Bukhari 52:260 -"...The Prophet said, 'If
somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Bukhari 83:37 - "Allah's Apostle never
killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1)
A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a
married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a
man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and
became an apostate."
Bukhari 89:271 - A man who embraces Islam, then
reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of
Allah and his apostle
First, this hadith is considered a
weak hadith with just a single isnad (this
means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and
thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not
enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered
a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in
need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a
meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the
hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a
Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the
intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic
jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to
further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars
interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason
(hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or
God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Third, and most
importantly, there is no evidence to show that
Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to
embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for
renunciation of the faith.
Based on these three reasons and the Qur'anic principle of
freedom of religion, prominent ulama (scholars) from the seventh to
the twentieth centuries have come out with the position that there
can be no death penalty for apostasy. According to Professor Hashim
Kamali in his award-winning book, Freedom of Expression in Islam,
two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions,
Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate
should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to
death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote
that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences,
it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is
postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid
al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both
held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.
In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University,
the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of
Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic interpretation, wrote that many
ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a
solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the
death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's
former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that
apostasy is not a capital crime.
Many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaltut and Tantawi,
said that the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple
change of faith, but to hirabah, that is, when apostasy is
accompanied by rebellion against the community and its legitimate
leadership.
Again ur lies exposed and refuted here
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
Why are you saying that it's my lies?
The sunnis regard Bukhari's hadith compilations as the most
authenthic and most authoritative book after the quran.
You have a problem with that?
