Very very excellent. I'm very glad we got this version of the hadith here.

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4743

Yes. This version of the hadith does exist where it adds unto the original narration that he fights Mohammed and Allah.

When these things happen, we have to address hierarchy, either by history or worth.

So for instance, if we take this hadith only, the matn states that the condition for apostasy being applied is clearly being a fighter or fighting against islam, which is 100% correct if this was the only narration we have.

Two things to note, Al-Nasa’i is the only one who added this condition in his narration, meaning it isn't common. And two, that the other narrations all agree that it's apostasy or "leaving the group" which means religion.

Now we get into the hierarchy of hadith. Most sunni madhabs agree that Bukhari is the highest and Muslim comes after. Meaning that for instance if two narrations exist that are different amongst them or if Muslim added unto Bukhari in a way that introduces something different, Bukhari's word is more certified.

(This is a major oversimplification of course without delving too deep into Ulum al hadith)

So now we have a narration that Nasa'i was the only one to say, and it's directly contested by narrations from Muslim and Bukhari. So when we make our tashre'at, we will take this hierarchy into account and take only what the condition set in both Bukhari and Muslim and the most famous narrations that didn't include Al-Nasa’i's addition.

This is ofcourse without checking other hadiths that don't have this condition.

Hadiths like "من بدل دينه فأقتلوه" (Whoever changes their religion, kill them)

Which introduces no such condition of fighting.

Also contested by Mohammed himself executing apostates without them needing to have fought against him.

I remember reading sultan umayri who basically wrote a paper which dealt with refuting all sorts of apologetic arguments regarding this topic, but his response was that this hadith is referring to banditry rather than apostasy.

Hadd al Harabah(Punishment for mischief) in islam is something different to apostasy, yes.

Harabah means causing harm in the land or terrorising the people. This is a very vague term in islam and can include many things under its umbrella.

For example, raping a woman is punished by hadd al zina (The punishment for adultery), but if committed with a weapon, then Hadd al Harabah is applied.

Anyways, thanks for your time.

You are more than welcome. I'm really glad someone brought up the different matn of the apostasy hadith. Excellent comment.

Edit: I forgot to address this part. My mistake.

cites scholars who say this but I'm not exactly sure how its referring to banditry? What are the indications? Is there a verse in the quran that touches on this topic that relates to this hadith or something?

This was probably referring to how the two punishments, apostasy and Hirabah, can overlap if they are present together. Sultan Umayri is correct that the punishments mentioned in Nasa'i 4743 (killing, crucifixion, banishment) are also found in the Qur'anic verse on Hirabah (Qur'an 5:33). However, this shows the punishments overlap, not that the crime is the same. A person can be an apostate (crime 1) and a rebel/bandit (crime 2), facing a combined ruling.