The rigid practice in the video is truly out of the line that is allowed in Islam, for example the notion that muslims must prepare whatever force they are capable to plunge fear in the hearts to the enemy of Islam is the continuance of not more than just a defensive approach, Islam never allows war to be waged upon others if they pose no threat to Islam, even if it is necessary for muslim to wage war, that is only for one reason, that is to defend ourselves, as if war is waged then the army of muslims was advised by the prophets before going to war that they are not allowed to touch those who without weapons who does not fight, they are not allowed to harm children, women, old man, they are also not allowed to destroy any civilian buildings, not even a tree can be destroyed, place of worship of other religions cannot be disturbed.
When non-muslim community lives in a truly islamic country, they have the autonomy to determine their religion, and they can choose to practice thier own law, according to their religion or their secular beliefs, this is evident in the practice of the prophet in the first islamic country in this world, that is medina, that the christians, jews, and others are not subjected to islamic laws as they may choose their own law to practice to the extent that it does not go against islam.
On the issue of penal and capital punishment in islam, the real and pure practice is that, these power to give conviction is very difficult as in islamic jurisprudence, to prove something is not easy, as prove must be absolute and does not contain any ambiguity and cannot be questioned, imposition of puishment, despite the heavy nature, the burden to prove an allegation is not easy, take for example, in the case of zina, as to prove one have really carry out a zina act, there must be at least four witnesses, where two of them is male and the other two is female, if this requirement is not fulfilled, despite the fact the the zina was in truth, committed, then the person accused cannot be convicted with zina, furthermore the question of admissibility of the testimony given by person also extremely strict, where only person with high piety and does not commit any major sins can testify as a witness, then only the statement can be rendered admissible.
By observing the way of how conviction is given earlier, it is inveitable for us to draw the conclusion that islamic law does not aim to punish or to provide retribution to offender but the main aim is only to act as deterrence to the general public, as to give example for them to not to commit such a crime, or should i at the very least say that if you are to commit the mischief don’t do so with the knowledge of others so as not to make it a plague that can damage the mind of other muslims. Secondly, these punishments is gravely necessary as to the nature of conduct of the society nowadays, where people regard it as normal to disregard the notion of morality and the respect for what is good and what is bad, take for example, freedom, where we have two definition of freedom, positive freedom that is up to certain restriction ie doesn’t allow us to make bad story about other person if that what we call as a truth to be false, then we have negative freedom where you can do anything you like as such you are alone at an island where other people’s interest will not be affected, but this freedom is against the nature of living in a society within the community. As for positive freedom, the practice was evidenced in the practice of Rasulullah S.A.W. to his companions where they can question almost anything said by the prophet as long as it is done properly and honestly, as an example during the friday prayer sermon where one companion question the statement made by rasulullah, and he never forbids it, but he answered it.
On the issue of bombings, I have said earlier that this is against what is preached in islam, regardless the fact that this practice is always committed by a muslims against others, they do such act personally where they manipulated the word jihad, as they carry it as a form of revenge not in the form of the benifit of the general muslim as a whole, the situation in Palestin for example, where there are thousands of people were slain as no more family members of them existed on the face of the earth, the emotion as how they are treated have directly cause them to take revenge against the Israeli through every means possible including public bombings. So back to the general muslims, when they are treated in such a way beginning from the end of the Ottoman Empire, where milions of them were slain, they are certain factions or individuals of muslim who take vegeance upon this draconian act against their brothers, despite that this is done for the brothers but when the act is against the basic pillars and fundamental in islam, the sacrifices that they made will not be accepted by God, as Islam never allow innocent people to be affected.
On nuclear issue, our former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir once said, if the Americans are allowed to have nuclear weapon to defend themselves, why can’t the muslim have it? The muslims also have the right to defend themselves in whatever force they are capable. The world nowadays is unfair towards all countries regardless of religion and racial differences, as powerful countries are given more power and not subjected to question by other smaller and minor nations. Americans for example, their police acts towards Afganistan and Iraq have caused countless death of civilians, they who cause the war to happen are not subjected to any war crime tribunal. The question now is, even the world body cannot defend the members, why must they put some restriction on how the members should defend themselves? Clearly that the power to allow or not to allow the usage of weapon is in the hands of those powerful nation who does not care about goodness but rather the survival of their supremacy.
As a conclusion, to write more, I think it will be endless, but let me cut it short, Islam is not a religion that promotes violence, instead it is the religion of peace, where this can be seen in the occupation of Islam in Jurusalem, where compared to the Christians, they often buthered the muslims and other non-christians in that city but islam never done so, instead those people can live side by side with the muslims peacefully as long as they are not against islam and respect it. Offensive means will only, and can only be used in the case where muslim are under threat, if not, waging war is forbidden by god, we can see at the early invasion of Islam, that is only done when the ruler of that state is against islam, that they often cause danger to Islam or in cases where danger not exist, the ruler treat their citizen badly, as the case for Persia and for south east europe, ie Spain, Granada, Toledo and et cetera. The people even accept Islam as ruler and for some as their religion, take heart, history have shown that Islam is the better guardian of peace and rights, never turn back against Islam as you may regret it.