Fate of an Apostate - II

No doubt, for an organized society, a traitor/conspirator is unacceptable and if he conspires against that society, he should be executed, but if some person peacefully renounces the citizenship of that state or society and decides to lead his life peacefully in some other society, what is to become of him? Maodudi tries to tackle with this problem as:

"When such a person finds this foundation on which society and the state are constructed to be unacceptable to himself, it will be appropriate for him to move outside its borders. But when he fails to do this, only two ways of dealing with him are possible. Either he should be stripped of all his rights of citizenship and allowed to remain alive or else his life should be terminated. In fact the first form of punishment is worse than the second since in this terrible state "he will neither die nor live" (Qur'an 20:74)."
- Section D. Response to Criticisms.

Now, he suggests that "it will be appropriate for him to move outside it's borders". Does doing so discards his penalty of death? That's what Maodudi seems to suggest from this pessage. Besides, any rational being would hardly agree with the last line that the punishment of peaceful exile is worse than death!

2- Maodudi compares the Islamic punishment of an apostate with the punishment of a traitor in British law and comments:

"And as British law is ready to give rights, such as aliens have, to those who have chosen to give up British nationality for a nationality of a nation at peace with England, similarly Islamic law also treats apostates, who have left the House of Islam to join an infidel nation which has a treaty with a Muslim government, in the same way it treats the kafirs of that nation."
-Section G. The Example of England, point 6.

Accordingly, if a person denounces Islam and converts to some other religion non-violently and chooses to live in some state other than Islamic state, any state which is at peace with the Islamic state, that person would not be harmed.

3- Now to the most important point. It's the concensus of eminent scholars that non of the penal laws of Islam can be imposed in a state which is not completely Islam. By an Islamic state is meant a state in which all social, economic, political and moral laws are as per the Qur'aanic guidence and the instructions of Sunnah. Maodudi writes:

"Wherever and in whatever circumstances Islam actually assumes that character of a religion which the critics understand religion to have, there we ourselves also reject punishing the apostate by execution. Islamic jurisprudence is not confined to the punishment of apostasy. None of Islam's penal laws can be applied when the Islamic state (or, in terms of the shariah, the "sultan") is not existing."
-Section E. The Basic Difference between a Mere Religion and a Religious State.

That means that unless and untill a complete Islamic state is not in existence, ANY penal law cannot be applied, let alone the punishment of execution of an apostate. During the age we live in, one can safely state that no such state exists and thus the application of penal laws of Islam in any state which happens to run on the basis of a ridiculous mixture of pseudo-Islamic and pseudo-rest is NOT allowed as per Qur'aan and hadith. Application of these laws under such situations would only result in further mayhem and chaos.

Now the points that derives from the fact that "an apostate cannot be punished unless an Islamic state exists because this punishment is a penance for his betrayal to Islamic society and state", is that the punishment actually stands for the threat of an apostate to an Islamic state and society and not for his personal religious bliefs.