It is in fact emotional (not rational) to promote hard metaphysical scientism, since one is denying a priori the existence of everything other than the material realm- so it is, in a sense, promoting of a “scientism mythology” before the observations are presented and discussed.
(As was mentioned) The spirit is truly free-seeking, hoping to return to its homeland, which is the presence of Allah. Yet we can and do shackle it with materialism and the desires of the Nafs (lower self). (Theological points would need to be clarified about this statement, but basically this is what the true soul of every person innately wishes).
When looking at the opposition from non-Muslims remember that not everyone wants Muslims to succeed; that is, many are not opposing Islam because they benevolently want Muslims to become “good secularists”, but rather many really do hate Islam and Muslims out of spite and do want them caged, starved, bombed, and so on. By the way, Islamic ethics does not allow for us to hope for the Kufr of someone just because we dislike that person now; the rules are quite strict in this matter, and hoping for the Islam of everyone is hoping for their eternal success.
A note mentioned about others’ political systems: Democracy is based on education more than anything else, which is why very terrible people and terrible things have indeed happened when an electorate mesmerized by propaganda, simple information, and desperation have voted in certain politicians to take the reins of power.
(And if someone says that it is this very freedom to choose whatever the electorate wishes that defines democracy, the response is that then the political superstructures will always be a few years away from totally dissolving, and the “choices of the people” will then be redundant, since then any fiercely non-democratic system can establish and entrench itself within a short period of time).
Interesting note: people coming out of prison may not be able to understand instructions even after reading them. Why would that be so? Because they were not in the society or context that would make them understand these instructions and implement them smoothly. Besides the issue of incarceration and recidivism, this matter does have a more direct relationship to Islam and the proper interpretation of its texts, its message, the founding of Madhaahib, how, when, and where texts can be interpreted, etc.
(As mentioned): What to say about a society which actively seeks to push its recently-released prisoners back to jail? It seems to be the worst congregation of social decay with capitalism rolled into one, and says much more about such societies than it does about the incarcerated.
There are different methods when people deal with sinners: Mudaahanah (flattery) or Mudaaraah (gentleness). The first is for Nafsani needs (for e.g., the lower ego trying to get an advantage from this sinning person by telling him that no, the action done is not a sin at all), the latter for Deeni objectives (i.e. being gentle until the truth can be brought out to the currently sinning person).
(Presented as it was mentioned) The distinction between Darul Islam and Darul Harb is difficult to demarcate neatly today, as any given polity/nation-state within the current world-order may flip-flop between helping and harming Muslims in different lands based on their own (nation-state) interests, often couching their interventions [military, economic, political] in vague language, far removed from classical Islamic terminology.
(It was mentioned) Power is defined as the ability of one actor to make another actor do something they would normally not engage in. (Islam is not so closely married to this concept of power and its naturalistic presuppositions).
There is the issue of Idh’aan (true assent) being a condition of faith, that is why Abu Talib and Hercules are not counted as Muslims, even though they had knowledge of Islam being true, while knowledge plus conviction is what is required. The case of the Najashi (RAA) for example is there, since he knew the truth and followed the message even if surreptitiously (which shows there can be further conditions for assent to be counted as true).