^ If you think so, in your own personal version maybe. Because, again you address only a few of the hadith saying this one is less than proven and that one is not strong enough in that guy's opinion, and again you completely do not address not only all the straight forward evidence including the main two authenticated hadith in ths Sahih of "If a man changes his religion (out of Islam), kill him" (or is Sahih Bukhary also unauthentic according to you?), but also fail to even seek any math-hab or methodlogical school in Islam that says what you are simply claiming. Without avoiding the issues, where's the direct math-hab and its daleel that says the opposite?
Every school of thought and fiqh and even sects agree that apostasy laws were set and practiced. The only contradiction to that is in your laymen minds, so may you find the humility to accept that everyone who studied Islam and became anything of an Imam or a scholar did not find any incontrevertible issues in apostasy and therefore you may not claim IT DOESN'T exist and that you understand hadith and quran better than the entirity of companions, salaf, and scholars who've written more books and documented more hadith than the number of comics your kids will ever read in their whole life.
@Sur: Not only have you badly translated and indexed some of the hadiths you mentioned earlier (There is no hadith 83:37 in Bukhary, book 83 stops at 33), and again completely making claims directly at primary source without a single proper school of thought or methodology or an established Imam to support this, (nor proper daleel of course, because everyone here seems to like only mentioning hadith that suggests "additional conditions" to apostasy, or to say that some of what was brought is not fully authenticated). However, the important point here is that you just also made a claim that scars the faith of Ahlu Sunnah Wal JamaAAa by saying the companions didn't understand the prophet:
The companions of the prophet and the two generations afterwards were by hadith of the prophet the most knowledgable and most pious: "Best generation is mine and then the one that follows them and then the one that follows them" and "The successors of this nation will never be more guided and knowledgable than the predecessors". This is the setting of the three generations of the prophet and after to be the source of example for us. Additionally we were specifically ordered to follow the companion's example as the Hadith says: "Take my Sunnah (tradition and habits) and the habits of the guided successors after me, hold on to it and bite on it with your molars, and dare not approach innovation, for every innovation is an invention and every invention is misguidance" Mosnad Ahmed, Sahih Al-JameAA, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majeh
For you to say they didn't know, really takes this debate to the level of explaining to children why cars don't run on chocolate.
It is also a huge insult to the prophet -pbuh- and Gibreel's responsibility of carrying God's revelations and inspiration of what is happening. Considering that he used to tell his companions when a man from Yemen visited and knocked on his door, and could sit and describe an ongoing battle in detail thousands of miles away, or would tell one companion that his fellow will go to hell months before that person commited suicide before the companion's eyes, it is ridiculous to suggest that Moaath would kill a man and the prophet would fail to know and have no qualms about denying on his actions, or worse maybe you suggest he was biased and did not uphold Shariah law on Moath because he liked him? Also with Zaid Ibn Hareth who killed Umm Qerfa, or the two slave girls who did NOT murder anyone and just ran after apostasy.
Go and learn what Kholafaa Rashedeen means and don't pick out hadiths you don't know the meaning of and attach them to instances you have no knowledge of.
Now for the guidance of both of you and that of other readers, would like to paste something. If you wish to argue further, take it up to them, or do you want to call them ignorant as well?:
"Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:
The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.
End quote.
The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.
Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”
Al-Bukhaari (6484) and Muslim (1676) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and leaves the main body of the Muslims.”
The general meaning of these ahaadeeth has been agreed that it is essential to put the apostate to death whether he is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) or not.
The view that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) only is contrary to these ahaadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the reason why he should be put to death is his apostasy, not his waging war against Islam.
Undoubtedly some kinds of apostasy are more abhorrent than others, and the apostasy of one who wages war against Islam is more abhorrent than that of anyone else. Hence some of the scholars differentiated between them, and said that it is not essential to ask the muhaarib to repent or to accept his repentance; rather he should be put to death even if he repents, whereas the repentance of one who is not a muhaarib should be accepted and he should not be put to death if he does. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).
He said:
Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/696
Al-Hallaaj was one of the most well known heretics who were put to death without being asked to repent. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said:
The Maaliki fuqaha’ of Baghdad at the time of al-Muqtadir were unanimously agreed that al-Hallaaj should be killed and crucified because of his claim to divinity and his belief in incarnation, and his saying “I am al-Haqq [God],” even though he outwardly appeared to adhere to sharee’ah, and they did not accept his repentance.
Al-Shifa bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafa, 2/1091.
Based on this, it is clear that what the questioner says about the apostate not being killed unless he is waging war on Islam is mistaken, and the differentiation that we have quoted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah may dispel any confusion and make the matter clearer.
Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases."