When asked to give a binding oath inside a court of law within the Pennsylvania, the State requires the oath be sworn on a Bible, or given in a non-religious manner. In the case of Musaitef v. Musaitef, the presiding judge refused to allow a Muslim woman to give her oath with her hand resting on a copy of the Quran.

That same state law says that any non-religious oath given is still considered binding. If the Muslin woman was so discontent with using the Bible, she could have made a big X over her heart and declared a completely cliché oath; cross my heart, hope to die with a thousand needles in my eye. Besides a possible chuckle, even such an oath would have been legally binding, though I highly doubt that if she was caught in a lie, nobody would actually stab her in the eye with a thousand needles.

However, this is the stance that Muslim woman is taking. Her estranged husband, also the defendant in the custody case, swore his oath to tell the truth on the Bible without hesitation or complaint. That's because the archaic rules of Shariah Law allows for such things, stating that oaths given under any other pretext or holy book is merely non-binding.

The Muslim mother also claims this is religious discrimination. That to use the Bible is an unconstitutional endorsement is backing up Christianity. Even though any other oath given without the Quran is still binding, she refused, further arguing with the entire process. The judge is adamant in upholding Pennsylvania state law, refusing to knuckle under to her views of Shariah Law.

Enter Stage Left: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Intending to get involved with legislation and a pro-active stance that is meant to support the Muslim woman's claims of discrimination, it never ceases to amaze me that these very groups can't truly grasp the concept known as irony.

Think about it for a moment. This group wants a separation of church and state, but is fighting to allow the Muslim woman to use Shariah Law in swearing to tell the truth upon the Quran? Even worse, the Muslim woman decries her position because she is in America, demanding the benefits of Shariah Law. Yet in countries where Shariah Law is the rule of thumb, she wouldn't have any voice at all. Shariah Law allows the husband to punish his estranged wife however he sees fit, and such a punishment could actually call for her death.

Barbaric and archaic, Shariah Law is renown for being destructive to woman's rights in the worst kind of way. Beating her with a rod, or doing an honor killing where she is ritually stabbed to death, are just a couple of the possible outcomes for a Muslim woman who dishonors her husband with any kind of refusal. This unnamed Pennsylvania Judge is wise to dismiss the Quran and the Shariah Law it represents. Not just because Pennsylvania law says so, but for the Muslim woman's own safety.

Facebook Comment
JOIN U.S. HERALD Subscribe for FREE today and find out what's REALLY happening in America!

Send this to a friend