Sh Harun Saleh, in my opinion, has one of the most beneficial telegram channels. It's well worth a follow, if you're not already doing so

On the ruling of capital punishment for apostasyOne of the objections to the shariah is the punishment for apostasy which is to be administered by a legitimate legal authority after due process is given and time is given for the one convicted of apostasy to speak to scholars to come back to Islam.

The justification for this ruling is clear by revelation and intellect. Anyone would accept that if someone is actively killing others it is justified to stop them even if it means executing them. For the one who openly apostates, they are directly endangering the afterlife by risking pushing them into an eternity of hell. Surely this is a worse action than actively killing others which anyone would accept justifies execution and so it is more obvious that apostasy necessitates such a ruling.

One might say they don’t believe in hell so it’s not justified. However that is like saying you don’t believe in private property and so that justifies you taking other peoples things because in reality it does not belong to anyone. No judge will take your beliefs into consideration since you are aware of what paradigm the law you live under is built on. Same thing in a Muslim country. You know the paradigm that the laws are running on.

Therefore, just as it is not logical to object to punishment in a legal system you live under simply because you do not believe in an ontological point that legal system assumes it to is not logical to object to a ruling of the shariah which logically follows the ontological points it presumes to be true.

The real issue is to discuss why Islam is the correct religion and not this tertiary point because if Islam is true this ruling makes sense by logic just as it is established by revelation.

While this presentation may not be enough for someone to be fully convinced or accept this ruling, it is enough to get them thinking and push them to logically address the argument rather than appealing to emotion. Other considerations would have to be taken when defending this ruling but this is one of them.

This also requires one has patience and is able to break things down to people easily since many who claim to be rational thinkers will be exposed as simplistic people by their inability to process a simple argument and will opt for appeals to emotion instead.

For those who don't understand -- the night cannot start unless the sun sets...

I hope this clarification was unnecessary...

In other words...avoid twitter/x ?

"Do not argue back with those who argue with you from the commoners and shopkeepers. The one who does so, degrades himself"

-Imam Abu Hanifah's advice to his student, Qadhi Abu Yusuf رحمهما الله

Experience teaches us that reading is not always necessary. Books may affect one as much by sight as by reading. They cure by their presence, composing or stimulating the mind or the emotions of those who do no more than gaze upon them. “To cast mine eye upon good Authors”, said John Donne, “kindles and refreshes” the mind, provoking agrecable meditations.
Montaigne did not pretend to read all his books: it was sufficient to have them near him. In effect, he says, “I make no other use of them, than those who know them not. I enjoy them, as a miser doth his gold; to know, that I may enjoy them when I list; my minde is setled and satisfied by the right of possession.”
He never travelled without them in peace or war, yet passed many days and months without using them.

- Holbrook Jackson, “The Book About Books”, 301z