Saturday, January 20, 2007

Storm Track Intimidation: Muslim Sues To Use Quran For Court Oath

Corruption Chronicles, a judicial Watch blog, reported another incident of Muslims waging their non-violent jihad in America - in this case, litigation jihad.

A North Carolina appeals court has reversed a trial judge's decision to dismiss a Muslim woman's lawsuit demanding the Quran be used for courtroom oaths. The woman, Syidah Mateen, initially filed the lawsuit in 2005 because she was denied placing her hand on the Quran as a witness in a trial.

State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath by laying a hand on the Holy Bible, by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book or with an affirmation using no religious symbols. The options led a trial judge to dismiss the suit, determining that there was no actual controversy warranting litigation since the woman was not forced to use the Bible.

Enter the Islamist’s ‘useful idiots’ (the ACLU) and our good friends at CAIR.

But this week, a three-judge appellate court panel unanimously reversed that decision, allowing the lawsuit to continue. The judges wrote that the complaint was sufficient to entitle litigation and the state must now waste taxpayer dollars to defend the case. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), well-known for its support of terrorism worldwide, also joined the case by demanding a statewide policy permitting use of the Quran and other religious texts in courtrooms.

Another example of creeping Sharia law in our culture.

A Muslim center in Greensboro is also involved because its offer to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses was declined by judges who said an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law. Additionally, a group of North Carolina religious leaders sent a letter to one of the county judges who said an oath on the Quran was not lawful.

Add this example of creeping Sharia law to the Ellison controversy, and you have the useful idiots claiming another victory for our ‘open’ multicultural society.

And yes, that’s Pelosi smiling as she puts her hand on the Koran with Ellison. Notice Ellison’s face. I wonder what Ellison is thinking?

Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.


  • Thank you for the work here and for the Gathering Storm reports. Certainly the clouds are obvious; much appreciation -- I trust we will be working more closely over time so we can weather the storm.

    By Blogger VSK, at 1:40 PM  

  • For WHOSE confidence and peace of mind is the "pledging of one's oath" intended? Is it for sake of the one doing the swearing?

    NO!! It is for the sake of those that are on the RECEIVING END of a sworn testimony.

    For those who properly understand Islamic teachings, Muslims have no 'moral' duty--according to Islamic teaching--to give true testimony to Kaffirs (non-Muslims), especially not in the case that it may jeapordize Islam and/or Muslims.

    THAT is the reason why non-Muslims should utterly reject every association with the Koran and Islam in every case where a sworn oath is considered relevant, if not important.

    By Anonymous headjanitor, at 2:52 PM  

  • Interesting.

    The Muslim scholar Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyya lived in the late 1200's to early 1300's, at a time when certain Islamic lands were ruled by the Mongols. Although some of the Mongol rulers abandoned their shamanistic beliefs and converted to Islam, they continued to rule according to laws other than Sharia. Ibn Taymiyya argued that since the Mongols failed to rule by Sharia, they were not fulfilling a key requirement of Islam, (to live by the law laid down by God, communicated by Mohammed, and, of course, interpreted by Muslim legal experts); consequently, such rulers, though ostensibly Muslims, were in fact infidels and unbelievers, and had to be fought and killed. (see Mary Habeck, Knowing The Enemy, pgs 17-20.)

    Islam is not monolithic. As readers here are already aware, those adherents to this strict historical interpretation are not some isolated minority -- they are a significant movement in the Islamic world today.

    That interpretation of Islam paints democracy as a false religion; according to it, Islam must have total political power everywhere on Earth, in order to offer the "light" of Islam to everyone. It is no less a political movement than it is a dysfunctional religious cult; ultimately, the two choices they present to the world are 1) convert/submit, stay converted/submissive and toe the line, or 2) die.

    If they ever get to call the tunes, Congressman Ellison will be dancing right along with the rest of us.

    I wonder if the Honorable Mr. Ellison knows that.

    "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!"
    (Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:30 PM  

  • Someone keep that photo in a safe place! It gives undismissable evidence that Pelosi is a war criminal and a traitor. Sometime in the future she ought to pay heavily for this perverted act. (By the way, GOP fans, GWB alias The Halal Cowboy alias The Saudi Pet Dog is no better.)


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:44 PM  

  • I note that Pelosi didn't use her left hand.

    HERE is a satiric look at how to handle the Koran.

    And HERE is a serious look at Ellison's swearing in--a pdf file.

    By Blogger Always On Watch Two, at 5:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home