We all know that jihadist Maj. Nadal Hasan murdered 13 people after shouting "Allah akbar!" meaning that the God of Islam, Allah, is great. So how is this for a defense: Hasan maintains the murders were actually symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that his acts were a necessary acting out of the Islamic call to jihad and the killing of infidels and enemies of Islam pursuant to sharia law.
Not only that, but his acts are further protected by the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment in that they were religious acts also called for by Islam, sharia law, and the so-called prophet Mohammad.
Ridiculous, you say? Perhaps not when compared with other seemingly ridiculous Islamic acts and attitudes such as honor killings or stoning a woman to death for the crime of having been raped or Muslim demonstrators on Long Island waving signs declaring that Islam and sharia will prevail and overwhelm our constitutional law.
I don't necessarily maintain that such a defense would prevail, but rather that eventually a constitutional test of Islam and sharia law looms and this might be the time.
George F. Thompson Durango