That was transcribed from a very bad recording, that was published by the atheist defendant. The judge responded quite clearly that he is not in fact a Muslim.
There are a couple of possibilities. Someone is lying. (Could be the judge, could be the atheist). The tape was deliberately edited by the atheist. The judge misspoke. The judge was speaking in the subjunctive. The tape didn’t catch him saying “IF” or “NOT”.
If you look at the rest of the transcript, it wouldn’t make sense for the judge to refer to Muslims as “THEY” throughout much of the tirade, then to suddenly switch and say “I’M”.
Logically, that doesn’t compute.
Also, it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to claim to follow Christ as a Lutheran, and the Judge actually did that in the response.
I guess though, the internet crowd is specifically invested in the judge being a Muslim, fact or not.
Your misdirection attempt is noted. The "internet crowd" is specifically invested in the fact that this was a bad verdict made spectacularly worse by the judge's pedantic ramble in which he displays his woeful lack of understanding of US law, specifically the First Amendment.