Who is Insane?

The Afghani Christian convert, Abdul Rahman, has become the test case for religious tolerance under the new model of an Islamic democracy. And since Americans have helped give birth to it, we have something to say about it. Some are discouraged. My initial reaction was, oh no!, because I couldn't see a way out. But others in Afghanistan are trying to find a way out, and with the world focused on the trial, they may find support. Jay Bryant, RCP:

..... oddly enough, the Rahman case in fact represents progress. It has caused an uproar in the West. It has focused attention on the problem with the radical Islamic law code, shari'a. It has embarrassed moderate Muslims, and widened the gap between them and the radicals in their midst. It makes it more difficult for the moderates to do nothing about the problem.

In the end, Rahman himself will probably get off on some sort of technicality, such as finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. Critics will be outraged at such a verdict, but both their outrage and the verdict itself will be constructive.

What the case allows the West, and the moderates, to do is to give a name to the enemy, and the name is shari'a.

I need to learn more about it, but any legal system that so often chops off people's extremities or heads cries out for reform. Tell me again, who is insane here?