Moderate western Muslims on apostsy

To be fair, following my recent blog entry about non-reciprocity in the matter of conversions to and from Islam, the USAmerican Council on US Islamic Relations (CAIR), issued a statement concerning the recent report of an Afghani being held on death row in Afghanistan because he has converted to Christianity, his sentence is based in sharia law which is kind of made room for in the Afghani constitution (see my earlier post on the matter). Cair take the view that the death sentence for apostasy is realy for treason in a state where conversion from Islam was seen as going over to the enemy, thus:

“Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, such as:

1) ‘If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?’ (10:99)
2) ‘(O Prophet) proclaim: 'This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.'’ (18:29)
3) ‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:48)
4) ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256)

“Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Quran states: ‘Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.’ (2:256)

“We urge the government of Afghanistan to order the immediate release of Mr. Abdul Rahman.”

I've included the Qur'anic verses as they may be useful to many of us in future dialogue on the matter. It is good to know that on this matter a just and reasonably equitable position can be crafted bt Muslims usling traditional resources. Though, I do wonder whether a state calling itself "Islamic" could still argue that apostasy was treason. Presumably not without casting suspicion on its non-Muslim citizens, which is a parlous state of affairs. The difficulty, I imagine, that this bit of fiqh may have is that it seems to me to undermine the very principle that the 'treason' interpretation is based on and in effect creates [?] an abrogation. I am open to correction, but if so, then I am pleased in this case to see a creeping principle of abrogation by verses advocating justice and fair-play against harsh and unjust passages. My reading [cursory though it is] of Islamic history does not seem to support this having happened much previously.