Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

What’s Wrong With Being Sworn In On The Qur’an?

By

From FrontPage Magazine:

Shillman Fellow Robert Spencer delivers a new, hard-hitting and eye-opening monograph.

Introduction: It is now taken for granted that Muslim officials being sworn into office with their hand on the Qur’an is as American as apple pie, and only racist, bigoted Islamophobes oppose this practice. Leftists insist it is a manifestation of our multicultural mosaic, and that to deny Muslims this privilege would be to relegate them to second-class status in the U.S., unable to express publicly their reverence for their holy book in a way that Jews and Christians can.

However, there is a great deal more to this practice, left unexamined by an establishment media that is as superficial as it is Leftist. In this eye-opening monograph, Robert Spencer explains why this practice in unwise, both from the standpoint of America’s cultural cohesion and because of the contents of the Qur’an itself. The necessary national discussion on this issue has been drowned out, as in the case of so many other issues, by charges of “racism.” Spencer, by contrast, offers a sober, carefully considered argument that all people of good will should consider carefully.

Read Robert Spencer’s new booklet here – or read the online PDF version: HERE.

And order your own personal copy today! Get one copy for $3 or buy 10 or more for our bulk special of $1.00 each: HERE.

Comments

  3. After the US Supreme Court 1966 decision in Bond v. Floyd, oaths of office are purely for form and show. As far as the Supreme Court considers it and sets the rules for ALL public offices, federal, state and local, the oath can be taken on a telephone book or any other document, because the taker’s sincerity and intention cannot be challenged. Whatever crime may be committed later, there will never be a charge for making a false oath. I ask anyone who is interested to read the opinion to see if I have missed something. Could this be why prosecutions for perjury have essentially ceased?

    • Frank, with respect this is only true in the most narrow legal sense. Firstly, many people still take being sworn in on the Bible very seriously. Then, being sworn in on the Qur’an conflates this with the Bible in the public’s mind, in a way that certainly would not be true with someone being sworn in on the phonebook.

      This is all intended to legitimize Islam.

      • As usual and essentially normal, you are correct. But so am I. The legal effect of the Bond decision is to render all oaths meaningless shams for show to the uninformed (unwashed) who believe in fairy tales. What the oath-taker intends means nothing to people who imagine a serious commitment is being made when it is not. More people NEED to understand when they elect candidates and appoint others to office that promises mean nothing when it comes to the test. When a crime is committed by the liar, there will be no charge for making a false oath. Ask “Dollar Bill” Jefferson, or Federal Judge Alcee Hastings.

        • Frank, I never said that oath-takers who violate their oaths are prosecuted if the violate their oath–and I don’t think that most Americans believe that they will be.

          That being said, I still think that trying to normalize Muslims swearing on the Qur’an is stealth Jihad, and a *very* disturbing trend.

        • GI, as long as oath taking is ASSUMED by uninformed people to have meaning when it does not, stealth jihad is the exact result. The clear answer to defeat the result is to teach the uninformed that under the Supreme Law of the United States, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1966 case of Bond v. Floyd, oaths are meaningless rituals with NO legal effect whatever. We both know from communication seminars what happens when we ASSUME too much.

          There are TWO ways to defeat the stealth jihad, 1) make violation of the oath or taking it with insincerity a crime or 2) removing the at present entirely false and groundless impression among all who do not know of the result of Bond v. Floyd that oaths are meaningless.

          To all muslims for 1400 years all oaths, especially those to kafir infidels, are meaningless. It is high time delusional people learn that muslims are not “just like us” and have the same values we claim as ours. I continue to thank Glenn Beck and Robert Spencer for ending my 7 years of delusion and blissful ignorance in holding that groundless dream. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” “But first it will make you miserable.”

    • Frank Anderson,

      If an oath of office is only for “form or show”, maybe it should be eliminated – lest it cause confusion.

      • James, I suggest that you read and ponder the Bond v. Floyd opinion, available for free online, and think about what it says. Oaths of office are now purely for show, and completely meaningless. The only value is they MARK the precise point at which a person takes office. Unless the Bond ruling is changed by new decision or statute, oaths are useless. Frank

      • James, in addition to reading the Bond decision, I suggest you would profit by reading United States v. Snowden, 770 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1985), cert den, 474 U.S. 1011 (1985) regarding the description and legal effect of “lulling letters” which are sent for the purpose of inducing reliance on false representations. I think the same arguments would apply to “lulling oaths” which are used for the same fraudulent purpose.

        In my fraternal experience, I meant every promise I made and have kept them. But I have seen many who did not and could care less.

      • Frank Anderson,

        Thank you for your replies and references.

        Best wishes always.

  4. What’s Wrong With Being Sworn In On The Qur’an?
    …………..

    All important points–a *very* bad development.

  5. One of our lawyer friends should take a long hard look at this using the Koran to swear in plublic officials. Maybe, ,just maybe these public officials are commiting “Blasphemy” islamic style. ( A Muslem swearing to uphold Kafir laws ¡¡¡¡) If so it should be publicized widely. KEN. ,

    • KJJ, that would be ingenious but for the long taught, accepted and practiced rule that lying whenever advantage can be obtained IS ENCOURAGED. A muslim making a promise or taking any oath makes NO commitment whatever. Please read Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, Mark Gabriel’s Unfinished Battle, and Bill Warner’s Abridged Koran to see for yourself.

  6. What’s wrong with? I suggest y’all read the Quran before thinking it’s fine to do so . A Lebanese Maronite Catholic has read the entire book in Arabic and she said it’s a most violent book. This in The United States of America founded on Judeo Christian Philosophy period. In God we Trust.

    • Anna, Robert Spencer is *not* making the argument that this is fine, but rather the exact opposite.

  7. Is everybody missing the obvious?

    The Bible says lying when swearing oath to God is a mortal sin, upon which an individual – at least used to – knew they would be facing Our Lord’s punishment in the afterlife.

    The Koran THOUGH, says, “Lie to the infidels, and you will be REWARDED in the afterlife.”

    I wouldn’t trust a Muslim if they swore on the Koran, or even the Holy Bible as they despise all it stands for.

  8. It is immaterial whether a Muslim take oath over Bible or quran.. They are permitted by Quran the cover of Taqiyya ie lying any time . So oath taking by a Muslim is meaningless.

  9. You may remember that when Barack Obama was sworn in as President the first time, they said something was not done correctly, and he was sworn in privately the next day. I raised my eyebrows and suspected all was not right. Then, four years later, he was again sworn in as President, and again in a private ceremony. Twice in a row? It is only reasonable to think that maybe he was sworn in over a Quran.

    • I suspected the same thing. and he was never really the “president”…legally or in what he was supposed to be doing while in the Oval Office with his filthy feet on the People’s desk.

  10. Being sworn in or being sworn at these people don’t care. Total lack of morals, putting your hand on toilet paper means about as much today as anything else.
    It’s the ME generation,
    no discipline in schools,
    no respect for anyone or thing,
    we all get a trophy,
    you can’t fail,
    you don’t go to jail for stealing or violence
    we teach racism and only the bad things in history about America.
    Just what do you expect?
    Honesty.

  11. They’re literally taking an oath to everything in that book including Shariah. Sadly, most Americans don’t realize this fact. Muslims calling people who dare to disagree is a projection of what themselves are guilty of and much more.

    They use those derogatory terms to silence and demonize anyone that may expose what their intentions really are, Shariah. And turn others against them. It’s their cry-bully tactic to they can still remain the victim the entire time while they slowly devours and destroy America from within.

  12. Yes we Muslims have the right to swear on the Quran. Too bad you can’t stop us from following our religion.

    • Of course, Abdul knows that Muslims “following their religion” entails persecuting women, non-Muslims, apostates, and all free thinkers–including murdering them. His pretending this is legal here is false.

  13. Dan, as much as both of us wish, the Bible is not legal authority. The US Supreme Court, by Article 6 Clause 2 of the US Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the land and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It has ruled that the sincerity of a person taking an oath of office cannot be challenged until some other crime can be found and prosecuted.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Skip to content