This is a very troubling case. I don’t think that the judge has thought through the logical consequences of his action. In fact, he unwittingly points out the danger without apparently recognizing it:
Judge Martin did not, of course, invoke sharia law as a basis for his ruling; nor did he suggest that Elbayomy would have been justified in assaulting Perce because his religion commanded it. But he did seem to suggest that insults to the Muslim faith are especially bad because of how impermissible blasphemy is in many Muslim countries and because of the role religion plays in Muslims’ lives. Indeed, he specifically drew a distinction between “how Americans practice Christianity” and how Muslims practice Islam: “Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture … it’s their very essence, their very being.”
Of course, there are many different ways in which Americans practice Christianity and Muslims practice Islam. Some American Christians respond to perceived slights to their faith in ugly ways (such as threats of violence against productions of Terence McNally’s play, Corpus Christi, featuring a gay Jesus). But American religious practice, overall, is strongly tied to a hard-won tradition of freedom of religion—and irreligion. Judge Martin’s comments seem to suggest that Muslims are far less capable than Christians of dealing sensibly with insults or challenges to their faith. That does a serious disservice both to American democracy and to American Muslims.
Yes, as is often the case, the judge trivializes and minimizes the moral agency of American Muslims, implicitly excusing them for their un-American behavior, and thus enabling it. He missed an opportunity to educate the man who believed that he lived under Sharia law and was entitled to assault someone who offended him. Any judge should understand that one of the purposes of the First Amendment is to allow offensive speech, even against Muslims, because obviously, there would be no need to protect inoffensive speech.