The relationship between Islamic jurisprudence and freedom of religion remains a significant issue in contemporary human rights debates, particularly concerning the punishment for apostasy. Although classical Islamic jurisprudence has often been interpreted as prescribing the death penalty for apostasy, contemporary Muslim thinkers have challenged this interpretation through alternative approaches to Islamic legal reasoning. This article examines how Mustafa Akyol and Muhammad Hashim Kamali reinterpret the legal status and punishment of apostasy, focusing on their respective arguments against capital punishment for individuals who leave Islam. Using a qualitative, library-based research method, the study analyzes the writings of both thinkers through the framework of negotiative hermeneutics to explore how their intellectual backgrounds and sociocultural contexts shape their interpretations of Islamic legal texts and traditions. Although Akyol and Kamali employ different argumentative approaches, both reject the imposition of capital punishment solely on the basis of apostasy and oppose coercion in matters of religious belief. By examining both their convergences and differences, this article contributes to contemporary debates on fiqh, capital punishment, and freedom of religion. It also highlights the significance of contextual and hermeneutical approaches in reassessing established interpretations of apostasy within contemporary Islamic legal thought.