A Muslim living in North Carolina may take a courtroom oath on the Quran, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled Thursday, in a decision that calls on the state to treat all religions equally.

In his 18-page decision, Judge Paul Ridgeway found that witnesses may be sworn in "in a fashion that is most binding and obligatory upon the witness's conscience."

That means a Muslim may swear on the Quran, a Jew on the Hebrew Scriptures, and a Hindu on the Bhagavad Gita.

The decision is a victory for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the state of North Carolina in Wake County Superior Court two years ago on behalf of a Muslim woman. She was denied the option of swearing on the Quran when she gave testimony in a civil case.

Scholars say the decision was even more far reaching, acknowledging the state's increasing social and religious diversity. In the Triangle alone, there are at least 10,000 Muslims, say mosque leaders. It's unknown how many live throughout the state, because the U.S. Census Bureau is forbidden by law from asking about religious affiliation.

"The courts are catching up to the emerging social reality in North Carolina," said Tom Tweed, a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Most other states have done away with using holy scriptures in courtrooms. North Carolina is among seven that still use such texts, said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the state chapter of the ACLU.

Syidah Mateen, a 42-year-old computer administrator from Greensboro who pressed the case after she wasn't allowed to swear on the Quran in 2003, said she was overjoyed with the ruling.

"It was a long road, and we patiently persevered," Mateen said. "There will be celebrations all over."

First though, the state Attorney General's Office has 30 days to appeal the decision. Spokeswoman Noelle Talley said lawyers were still reviewing the case.

State statutes allow jurors or witnesses in court proceedings to place their hands on "Holy Scriptures" and swear to tell the truth, raise their hand without touching the text to swear honesty, or simply affirm to tell the truth. The ACLU asked the judge either to interpret "Holy Scriptures" more broadly or to rule the statute unconstitutional because it favors Christianity.

Ridgeway declined to do either. But he suggested that courtroom oaths have evolved and will continue to do so. He mentioned 18th and 19th century decisions to allow Jews and other non Christians to serve as witnesses -- even though they could not swear on the Christian Bible. In each case, he said, the main point was to get the witnesses to tell the truth.

"To require pious and faithful practitioners of religions other than Christianity to swear oaths in a form other than the form most meaningful to them would thwart the search for the truth," Ridgeway wrote.

As to whether courts must spend money to purchase holy books, Ridgeway declined to rule. All courts keep the King James Version of the Bible on hand, the only book the Administrative Office of the Courts purchases. Ridgeway suggested that witnesses bring their own holy Scriptures, but said courts have "inherent powers" to find the right solution.

Litigation over court oaths has been going on for two years. After Mateen and the ACLU filed suit in Wake County Superior Court, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.

But they appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in January voted unanimously to reverse the trial court decision. That returned the matter to Wake Superior Court.

ACLU lawyer Seth Cohen said he was pleased with Ridgeway's ruling.

"We asked the court to rule that government has to be neutral," he said. "It did."