Yes, for 14 centuries Muslims were so illiterate, ignorant and disobedient that they couldn't figure out what shaykh allama sa1eem has just did. Do you even realize the ramification of your statement!? You have just called the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and rest of the scholars heretics.
Bismillah
but fact is that, no hadith can supersede Quran and Sunnah [actions of Prophet (SAW)]
this is sheer ignorance
1 - Everyone knows that hadith is not the Qur'an. The fact that Qur'an supersedes hadith doesn't support the argument that legislation cannot be drawn from hadith because at the end of the day both are revelation from Allah.
2 - According to Usoolis and Muhadithoon Sunnah constitutes whatever the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) did or commanded/said to do. Linguistically, hadith means saying and sunnah means a way. Hence, hadith is a broader term for sunnah because a saying tells us what is the sunnah of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam), meaning what he said and did.
It is important that we know some of the basics before acting like muftis and pulling such blunders. This is a matter of deen and not a video game.
as when hadith contradicts Quran and/or sunnah, than there is no doubt such hadith is fabricated.
no such criteria has been used by the experts as the main standard to accept or reject ahadith. And just because you find a hadith contradicting to Qur'an due to your desires or lack of knowledge doesn't mean that it does contradict the Qur'an. No one is going to buy an explanation on that issue by someone like you who is not an expert in the field.
According to Quran, and also one historical event regarding action of Prophet (SAW), there is no death penalty for apostate in Islam.
whatever flows your boat right even if we have to turn water into wine.
Now, if there was death penalty than it was not possible that such could happen and since Quran mentions that this could happen, that means ... death of apostate is not Islamic ...
dubious explanations are not going to cut for you my brother. Like I said before, you are not an expert so I am not going to buy what you say unless you bring from those who are expert. Your misunderstanding about the meaning and implication of the ayaat is based upon your ignorance.
Firstly, as the scholars of tafsir have said these two ayaat are referring to munafiqeen and not apostates.
Secondly, we know that an apostate is not killed unless he doesn't repent. Hence, if accepts Islam again then the punishment is not carried on him. Thus, the room for repentance is always open and there is no contradiction between the Qur'an and the command of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam).
Thirdly, even if ignore that point then it is still possible for such a case to take place if the person flees to a kafir land after apostatizing.
Lastly, in the first ayah Allah is saying that He will not forgive those who enter into Islam and then leave and repeat this but at then end die as kafir. I don't know how this proves that an apostate cannot be killed.
and thus those who claim (or say) that Islam demands death for apostate are rejecter of Allah’s words in Quran.
do you realize that your fatawa also applies to the companions (radiAllahu anhuma) of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam)? How can you trust your deen when it came through people who rejected Allah's words?
There is not a single confirmed historical event where Prophet (SAW) gave death penalty to anyone who accepted Islam and then became apostate (openly rejected Islam and entered religion of Kafirs again).
I presented three examples in my earlier post. Instead of making ignorant claims please prove that those historical events are not confirmed. And I would like verdicts from experts and not shaykh allama sa1eem.
As far Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh (radiAllahu anho), then he was not killed because 1st he fled to Quraysh and latter he repented. We know that an apostate is not put to death only when he doesn't repent and lives under an Islamic state. Was this is the case for Abdullah (radiAllahu anho)!? As far when he repented: before conquest of Makka or afterward then it is not clear because there are multiple reports about time of his reversion. Some reports say that he repented before conquest of Makka and others say that he did after. Even if we go with the report you mentioned, it still doesn't prove your point. If an apostate is not to be killed then why did the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered others to kill him in the first place? The Prophet's (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) command to kill him pretty much breaks down your whole argument. After the request of Uthman (radiAllahu anho), the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) gave him a chance to repent, which he did. So, either way, at the end of the day this incident doesn't support your point.
Hence, according to Quran and Sunnah [action of Prophet (SAW)], there is no death penalty in Islam for apostate. This is also obvious as Islam teaches that there is no compulsion in religion, and thus if death penalty for apostate was part of Islam, it would have been compulsion in religion.
no, you have completely failed to prove your deviant modernist view. Go read the tafsir of the ayah "there is no compulsion in religion". It has nothing to do apostates; that ayah was revealed about not forcing non-Muslims into Islam. And uncorrupted Muslims any day will take the words of Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiAllahu anho) over the words of someone like you, nobody.
rest of your points are irrelevant
May Allah guide you and rest of us, ameen
and Allah knows best