Whose Holy Scriptures?

Muslims say Quran should join Christian Bible for courtroom oaths

Syidah Mateen didn't think twice when a judge asked her to place her hand on the Bible and take an oath to tell the truth.

"Do you have a Quran available?" she asked.

A lifelong Muslim who lives in Greensboro, Mateen was sure that "in this day and time" the courthouse would have one, she said. But the Guilford County courthouse did not.

In fact, none of the state's courthouses do. Mateen was sworn in by raising her hand and affirming to tell the truth.

Still, she thought, courthouses should have more than just Christian holy texts. That way, people of other faiths could vow to tell the truth on a book they hold sacred. Before leaving that day, she decided to ask her mosque to donate some Qurans to the Guilford County courthouses.

Last summer, when she finally got around to making the donation, she was rebuffed by another judge who said state law prohibits the use of any holy text other than the Bible.

In July, the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, claiming that the term "Holy Scriptures" refers not just to the Bible, but to other sacred texts such as the Quran, the Muslim holy book.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith dismissed the lawsuit determining, in part, that because Mateen was able to testify that day, no legal controversy remained. The ACLU has appealed the judge's decision.

Mateen's struggle, which has been featured in newspaper articles and radio shows, is the latest case of religious liberty to arise in North Carolina. In other cases, employers have been challenged to allow Sikhs to keep their beards and Muslim women to wear veils.

For many, these cases are a test of whether North Carolina -- and by extension the United States -- can accommodate the growing religious diversity of its citizens.

"This North Carolina case is another example of the ways America's expanding religious diversity is coming into conflict with established practices in the public arena," said Thomas Tweed, a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill.

North Carolina law already offers an alternative to people who do not want to take the traditional oath of laying a hand on the Bible. The law allows people to raise a hand affirming that they are telling the truth, or to swear by God they are telling the truth without laying a hand on the Bible.

That should be enough, according to some critics of the ACLU's suit.

"Since you don't have to swear on the Bible, what's the problem?" asked Steve Noble, the chairman of Called2Action, a Christian activist organization based in Wake County. "Given the fact that it's a Judeo-Christian nation, when we say Holy Scriptures we mean the Bible."

But others say that people who decline to swear on the Bible may be perceived as less than honest or less than full citizens.

Iyad Hindi, a Muslim who lives in Raleigh, said that when he first came to North Carolina 17 years ago, his father, who had already been living here, warned him about this perception.

Jawdat Hindi had gone to court to serve as a witness in a traffic violation case. When the judge asked him to make an oath on the Bible, he refused. The judge appeared perturbed and ruled against Hindi's side in the case.

"It was clear to my father that ... the judge felt offended that he wouldn't swear on the Bible," said Iyad Hindi. "That sealed the whole deal."

It's impossible to say how many such cases have occurred. Seth Cohen, a Greensboro lawyer who is general counsel for the ACLU of North Carolina, said if Scripture is being used as the basis for the oath, the law should allow for various holy texts or none at all.