In Hobbs v. Holt, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the state of Arkansas must allow inmates to grow a half-inch beard if required by their particular religion.

Gregory Houston Holt, a Muslim convert, contended that the state’s ban on beards violated his rights on religious grounds.  Holt agreed to keep his beard at one-half-inch length, which, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, made the case an easy one to decide.

The court clearly considered the beard issue illusory especially when the Arkansas Department of Corrections already allows beards for medical reasons and is one of only a handful of states still prohibiting beard-growing by prisoners.

From CNN:

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court said that the prison policy in this case violated a federal statute designed to protect the religious exercise of prisoners

We readily agree that the Department has a compelling interest in staunching the flow of contraband into an within its facilities, but the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a 1/2 inch beard is hard to take seriously.

Most reasonable Americans would agree with the Supreme Court’s argument.

But a more challenging question with inmates like Holt filing lawsuits using the pretext of religion is whether they are truly Muslim, or Christian, or Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or what-have-you.

As a self-described “Yemen trained Muslim fundamentalist,” Holt turns out to be one of those violent, extremists Muslim leaders claim are not part of true Islam.

From Grendel Report:

A Little Rock man who once served prison time for threatening President George W. Bush's daughters was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday for cutting his girlfriend's throat after jurors saw letters he'd written describing himself as an "American Taliban" and calling for death to America.

Gregory Houston Holt's Islamic faith was not an issue at his two-day trial until the jury convicted him on all charges - aggravated residential burglary and first-degree domestic battery - for the May 2009 attack on Connie Taylor. The only indication visible to the jury of Holt's beliefs was a large crescent moon and star on the back of his left hand.

Only after jurors had delivered their guilty verdict did they learn why Holt had been shackled and accompanied by armed deputies: a letter he wrote to jailers in April promising a potentially deadly "jihad" inside the courtroom should "the verdict in my trial go south.

In the letters, Holt occasionally praised Osama bin Laden, dreamed of dying a martyr in a jihad, and wrote poetry imagining Little Rock police detective Damon Whitener being decapitated by the Taliban. Holt also wrote how he wasn't bound by American laws, but only recognized the Shariah law of Islam.

In light of recent  statements by “moderate Muslims” and certain Islamic leaders concerning the peaceful nature of  followers of Islam, perhaps the court should have considered whether the case rested on Holt’s right to base his defense on Islamic teachings.

If it is the politically correct consensus that jihad-threatening Muslims do not represent Islam, then why would it be okay for the Supreme Court to hash out the case involving Arkansas's Department of Correction's grooming policy with Holt as the petitioner in the first place?

According to the following Muslim adherents, those who wreak havoc, kill, and incite violence in the name of Islam are not Islamists.

Saudi Arabia's Abdulaziz al-Sheikh:

Extremist and militant ideas and terrorism which spread decay on Earth, destroying human civilisation, are not in any way part of Islam.

Shuja Shafi, of the Muslim Council of Great Britain:

Violence has no place in religion, violence has no religion.

Secretary Abdul Mu’ti of Muhammadiyah said murderous groups like ISIS do not represent Islam.

That’s my point, this [movement] is not in the context of religion [Islam.]

Holt, who goes by the name Abdul Maalik Muhammad, certainly fits the description of a militant extremist who is "not in any way part of Islam."

Shouldn’t “moderate Muslims” be incensed that the Supreme Court, in its ruling, in effect declared a violent jihadist one of them?

Read more Evans at exzoom.net.