it's xaraam to kill C/y and geedi says the quraan

[Somali-Transporter]

This will serve all Muslims of conscience against all extremist Muslims who argue that killing people for leaving Islam (even if the victim denies that he has left Islam) is legitimate or permissible behavior.

When a violent Muslim calls someone an apostate, a Muslim of conscience must reply that in the Quran, which is the highest book of Islam, there is no earthly punishment for apostasy, only in the hereafter. Quran 2:217. This means that matters of punshing apostates are put off until the "hereafter."
The only Islamic scholar who has argued that there is a Quranic basis for the death penalty for apostasy in Allamah Mawdudi. He relies on Quran 9:11-12. He argues that the word "pledges" refers to the adoption of Islam. This is incorrect because a reasonable reading of the verse reveals that the word "pledges" is referring to a treaty, not to Islam.
Furthermore, a Muslim of conscience must recognize all Quranic verses which themselves show that God did not want that Muslims kill anyone for leaving the faith. The operative verse here is 4:137: "Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way." If God wanted apostates dead, then why in this verse does God entertain the prospect of repeatedly choosing and alternating between belief and disbelief? Yes, God is saying that he will not forgive such people, but he is not saying that they ought to be killed by humans in this world. Every time the death threat for apostasy shows up, this verse must be used in rebuttal. Repeatedly. Repetition teaches even the donkey. Other verses that suppor this verse include 2:217, 2:108, 3:90, 16:106.
When violent Muslims realize that they cannot use the Quran to legitimize the death threat, they will turn to what they call the "Sunnah of Muhammad." They argue that the Sunnah of Muhammad is equal to the Quran such that even if the Quran is silent (which 4:137 teaches that the Quran is not) the Sunnah they claim is not silent on the matter. To these Muslims, determining what is the Sunnah of Muhammad comes by looking at the hadith narrations in the various hadith compilations. These extremist Muslims immediately move to setting forth all the hadiths that they know to "prove" that death for apostasy is permissible in Islam. Such Muslims must be stopped before they are even able to start rattling off the hadith. A Muslim of conscience must do three things immediately:
First, he must say that he does agree that the Sunnah of Muhammad is equal to the Quran, because the fact of the matter is that the Quran itself states this to be true. 3:164.

Second, he must ask the extremist to prove that the Sunnah of Muhammad is derived from hadith. Most extremists do not know how to do this. Those that will venture a response will usually say something to the effect of: "all the scholars agree that we derive the Sunnah of Muhammad from the hadith narrations." A Muslim of conscience knows that only "some" of the scholars derive the Sunnah from the hadith narrations. A Muslim of conscience knows that other scholars agree the Sunnah is not derived from the hadith. Rather, Sunnah is derived from a) the perpetual practice of something b) unanimously performed by the Prophet and all his companions. Usually an extremist won't bother to reply to this point because it destroys the entire premise of their position. [Fn 1]. As such, one has to move to point three.
Third, a Muslim of conscience will say: "ok, let us say that I accept that the Sunnah is derived from the hadith narrations. What do your hadith narrations say about killing apostates?"
At this point, an extremist Muslim will gleefully quote the most famous of all the "kill" hadiths: "It is narrated that the Prophet said: whoever changes his religion kill him." Bukhari, No. 2854. The response to this hadith -- and to all of its progeny hadith narrations is simple: this hadith is inauthentic. Why is this hadith inauthentic? Because it contradicts the Quran. Why should we care if a hadith contradicts the Quran? Answer: we are supposed to. In hadith sciences, a hadith has to pass a two part evaluation for being deemed legitimate, a matn (textual) analysis and an isnad (chain of narration) analysis. This particular hadith (and some of its progeny) pass the isnad test. They do not part the matn test. As such, this hadith is inauthentic. How exactly does this hadith not pass the matn test? As so:
It contradicts the verse in the Quran which states: "there is no compulsion in religion." 2:256.
The Qur'an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases – one is when a person is guilty of murdering another and the other is when a person is guilty of activities such as terrorism. 5:32.

If the extremist Muslim is honest, he will accept that he effectively has no argument. However, since hadith hurling, without any rhyme or reason, is a favorite pasttime of such extremists, he is likely to take parting shots with other hadith. One narration involves the Prophet's directive to kill an apostate woman. This hadith is inauthentic on isnad grounds. Another narration involves an apostate whom the Prophet asked four times to repent. This is also inauthentic based on isnad.
An intelligent, but flustered extremist, at this point, will resort to throwing around words like naskh. This is a technical legal term referring to the science of abrogation i.e. when one verse of the Quran "abrogates" or "cancels" another verse of the Quran. The extremist will say that the hadith narrations he has cited abrogate the Quranic verses a Muslim of conscience has cited either because a) they came later in time, or b) that is simply how the scholars have decided. This is an incredibly disingenous argument on the extremist's behalf. First, there is no singular theory of abrogation in Islam. Increasingly, scholars do not even accept the theory at all. Classically many did but a generous estimate reveals that there are at least 42 different theories of abrogation. Second, one must ask the extremist to demonstrate how he knows for a fact that the hadiths he has cited came later in time? Third, fact remains that there is considerable authority in Islam which does not accept that a hadith can abrogate a verse of the Quran. The extremist will continue to insist that all of these contrary opinions be ignored and his opinion on the theory of abrogation be accepted. There is no reason to do this. At a later time I will delve into the naskh debate in more detail, addressing the usual tactics used by extremists and there will be a link going out from here.

In conclusion, the aim of this "pamphlet" is three fold. 1) To "jam" any discussion with an extremist Muslim in an intelligent and coherent manner. Usually, Muslims of conscience run away from the apostasy debate. There is no reason to do so. 2) To provide to lawyers in the Muslim world, an outline of how to construct an argument when defending individuals accused of apostasy. 3) To provide high profile Muslim writers and thinkers (who do not know as much about Islamic Law) a way to deflect accusations of apostasy by "jamming" the debate. Fact is, the death threat for apostasy is usually predicated on the extremist trying to imply that the victim does not know as much about Islam as the extremist. If the victim can "jam" the debate, he effectively counters this point.
Obviously, we must be realists. Most extremist Muslims around the world do not engage in a "debate" with the people whom they accuse of apostasy. Often they simply shoot them, hang them, attack them. However, we have to hope that if we diffuse knowledge and rule of law far and wide, this will decrease. Not only that, but that if we keep at it, we can get average lawmakers in the Muslim world to introduce apostasy pieces of legislation which would treat anyone who threatens or carries out death to an apostate as a criminal homicide. This is why extremists are so afraid of legislation. It makes room for "persuasion." This is why any serious Muslim reformist must support all legislative activities in Muslim countries.
I hope it is clear that this is not an "air tight" way of proving that there is no death penalty for apostasy. However, it is a very good and easy to follow one. It can be attacked from a number of perspectives; however, that is not such a big deal, because if a person attacks your argument, then they have effectively accepted your major premise: that their opinion is, at best, only an opinion, and not certitude. A Muslim of conscience does not care to have his opinion rule the day. He only cares that alternative opinions exist to those that believe there is only one.
Fn 1: In the event that the extremist does want to debate this point, I will insert a link at a later time detailing how to conduct that argument.

[Somali-Transporter]

This will serve all Muslims of conscience against all extremist Muslims who argue that killing people for leaving Islam (even if the victim denies that he has left Islam) is legitimate or permissible behavior