The oath that binds

Bookworm recently made the case   against Keith Ellison`s swearing on the Koran:
All of which gets us back to Keith Ellison and his originally stated intention to take the oath of office relying solely on his Koran. Although there is often a vast chasm between theory and practice, theory, as I understand it, says that a true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran's dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution. The two documents (the Koran and the Constitution) envision entirely antithetical laws and the Koran mandates that its believers, as part of their faith, bend every effort to ensuring the Koran's ascendancy over all other forms of government and faith.

In other words, Prager was wrong about Ellison's using the Koran at his swearing-in, not because it represented an act of multiculturalist self-obsession, but because a really religious man cannot do both acts at the same time. That is, as a devout Muslim, one cannot swear to support any political system other than Shari'a, and one certainly can't do so using the very same Koran that proscribes all other systems.
This was followed today by Alamgir Hussain, who makes a solid case  that the Koranic view of  "infidels" (such as the citizens of the United States) necessitates that he take his oath not on the Bible but the Koran-at least from Ellison`s perspective. 

Of course, there is no reason to believe that a Muslim would feel bound by an oath on the Bible, but will he honor his vow on the Koran?

[Bukhari:V7B67N427] "The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"
In short, the Koran commands Ellison to break any vow to a secular government when that vow becomes inconvenient.

Do we really want this guy swearing at all?

Tim Birdnow publishes Birdblog.