A judge in a case in Pennsylvania refused a Muslim woman’s demand that she be allowed to take the oath on the Koran instead of the Christian Bible. Now she is claiming that she is being discriminated against (naturally).
The case is a mere custody dispute between a man and wife in a divorce case. The woman’s husband had previously testified giving his oath with the Christian Bible, but when it came to be her turn, the wife refused to cooperate.
She demanded that she be allowed to use the Koran. The judge refused.
The woman’s estranged husband, who is also Muslim, swore on the Bible before his testimony.
But he argued that her refusal to do so could be construed to make his testimony seem less truthful, and he argued to the court that her actions were a type of witness intimidation.
The judge rejected the woman’s argument that other states allow the use of non-Christian holy books.
The Pennsylvania statute, which calls for oaths on the “Holy Bible,” does allow for non-religious oaths, affirmations, and unspecified other types of oaths.
“Which oath so taken by persons who conscientiously refuse to take an oath in the common form shall be deemed and taken in law to have the same effect as an oath taken in common form,” the statute reads.
The woman and her attorney did not challenge the judge’s refusal to allow an oath under the Koran under that portion of the law.
This is yet another example of Muslims using our own laws to try and tear down our own system.