In this case, a male Muslim who beat his wife to death and two other women severely, whom he claimed were his other wives, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant claimed that since his counsel was unable to locate an Islamic scholar in the region who would substantiate his claim that what he had done was within his rights to "discipline" the women, his right to counsel was not effectively exercised. The court dismissed the argument, ruling that religious beliefs cannot form the basis of a defense against a law of general applicability. In the instant case, the defendant's personal contention that what he had done was in accord with his religion did not serve as a viable defense against the murder and beatings he had committed.