The Qur’an doesn’t speak to many important topics, like the number of daily prayers, the method of prayer, nor the crime of rape — as a few of many, many examples.
Muslims end up going to traditions and historical biographies to fill in these gaps, and that’s where a lot of the divergence and contention comes up. What’s interesting to note is that unlike in all other forms of historical inquiry, most Muslims like to favor later sources, rather than earlier sources.
When you say “Not a single person murdered for apostasy in Prophet’s time”, you are consciously rejecting historical accounts to the contrary. If not acknowledged as being done to fit a preconceived belief/faith narrative, then one has to provide historical evidence countering the earliest biography of the Prophet that we have.
On what basis do we reject the material from Ibn Ishaq in favor of the selected extracts from it that Ibn Hisham compiled? On what basis do we reject those parts of the bio, which fortunately, al-Tabari had recorded from Ibn Ishaq’s biography, Sirat Rasul Allah, of the Prophet?
This video, from the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, touches on some of these events, which are recounted from the earliest known biography of the Prophet of Islam. The first part of the video touches on some of the noble and kind things Muhammad is recorded to have done and said. The second half touches on questionable edicts and actions attributed to Muhammad. For example, you can start at time index 5:33 to hear some of the latter.
Further, in the Qur’an, what Ahmadis would label as political enemies of the time, verses conflate as “disbelievers” against whom war is justified. This conflation is so problematic. It wraps up one’s belief/disbelief in Islam as the marquee noun used to refer to people upon whom war (let’s assume it is in self-defense) is justified.
Why conflate another person’s belief as the way you refer to enemies you are allowed to fight in self defense, in a book that is supposed to be timeless and clear? Why even refer to belief? What not just refer to such people as you attackers, the aggressors or the invaders? Curious, isn’t it.