Muslim Woman Sworn in as New York Judge While Taking Oath on Koran


#1

Christian News:

Muslim Woman Sworn in as New York Judge While Taking Oath on Koran

NEW YORK — A Muslim woman was recently sworn in as a judge in New York City, choosing to take her oath on the Koran instead of the Bible.After being elected to the position last month, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in last Thursday as a civil judge for the 7th Municipal District at Brooklyn Borough Hall. She wore a hijab as she repeated her oath with one hand placed on the Koran.
“I, Carolyn Walker-Diallo, do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as judge of the civil court of the city of New York, so help me God,” she repeated.

A video of Walker-Diallo taking the oath was posted to Facebook, with a description stating, “Judge Walker sworn in as a judge holding the Holy Quran at the Brooklyn Borough Hall.”
Walker-Diallo had offered thanks to Allah on her campaign website after winning the seat in November.
“All praise is indeed due to the Most High!” she wrote. “I am humbled that my community has entrusted me with the immense responsibility of ensuring that EVERYONE has notice and a FAIR opportunity to be heard in the halls of justice.”
Public reaction has been mixed over whether Walker-Diallo should have been allowed to take her oath on the Koran.

Why is this even a story? Would swearing on a Bible even mean anything to a Muslim?


#2

probably not.


#3

:shrug:


#4

Count on the media to stir the pot, even if its only water…


#5

Swear on a Bible if Christian, a Torah if Jewish, a Koran if Muslim. What’s the big deal?


#6

I’m happy that no one can unjustly blame the “secular” media for this one, since this specific article comes from a non-secular medium–The Christian News.

The swearing-in would be news to some publications simply because she is apparently the first Black Muslim Female Civil Court Judge in New York City. That in itself would be worth noting in a small, positive way–usually when there is a “first” of something, it is something to report–that’s the first thing you learn in journalism class about what “news” is.

As for the Koran, there is no requirement that an officeholder must swear on a specific religious text, or any text at all. She’s not the first to be sworn on choosing the Koran to do so.

But this became a bigger news story because of the horrific hate mail she received on social media after attendees posted a video of the swearing-in…some people called her nasty names and ranted that her swearing in using the Koran was an act of abomination, saying she should be arrested…and accusing her of wanting to bring Sharia law into the courtroom.

It’s not the media who has stirred the pot, it’s the hateful bigots out there.

.


#7

If they are going to do this they ought to just abandon the whole swearing in process. The idea was you proclaim God as your witness that you intend to be faithful and truthful. For this to be important or relevant you have to have some shared concept of God. With religious indifferentism forced on us rather than abandoning oaths we have other religions forced on us. They should just have everyone affirm.

This is true but also funny. Those who control the news proceed from the ideology that all differences are constructed by man, particularly the evil White man. Yet they love to celebrate these supposedly manufactured differences created for unjust purposes.


#8

I agree much ado about nothing.


#9

But the point of the swearing in isn’t the concept of God, which differs wildly from religion to religion, but the concepts of faithfulness, duty, and truth, which are universal concepts.


#10

I would say the point of swearing is the concept of God, which is why groups like Quakers would not swear. An affirmation can include the concepts of faithfulness, duty, and truth just as well.


#11

This brings to mind something I’ve almost stated in a couple other threads …
our USA is still basically Protestant.
Do we get a choice as Catholic Christians to swear upon a Catholic Holy Bible? :confused: :rolleyes: :stuck_out_tongue:

rex


#12

Yes! I would prefer a Catholic Bible as well… Not the KJV(very confusing).


#13

The US Supreme Court has a Catholic majority but some members still twisted the constitution quite a bit to find the right to same sex marriage. Isn’t it just as possible that a Muslim judge would decide cases based on her interpretation of the law even if it conflicted with the view of many Muslims? It is even more likely for a Muslim because there is no central authority in Islam comparable to the Catholic magisterium.

Wait for this judge to decide some cases before anyone has a cow. I am sorry if that offends any Hindus.


#14

Wow, there’s a whole lot loaded into this post.

First of all, Islam does have a shared concept of God with Christianity (and Judaism). All three faiths come from the same root – that’s why they’re called the “Abrahamic” faiths.

As to “those who control the news,” really? The same people control Fox News and MSNBC and Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and NPR and the crazy left-wing stuff on Pacifica? That’s the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Taking the oath of office on the holy book of one’s choice, or affirming without a holy book or reference to God of any kind, goes back a long way in America, and there’s no reason to be concerned about it.

Her bio looks pretty good. She has a J.D. and an MBA, started her career at a big New York firm (Milbank Tweed), then was an Assistant Corporation counsel for a while.

Unless you know something specific about Judge Walker-Diallo that’s cause for concern, I wouldn’t worry about this. She’s a judge in the civil court in Brooklyn, and will hardly have the opportunity to impose Sharia law on the United States.

Also, Judge Walker-Diallo was elected to the bench – apparently the people of Brooklyn (of whom I’m one) aren’t too worried about her.


#15

Yes. I recall reading in any number of stories that people being sworn in to an office brought their own Bibles (or Korans, as the case may be). There’s no “official” Bible.


#16

I read an article a few days ago about a politician who used a copy of the constitution instead of a Bible for the swearing in.

I think one of our Presidents affirmed the oath, rather than swear on the Bible (maybe Pierce?). Also, I think one of the Roosevelts (Teddy?) swore on a copy of the law code rather than the Bible.

I imagine that someone at some point was been sworn in on the Jefferson Bible – that’s the document where Thomas Jefferson edited together the four gospels, omitting any supernatural references. It’s sort of an atheist’s version of the Bible.

I don’t think there’s anything new here.


#17

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


#18

One last datum that I though you guys would appreciate – Johnson was apparently sworn in on a Roman Catholic Missal.


#19

:shrug: Well, since it IS a story … I’m wondering if swearing on the Koran would mean anything either (since lying to infidels is not considered to be lying … per some of what is in the Koran). Do courts in “Muslim Countries” actually ever DO that? Or is this an American attempt at equivalency – that is not backed up by the way the faiths view their scriptures - or for other cultural reasons? :hmmm:

thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?

Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur’an:
Qur’an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur’an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way…

Qur’an (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur’an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

Qur’an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur’an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the

I can’t speak for the veracity of the above site. Mostly I post it to show that I didn’t make UP the concept that it was permissible for Muslim “believers” to lie, under certain circumstances to “non-believers, infidels, etc.”.

In most of Christianity, taking an oath on the Bible would be a sacred affirmation that one would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … because of the “so help me God” clause that a believer would be afraid to invoke if calling on the name of God to uphold deliberate perjury, etc.


#20

Do you have any actual concerns about Judge Walker-Diallo that you’d care to explain here, or are you just cutting and pasting junk from what appears to be a hate site?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.