Right, so basically the exact context that the Muslims were in in their formative period when it was essentially tribal warfare where manpower was critical. So in other words, if that was indeed the context then you agree that death for apostasy was legitimate then right?
If you want to consider it a wartime law then my answer is YES. And what is that during peace time?
[/QUOTE]I'm not a scholar so I can't tell you the "correct" interpretation. I can say that even if death is the penalty of apostasy in peace time its not something that's supposed to be carried out by vigilantes, its meant to be applied after a trial with sufficient witnesses and with a chance for the accused to repent and avoid the penalty and that rarely happened in premodern times. This is why historically speaking all these things that non-Muslims like you clutch their pearls at were barely, if at all, relevant or common in premodern Muslim societies.[/QUOTE]
There are multiple interpretations from the same scripture so who is right? A common man isn't allowed to interpret the words because why exactly : he might call into question what's been written?
Are there other hadiths that hold no value in today's world? Which one's are they?
Death sentences are carried out in Muslim countries up until today by vigilantes and courts, it makes no difference really who does it : you're still trying to downplay the fact that someone's getting killed for their religious beliefs or the lack of.
[/QUOTE]Btw the idea that the West hasn't executed people for their beliefs is just not true, fascist sympathizers in the aftermath of WWII were convicted of treason and in some cases executed
just for their intellectual sympathies with fascism and that's just decades ago. What you seem to misunderstand is that unchosen duties to the community and punishment, including death, for transgressing them is not unique to Islam and not unheard of in the West. The difference is simply which community demands allegiance, one's confessional community or one's national community. And of course even the former has precedent in the West.[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me that you're trying to say "see, your guys were doing it so it's not so bad if my guys do it too, it's the same" with some extra steps.
Everything you're bringing up is related to war, now to WW2 and fascism so the most harshly judged concepts in the West. What's your point :
That death for apostasy is a passage related to war? Ok, fine.
How does that apply to people thinking that it's totally fine in today's world, in a peaceful secular society?