In 2003 Syidah Mateen (a computer analyst for radiology clinics, born in 1964) was a witness set to testify in a domestic violence protective order hearing, before Guilford District Judge Tom Jarrell.

After moving to North Carolina, her father, L'Fatihah Mateen, established the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro and served as its prayer leader (he died in 1997).

[1] In Raleigh, the lawyer for North Carolina's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) issued a preliminary opinion that said "that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible".

[4] Currently the North Carolina General statute on oath taking (§11-2) states: (emphasis added) "Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of the holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head.

[6] When it was announced that the Qur'an was not to be allowed for swearing before testimony, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press statement, "By stating that only one book qualifies as 'Holy Scriptures', the court may be making an inappropriate endorsement of a single set of religious beliefs.

"[7] CAIR's Legal Director in Washington D.C, Arsalan Iftikhar, said of the case, "This shows there's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, especially here in the United States.

"[5] On July 6, 2005, a group of more than 20 religious leaders from the Guilford County area, "including those of Christian, Jewish and Buddhist faiths", sent a letter to Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, who said an oath on the Quran is not lawful.

It is imperative for our civic leaders, school teachers, judges, and law enforcers to appreciate and respect the religious differences found in our population.

"[8] The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union became involved when on June 28, 2005 they called on the AOC to "adopt a policy allowing the use of the Quran and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings".

[10] In July 2005 they argued in court that "the term 'Holy Scriptures' appearing in the statute refers not only to the Christian Bible, but also to other religious texts including, but not limited to, the Quran, the Old Testament, and the Bhagavad-Gita".

[12] Michele Combs, communications director of the Christian Coalition said "We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay.

"[5] Erik Stanley, a lawyer for the Christian law group Liberty Counsel claimed the suit "was not simply intended to include other faiths".

[12] Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine Jr. argued "that state oath-taking law is constitutional because it allows people to affirm if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.

"[12] The ACLU's attorney Seth Cohen argued that if "Holy Scriptures" is interpreted to not include non-Christian texts, then the law is unconstitutional, as "the exclusive use of the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in the U.S.

[4] Judge Smith "did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved".

[10] The executive director of the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU, Jennifer Rudinger, said "it would be very difficult for a person wishing to swear on a non-Christian text to halt a courtroom proceeding to pursue a legal challenge on the issue".

"[10] The ACLU was also surprised that Judge Smith cited "lack of an actual controversy" as a reason for dismissal because Grady Balentine, the lawyer for the state attorney general's office, did not make that argument.

Their lawyer Seth Cohen told reporters "that the organization disagrees with the judge's finding" and that he was "confident they will win in the N.C. Court of Appeals".

[14] The Court reviewed the history of the case, noting that "When Ms. Mateen appeared as a witness, she requested that her oath to tell the truth be sworn on the holy text of her religious faith, the Quran.

"[9] Mateen repeated her position in an interview after the Appeals Court allowed the case to go forward, saying she always "felt like, in this day and time, that they would at least have the three major religious texts in the courtroom.

"[1] The ACLU reports on its website that "The state Attorney General has 30 days [from the January 16, 2007 ruling] to decide whether to seek discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

"[9] Noelle Talley spokeswoman for the state Attorney General confirmed that the office is "reviewing the ruling but hasn't decided about an appeal".

And the practice isn't new: Mochitsura Hashimoto, the Japanese submarine commander who testified in the court martial of a US Navy captain in 1945, was allowed by a military tribunal to swear on his beliefs of Shinto, the ancient religion of Japan.

Both of the main figures taking issue with Ellison, Dennis Prager and US Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, made sure to clarify that they were not asking for him to be banned from serving if he insisted on using a Qur'an instead of a Bible at his reenactment photo-op.

The judge could then "hold the uncooperative witness in contempt, in effect punishing a person who simply asks that his religious beliefs be granted the same respect as those of a Christian.