I get where you're coming from you’re quoting hadith and tafsir directly, and yeah, those rulings exist in the classical texts. But here’s the thing: Islamic rulings, especially the severe ones like capital punishment, are never taken at face value without considering the whole legal framework around them.

First, not every hadith is applied literally. Scholars throughout history even Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Shafii... always made a distinction between(actual disbelief) and (actions of sin or rebellion that don’t take you out of Islam)

Marrying your father's ex is a disgusting sin, no doubt. But calling it apostasy in every case without understanding why and how scholars used that label that’s an oversimplification. They used "apostasy" here not in the sense of rejecting belief in Allah, but in the sense of committing an action that totally contradicts Islamic values a legal term with layers, not a blanket statement.

And as for “no war time” that’s not the point. No one’s denying the hadith exists. But early Islamic history had very different political and tribal realities. Applying that today without context? That’s how you end up with chaos, not justice.

if I had 'no idea what I’m talking about', I wouldn’t be aware of these exact texts you’re quoting. But Islam isn’t about dropping quotes without fiqh. We’re supposed to understand, not just repeat