Courtroom Jihad: The Defense of "I Am a Muslim"
By Jeffrey Breinholt
This week, Family Security Matters published my 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. I consider these findings an extension of the "Overlooked History" series I 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. I argue 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. Part I is here, while Part 2 is here.