Family Security Matters published Jeffrey Breinholt's two-part report on a fascinating aspect of American legal history: Muslim litigants who attempted to explain their conduct by their religious beliefs and mandates. He considers these findings an extension of the "Overlooked History" series he have been posting over the last few months on the Counterterrorism Blog.
The "I Am a Muslim" defense was most prominently on display in the cases of Sheik Omar Rahman and John Walker Lindh, but has been attempted in a variety of federal and state court contexts for over 20 years. he argues that a more subtle version is in play whenever a Muslim party insists on the right not to cooperate with authorities, and when he/she objects to the religious make-up of juries or religious affiliation of judges.
So if we don't accept the "I am a Muslim" defense, that makes us racists and islamophobes right? Just checking.