is confusing religious and secular law. Muslims have rules about not 'backbiting' other Muslims and it may well be that they would wish to lie in court to protect a Muslim against a Kafir. However, it would be quite another thing to have this built into the legal system as an assumption. Equality before the law is the hallmark of a decent society.

Posted by: Interested at July 2, 2005 7:33 AM

Interested -- Shepardize. Sorry for typo.

"The law makes long spokes of the short stakes of men." -- Empson.

Please discuss. Use one side of the blue-book only.

No, I'm joking.

Posted by: Hugh at July 2, 2005 10:05 PM

Again, Loxias, as an observant Jew who is well versed in this matter, I tell you once and for all, there is NO Jewish law preventing Jews from testifying against other Jews in secular courts of law.

Jews, all Jews, Ashkenazi and Sefardic, Hareidi and Haskala, Reform and Orthodox, or any other manner you wish to angle it, have NO religious obligation or commandment against testifying against a fellow Jew in a court of law.

Your argument that it is a wink and nod custom in New York for Jews to not testify against Jews is a total falsehood, and I no longer believe it is an honest mistake on your part.

In other words, I believe you are LYING, sir.

-MZ

Posted by: Madzionist at July 3, 2005 1:41 AM