He's Afghani, but was just visiting. His conversion was more than a decade ago. If he is "exiled" -- it would mean "allowed to go home"; he hasn't lived in Afghanistan for years.
You described it as "apparently derivative of an interpretation of Islamic law." That's true, sort of, but this is Sharia law, and its interpretation on this point is pretty much universal. This is the Sharia law urged upon England, and upon Canada, and upon Australia and France and Germany -- that Muslims (or once-Muslims) be tried under.
You are correct in asserting that "a democracy is the rule of the people." But a Constitutional Republic, like the US, allows people to vote for elected legislators, who then draft laws within the confines of the Constitution, which can be changed only with great effort. It avoids some of the silly things we might do.
Still, that wasn't quite the issue here. Killing people for their choice in religion is bad, just as is putting them through a wood chipper for being related to someone disliked by the government.
And the blue states have converged upon South Dakota already; it's legal here.
I have heard that the man is a German citizen, but I've not confirmed this. Now -- what if it were an American citizen in those circumstances? We have Muslims -- and ex-Muslim apostates -- with family in Afghanistan.CAIR's response is interesting
-- palatable to the West, but theologically wrong. They defend freedom of religion by reporting parts of the Quran that don't force conversion TO Islam -- but they skip those parts detailing the penalty for converting FROM. I'll do a little write-up tomorrow.
This whole business puts a crimp in the "religion of peace" notion -- or the notion that only a tiny fraction are involved in radical behaviors. I do
think that it's a minority -- but that minority is, more and more, the vocal folks running things.
There is work to do in Afghanistan yet -- but we knew that.
===|==============/ Level Head