He was sworn into office with his hand on the Koran. Given that the Koran gives him permission to lie to Jews. Christians, and infidels, what is your opinion about this?
2007-01-09 11:51:26 · 28 answers · asked by rapturefuture 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Actually i think swearing on the Quran literally means that he has no right, what so ever to lie to anyone no matter who they are.
The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."
2007-01-09 11:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by Nabiha... 4 · 12⤊ 1⤋
What? Get your facts straight, buddy. Muslims are NOT allowed to lie to Jews or Christians or "infidels" or other Muslims. Can you show me where you got this from? That Muslims can lie to such people? You won't be able to because it's nowhere to be found.
And I think it's perfect that he was sworn in with the Quran because that's the Book he follows. If it was a Hindu, I would argue that a Hindu should be sworn in with the Vedas; a Jew with the Torah; a Christian with the Bible... and so on. Doesn't America have the freedom of religion? Yeah, it does; it's the first amendment.
Peace and blessings be upon you!
2007-01-09 20:14:50 · answer #2 · answered by ♡♥ sHaNu ♥♡ 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
This is not exactly true, it is a media exaggeration.
The oath of office taken by members of the Senate and House of Representatives does not include "swearing in" on ANY holy book of ANY kind. You simply raise your hand hand and say the oath. If you don't believe me, do some research and learn about how Congress works.
The "swearing in" on the Koran was merely a private photo-op affair with friends and family done simply for the media. It was NOT the actual oath, as stated above. Other Congressional members have done the same on the Bible.
Besides, if someone doesn't believe in the Bible, what good would it do to have them swear on it? It might as well be the dictionary....
That being said, I think the whole gesture is silly anyway.
2007-01-09 20:01:50 · answer #3 · answered by jheitertusa 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Did you happen to hear who's Koran it was, or did you deliberately ignore that to make your point. I thought using the Koran belonging to the chief author of the Declaration of Independence was Pretty darn cool !!. The Koran does not encourage any of the things you are afraid of. This was a great event it means the Congress (for once) is on the right side of the issue. They are protecting all of our rights by saying the US has no official religion and you can worship (or not) in the faith of your choosing.
2007-01-09 20:06:26 · answer #4 · answered by CAE 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That part of the Koran refers to a specific instance during Mohammed's life when he was given instruction to be wary of what was being done at a particular period in time. The trouble with your misunderstanding and interpretation of the Koran is all too prevalent today and actually causes an unnecessary fear.
2007-01-09 19:57:39 · answer #5 · answered by summer 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, I can't even comprehend why anyone would have a logical reason to be offended by this.
And he certainly should not have had to explain that he is a convert to Islam....and blah blah blah about his ancestors....
There's really no need to create a whole brouhaha about that, don't you think?
What if I said, I'm not christian, therefore I'm going to protest about so and so being sworn into office on a Bible?
is that any different? Why hasn't any one gotten worked up about a bible before? huh?
2007-01-09 20:00:01 · answer #6 · answered by myself 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Qur'an is just as worthy of a "swearing-in device" as the Bible. Both contain ideas that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution.
The Qur'an is very easy to take out of context, if you are unfamiliar with the situation in which each chapter was revealed. Muhammad received verses that told him how to handle each situation as it arose, and the revelations have to be seen in the context of those situations.
The Bible has passages which support colonizing native peoples and killing them all, men, women, and children. So is that a better option for swearing someone into office?!
Why can't they just use the US Constitution? Or just nothing? Just let the person swear in on their own word.
2007-01-09 20:00:18 · answer #7 · answered by Heron By The Sea 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Officially, all congressmen are sworn in together in a single ceremony where no Bibles are used. The individual ceremonies with the hand on the Bible are just photo ops, with no legal significance. (So enough already)
2007-01-09 20:02:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Show me where it says that in the Koran. The question you should be asking about the new muslim congressman is why did he accept money from an Arab group that has ties to terrorists like Hamas.
2007-01-09 19:55:16 · answer #9 · answered by Raven 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
well just to make things clear, a Muslim is NOT allowed to lie to anybody, and that includes Christians and Jews, in fact if a Muslim lies he/she is no longer a Muslim. "a Muslim may commit adultery but cant lie" this means if a Muslim commits adultery it will be counted as a sin but he is still a Muslim, while if if he/she lied he/she is no longer a Muslim.
2007-01-09 20:01:46 · answer #10 · answered by mo_radi 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋