Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Muslim Judge In Brooklyn Swears In Using Qu'ran - And Why It's A Problem

Carolyn Walker-Diallo is sworn in as judge in Brooklyn on a Koran. Photos of the ceremony inspired hateful Facebook comments.

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who was elected as a judge in Brooklyn's 7th Municipal District was sworn in today. She insisted on swearing her oath of office on the Qu'ran.

She's certainly not the first Muslim office holder in America to do so. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) did it in 2006. She's not even the first Muslim judge. In 2013, Sheila Abdus-Salaam became the first black woman and first Muslim ever to sit on the Court of Appeals, New York's highest judicial body.

And Ms. Walker-Diallo is obviously a very devout Muslim.

So why is this problematic?

Swearing on the Qu'ran, the Bible or any religious text isn't a requirement to serve. The applicable law says only that someone elected to office must “swear or affirm” an oath, and it need not have any religious connotation at all. So Walker-Diallo was making a statement, one that bears thinking about.

Islam is unique in that it is a political ideology hidden inside a religion. And it mandates two codes of conduct,one towards Muslims and another towards everyone else. This is spelled out many places in the Qu'ran, for instance here: "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another." - 48:25.

It likewise demonizes non-Muslims:

Qu'ran 4:101 - The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.
 Qu'ran 9: 73 - Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
Qu'ran 33:60 - Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
Qu'ran 98:51 - The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Qu'ran 9:123 - O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil.
Qu'ran 8:12 - I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.
Qu'ran 5:15 - O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends and protectors. Whoever turns to them as friends and protectors is one of them.

There's a lot more of this sort of thing throughout the Qu'ran, to the point where demonizing non-believers and exhortations of violence against them could even be called a main theme of the book. The Hadiths, containing the deeds and sayings of Mohammed according to his followers have even more of this type of material.

And these scriptures are the basis for sharia, a code that almost 60% of US Muslims say they would prefer to live under here in America according to the latest Pew poll. Sharia mandates death for homosexuals, inequality for women, and allows wife beating and clitorectomies according to the interpretation by all four Muslim fiqhs. It makes non-Muslims into dhimmis ('protected people') with no rights except to pay exorbitant taxes for the privilege of being allowed to live among Muslims as second class citizens. Dhimmis do not even have the right to testify in a court of law. Their entire existence is subject to the whim of their Muslim conquerors.

More importantly, sharia is not some dusty scriptural antique. Sharia and laws based on Sharia are being practiced in a large part of the world today.

But wait, there's more. The Qu'ran allows taqiyyah, which allows Muslims to lie to infidels to advance Islam.

Given these realities, is a Muslim judge - or any Muslim public official - whom swears an oath on a book that is diametrically opposed to our laws and the Constitution to be taken seriously? Could a judge who swears on the Qu'ran be expected to rule fairly in a case involving a Muslim defendant and say, a Jewish plaintiff? Or in one involving a custody case between a Muslim man and an infidel woman? Could a congressman who swears an oath on a Qu'ran be expected to adhere to that oath in the event of a conflict or disagreement with an Islamic nation? Or when it comes to voting on security policies designed to protect America from terrorist attacks emanating from Muslim nations? Which comes first, the Muslim umma or their oath of office?

In the case of Judge Walker-Diallo I would much have preferred an oath or affirmation without any religious book in preference to the Qu'ran. She was certainly within her rights to use a Qu'ran and at this point I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. There is and should be no test of faith in America to hold office. But as I've noted, Islam is unique among religions. Simply speaking, Islam does not play well with others.

And thus, this sort of thing bears very very careful watching.

1 comment:

Puma ByDesign said...

Indeed, this is bad news. If for no other reason than the judiciary in the borough of Brooklyn enjoys the reputation of being the most corrupt. (At least they did before de Blasio took office.)