Ulil Amri , ruler is the one responsible for doing so.

I ask a simple question, assuming France is not an Islamic country altogether, what if a criminal commits a punishable crime (in an Islamic community) like murder, rape, adultery etc. then supposing Some_Country is a completely Islamic country altogether, can these people Some_Country take actions going on in France? Can they punish the criminals in France just because Islam has laws provided for those crimes?

The answer is basically NO.

In a community say A, a leader of some other community say B doesn't get to take actions on the people of A. So, in general, only a leader of an Islamic community can take actions only in his community.

Now in our case, if Muslims are a minority in a community say A, then Muslims have to be very careful in that place, abiding by the rules and regulations of that community. This could be considered analogous to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) dwelling in his community of disbelievers during his early days of Prophet-hood. Imagine, at the very beginning when he was only with a few followers, when he was mocked. Only when a community comes in the hands of Muslims, then the leader of that community gets to rule according to Islamic laws and take actions as deemed necessary for the sake of the community.

So, if in a Muslim community (today), suppose some nonbeliever in it mocks the Prophet (pbuh) by any means, say cartoons, then the leader of that community decides what to do.

Here are some of the main points from IslamQA article which I found relevant,

• We must denounce it forcefully, each of us according to his abilities, by sending letters and articles, or making phone calls, to their government, foreign affairs departments and newspapers.

• We should demand a clear and sincere apology from them, not deception or justification of the crime which they call an apology. We do not want an apology for showing disrespect towards the Muslims; rather we want an admission of error and an apology for that error.

• We should request them to punish the criminals for their crime.

And so are other points in it.

But, remember, anytime, what ever step is taken, it is taken wisely, rather than in a rage.

Islam prescribes execution for certain crimes such as murder, apostasy, robbery etc. , see Why do Muslims kill other Muslims?. Further, with certain exceptions like women and children, Islam allows for execution of disbelieving prisoners of war, see Does Quran 8:67 say that prisoners of war should be killed and not ransomed? .

Historically, the standard means of execution in Islam has been beheading. Scholars have even recorded that it is the preferred method of execution, because the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

فإذا قتلتم فأحسنوا القتلة

So when you kill, kill in a good way

^{— Muslim}

This hadith prescribes killing in the best possible manner, which causes the least suffering. Commenting on this hadith, Ibn Rajab said:

وأسهل وجوه قتل الآدمي ضربه بالسيف على العنق

And the least painful means of killing a human is striking at the neck with a sword

^{— Jaami’ al-‘Uloom wa’l-Hukam}

Similarly Ibn al-Qayyim wrote:

ضرب العنق بالسيف أحسن القتلات

Striking the neck with a sword is the best of the ways of execution

^{— Kitab al-Salat}

Further, it has been mentioned at least literally as the means of killing in Quranic verses and ahadith such as:

فاضربوا فوق الأعناق

so strike [them] upon the necks

^{— Quran 8:12}

فضرب الرقاب

strike [their] necks

^{— Quran 47:4}

اذهب فاضرب عنقه

Go and strike his neck

^{— Muslim}

فأمرني أن أضرب عنقه وآخذ ماله

(the Prophet) has commanded me to strike his neck and seize his wealth.

^{— Nasai}

Pulling together the discussions from the comments: Overall? There's a bit of truth in both, but in both cases the statements are technically false and also ignore important context.

For the 600 beheaded Jews:

According to Mohammed al-Ghazali, during that time the Muslims allowed the Jews who had refused to betray the Prophet during the Battle of the Ditch to leave and "go wherever they wished". Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, a companion of Muhammad, was chosen by him as an arbiter and all parties agreed to abide by his judgment. Sa'd gave his verdict that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment, after which nearly all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were beheaded The Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600–900 being executed. The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but state that all pubescent males were killed and one woman.

This quote from the very heavily footnoted wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza (thanks to @Henry) The sources drawn from are all from various Muslim theologians and historical figures, and should be taken as such. Given best information from those sources, then, we have 600 or more Jews being beheaded. Muhammed did not do the beheading himself, and was not even the one making the decision that they be beheaded, but he did approve of the ruling that they be beheaded. It is at least plausible that he would have made the same ruling himself, if he were the one called on to do so. The sources available also present those Jews as having been at war with Muhammed's people at the time (almost certainly true) and as having betrayed them previously. (That part is possible, but by no means certain. This is the sort of thing that biased historians and theologians have been known to change.) Additionally, beyond all uncertainty of textual source, beheading 600 Jews by himself would have required one beheading a minute for 10 hours - something that would seem unlikely for reasons of physical stamina alone.

For the torturing and killing unbelievers, I will refer to the quote presented by @DavePhD's answer. Again, Muhammed did not do the torturing or killing himself, though in this case it was at his command. Additionally, it was apparently done as punishment for acts of murder and severe violation of hospitality. According to the theological consensus of Muslim scholars, they were unbelievers only because the act of the murder inherently rendered them as such. Again, we are working from religious texts here, but it is highly unlikely that the original claim had anything more definitive to work off of, given its source.

In the broader sense, then, it is reasonable to conclude that he was at least partly responsible for the beheading deaths of hundreds of Jews, and that he was responsible for at least a few cases of torturous execution (some or all of which occurred to those who were no longer considered believers), but that the precise claims made by the billboard are not supported by the available evidence.

Yes, they are allowed to say whatever they want until their death. After that, in the Judgement Day, Allah will give their punishment for their sins. You are basically not authorized to attack them. But, you should defend your religion, without exceeding the limit. What is the limit? It is what they do.

If they attack with their tongue, you should defend with your tongue, with arguments and proofs.

If they attack with pen, you should defend with pen, with verses, hadiths and academical writings.

If they are mocking with religion, that means they are trying to get support of third people, they are playing to the tribune; you should play to the tribune too and get their support. Most of the people don't like unrespectful people and you should get their support. If anyone doesn't laughes, then nobody makes a joke.

If they are attacking physically, first you should call help from authorities like police. If they don't do their job, you should go to the upper authority like courts, or media, or international community. If any authority doesn't do its job, this is the point you can take initiative and defend yourself.

Iman was defined by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) as:

■ That you affirm your faith in Allah, ■ in His Angels, ■ in His Books, ■ in His Apostles, ■ in the Day of Judgment, and ■ you affirm your faith in the Divine Decree about good and evil.

So Bases of Eemaan are six

1. Believe in Allah, Tawheed
2. Believe in His Angles
3. Believe in His Messengers
4. Believe in His Books
5. Believe in Qadar of Allah, that Allah has power over good or bad
6. Believe in Judgment Day

So disrespecting/insulting or ignoring any of the prophets is considered as Kufr. Execution upon insulting the Muhammad (SM.) was ruled on this kufr. And since disrespecting other prophets is also kufr, the criminal should also be punished.

EDIT:

I'll try my best to know about this from trustworthy resources.

Some hadith sources

• "On the day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah [SAW] granted amnesty to the people, except four men and two women. He said: 'Kill them, even if you find them clinging to the covers of Ka'bah.' (They were) 'Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl, 'Abdullah bin Khatal, Miqyas bin Subabah and 'Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi As-Sarh. 'Abdullah bin Khatl was caught while he was clinging to the covers of Ka'bah. Sa'eed bin Huraith and 'Ammar bin Yasir both rushed toward him, but Sa'eed, who was the younger of the two, got there before 'Ammar, and he killed him. Miqyas bin Subabah was caught by the people in the marketplace, and they killed him. 'Ikrimah traveled by sea, and he was caught in a storm. The crew of the ship said: 'Turn sincerely toward Allah, for your (false) gods cannot help you at all in this situation.' 'Ikrimah said: 'By Allah, if nothing came to save me at sea except sincerity toward Allah then nothing else will save me on land. O Allah, I promise You that if You save me from this predicament I will go to Muhammad [SAW] and put my hand in his, and I am sure that I will find him generous and forgiving.' So he came, and accepted Islam. 'Abdullah (bin Sa'd) bin Abi Sarh hid in the house of 'Uthman bin 'Affan, and when the Messenger of Allah [SAW] called the people to give their Oath of Allegiance, he brought him, and made him stand before the Prophet [SAW]. He ('Uthman) said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Accept the allegiance of 'Abdullah.' He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing his allegiance each time, then he accepted his allegiance after three times. Then he turned to his Companions and said: 'Was there not any sensible man among you who would get up when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and kill him?' They said: 'We did not know, O Messenger of Allah, what was in your heart. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?' He said: 'It is not befitting for a Prophet that his eyes be deceitful.' (Sunan an-Nasa-i and other compilations)

• Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) entered (Makkah) in the year of the Conquest (of Makkah) wearing a helmet over his head. After he took it off, a man came and said, "Ibn Khatal is clinging to the curtains of the Ka'bah." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Kill him." (Sahih al-Bukhari and other compilations)

• On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan.
  He brought him and made him stand before the Prophet (ﷺ), and said: Accept the allegiance of Abdullah, Messenger of Allah! He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him each time, but accepted his allegiance after the third time.
  Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?
  They said: We did not know what you had in your heart, Messenger of Allah! Why did you not give us a signal with your eye?
  He said: It is not advisable for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes. (Sunan abi Dawod)

• The Prophet (ﷺ) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam. (See for example in Sunan abi Dawod, qualified as da'if)

Some sources from historical records

Let's take a look at some historical records:

Safiu Rahaman al-Mubarakpuri صفی الرحمن مبارکپوری in his excellent biography of the prophet () called ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum الرحيق المختوم wrote the following (pages 396-397 of the English translation):

Shedding blood of nine arch-criminals was declared lawful even under the curtains of Al-Ka'bah.
Nevertheless, only four of them were killed while the others were pardoned for different reasons.
As for those who were killed, mention could be made of 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Khatal who had become a Muslim and then deputed to collect alms-tax in the company of a Helper. They had also a slave with them.
'Abdullah, in a fit of rage, killed the Helper's slave on account of a mere trifling dispute, and joined the pagan Arabs as an apostate. He was never repentant at this heinous crime but rather employed two women singers and incited them to sing satirically about the Prophet peace be upon him.
The other man who was put to death was Miqyas bin Sababa. He was a Muslim. A Helper accidently killed his brother Hisham. The Prophet peace be upon him had arranged the payment of blood money to him, which he had accepted. His revengeful nature, however, was never appeased, so he killed the Helper and went to Makkah as an apostate.

Similarly, Huwairith and one woman singer went to death.

On the other hand, every attempt was made to grant pardon to the people. 'Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl, who had attacked Khalid's detachment at the time of the entry into Makkah, was forgiven. To Wahshi, the murderer of Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle, and to Hind, who had chewed his liver, was also extended his generous clemency. The same generous treatment was accorded to Habar who had attacked the Prophet's daughter with a spear, while on her way from Makkah to Madinah, so grievously that she ultimately died of the fatal injuries.

In the same context of magnanimity peculiar to Muhammad peace be upon him, two chiefs of Quraish were pardoned once they had embraced Islam. They were Safwan bin Omaiyah and Fudalah bin 'Umair.
The latter had attempted to assassinate the Prophet peace be upon him while circumambulating in the Holy Sanctuary. The Prophet's matchless tolerance and broad-mindedness instigated by his mission as 'A mercy to all people', converted a terrible hypocrite into a faithful devout believer.

Ibn Ishaaq has reported this also as appears in the English translation introduced by A. Guillaume entitled "The Life of Muhammd" (pages 550-551) quoting them and the reasons they were sentenced to death for:

The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka`ba.
Among them was 'Abdullah b. Sa'd, brother of the B. 'Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to 'Uthman b. 'Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes. When 'Uthman had left he said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar said, then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.

Another was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him.
Another was al-Huwayrith Nuqaydh Wahb Qusayy, one of those who used to insult him in Mecca.
Another was Miqyas Hubaba because he had killed an Ansari who had killed his brother accidentally, and returned to Quraysh as a polytheist.
And Sara, freed slave of one of the Abdul-Muttalib, and Ikrima Abu Jahl. Sara had insulted him in Mecca. As for Ikrima, he fled to the Yaman. His wife Umm Hakim Harith Hisham became a Muslim and asked for immunity for him and the apostle gave it. She went to the Yaman in search of him and brought him to the apostle and he accepted Islam.

As for those who have been killed and who executed them ibn Ishaq has reported (on page 551):

'Abdullah b. Khatal was killed by Sai'd b Hurayth al-Makhzumi and Abu Barza al-Aslami acting together. Miqyas was killed by Numayla b. 'Abdullah, one of his own people. ...
As for Ibn Khatal's two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle, asked for immunity, gave it to her. Similarly Sara who lived until the time of 'Umar a mounted soldier trid her down in the valley of Mecca and killed her. Al-Huwayrith was killed by 'Ali.

Some historian said that the killed slave was called Qareebah while the other was called Fartanah who converted and lived until the times of 'Othman ().

Different historians had different amounts and names some apparently have mixed some names. For example 'Abdullah ibn Sa'ad ibn as-Sarh was referred to as 'Abdullah ibn Sarh in ar-Raheeq al-Makhjtum and referred to as 'Abdullah ibn Sa'd in the English translation of ibn Ishaaq's book which may lead to the idea that they are two different people.

Efforts on listing them

Ibn Hajar picked from different sources and tried to make a list of those who originally were sentenced to death (Source):

1. 'Abdul 'Uzza ibn Khatal عبد العزى بن خَطَل who has been found clinging on the curtains of al-Ka'abah and killed.
2. 'Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn abi Sarh عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح who has been a scribe of revelation before leaving Islam, he was pardoned.
3. 'Ikrimah ibn abi Jahl عِكرمة بن أبي جهل, fled while his wife converted and asked for an amnesty and he got pardoned and later died as a martyr. As he decided to fight disbelieve in the same manner or more than he fought Islam before his conversion.
4. Al-Huwayrith ibn Nuqaidh الحويرث بن نُقيذ was killed by 'Ali ibn abi Talib (), he was among those who insulted the Prophet () and his two daughters Fatimah () and Um Kalthoom ().
5. Miqyas ibn Subabah مقيس بن صَبابة is the second who was killed.
6. Habnar ibn al-Aswad هبَّار بن الأسود was pardoned.
7. Two singing slave girls of ibn Khatal some called them: Qareebah -who was killed- and
8. Fartanah who first fled and then was pardoned and converted to Islam.
9. Sarah the servant of Bani al-Muttalib سارة مولاة بني المطلب who was also pardoned. She was the carrier of a letter of Hatib ibn Ba'talah to the prophet's () enemies (See also in Did women in Arabian peninsula have "Hijab" before Islam?).
10. Al-Harith ibn Tultul al-Khoza'i الحارث بن طُلاطل الخزاعي who was killed.
11. Ka'ab ibn Zuhair كعب بن زهير who was pardoned.
12. Wahshi ibn Harb وحشي بن حرب the freed slave who killed Hamzah ibn 'Abdalmuttalib () and who was pardoned.
13. Hind bint 'Utbah هند بنت عتبة the wife of abu Sufyan, who was also pardoned.
14. Arnab the servant of ibn Khatal أَرْنب مولاة ابن خطل and
15. Um Sa'ad أم سعد and it is very likely that they are the two singing slave girls as their names, kunyas and surnames have been quoted differently.

While the fatwa from islamweb #188523 provided by @Armaan gives the following list:

1. 'Abdullaah Ibn Abi Sarh,
2. 'Abdullaah Ibn Khatal and his two female singers:
3. Fartanah and
4. Qareebah,
5. 'Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl,
6. Huwayrith Ibn Nufayl (or Nuqayth),
7. Miqyas Ibn Hubaabah,
8. Habbaar Ibn Al-Aswad,
9. Ka’b Ibn Zuhayr,
10. Al-Haarith Ibn Hishaam, (embraced Islam)
11. Zuhayr Ibn Umayyah, (embraced Islam)
12. Saarah (a woman slave of some sons of Ibn ‘Abudul Muttalib),
13. Safwaan Ibn Umayyah, (embraced Islam)
14. Hind Bint ‘Utbah and
15. Wahshi Ibn Harb.

adding al-Haarith ibn Hishaam, Zuhayr and Safwaan ibn Umayyah. And leaving out al-Haarith ibn Tultul.

The biographers agreed that only four of them have been executed:

1. 'Abdul 'Uzza ibn Khatal.
2. One of his two singing slaves.
3. Miqyas ibn Subabah.
4. Al-Haarith ibn Tultul.

Some more sources:

• Arabic fatwa on islamweb #63354
• In Arabic Wikisource
• The seerah of ibn Hisham in Arabic

Yes, it is true that leaving Islam, in an Islamic state, can be a reason for someone to be put to death. Note the caveat: in an Islamic state. We do not have any Islamic state today; only Muslim countries who mix some parts of Islamic law with other types of law.

I think the question you're asking is more about why this might be the case. As you mentioned, Zakir Naik mentioned some points about tarnishing the image of Islam.

Consider also the following cases, as happened historically around the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him): individuals and groups who fought against Islam would enter Islam in the morning, leave it in the evening, and declare it to be false. Not because of any flaw of the deen, but in order to attack and denounce it further. There are some historical accounts of this happening.

One of the benefits and reasons that Allah declared this law, therefore, can be for the protection of the religion itself (which is one of the five aims of Islamic law).

Allah knows best; sometimes we know the reasoning and benefits behind certain laws of Islam, and sometimes we don't. As Muslims, we only need to submit, we do not need to understand the intricacies of each issue and the proofs surrounding it.

In response to some comments about Muslim countries versus Islamic states: Muslim countries are Muslim countries, not Islamic states. Their rulers pick and choose what laws they want -- Islamic, British, secular, or personal whims, often against Islam itself. Will they implement Islamic law, or this particular part of it? I don't know.

Are we all obliged to rule by the law of Allah?

Yes. Allah says:

Translation: But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. (Surah Nisaa, verse 65)

Another verse criticizes the People of the Book for throwing away Allah's law after it was revealed to them:

Translation: [Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters. (Surah An'aam, verse 114)

Allah describes and depicts the correct attitude of the believers:

Translation: The only statement of the [true] believers when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say, "We hear and we obey." And those are the successful. (Surat An-Noor, verse 51)

Islamic law applies to Islamic states. If you're not living in an Islamic state, then you need to worry about local laws, not the laws of an Islamic state.

Yes there exists a hadith with this wording. It is narrated by Ali ibn Abi Talib from the Prophet ﷺ; and is recorded in Al-Shifaa bi Tareef Huqooq al-Mustafaa and Mu'jam al-Sagheer Tabaraani etc.

مَنْ سَبَّ نَبِيًّا فَاقْتُلُوهُ

The scholars have noted that the chain for this hadith has some weakness, however the content is accepted to be correct. The same meaning is conveyed by several other ahadith such as on the execution of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf or Abu Rafi' or Ibn Khatal or the slave woman of the blind sahabi etc. And it is corroborated by the verdicts of the caliphs and the sayings of the sahaba.

وأجمعوا على أن من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن له القتل

They are unanimous that whoever insults the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed

^{— Al-Ijma' - Ibn Mundhir}

من سب نبيا من الأنبياء قتل باتفاق الفقهاء

Whoever insults a prophet from the prophets, is to be killed, by the agreement of the jurists

^{— Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa}

The actual wording of the hadith says أم ولد which means that it refers to Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of the Prophet's son Ibrahim. The accused was a person who had accompanied her from Egypt, sometimes claimed to be her cousin. He would visit her too often and people speculated that he was attracted to her and had relations with her. It is inferable that he persisted even though he knew of the rumors about him and had previously been warned about his inappropriate behavior.

Responses to the objections in order:

1. Jealousy in the sense of envy is not applicable when someone wrongs you by violating your rights. If a burglar robs someone of their property then do you say to the victim that they are being jealous of the robber's prosperity? This wasn't two men competing in courting an unmarried woman that one would become jealous of the success of another.

   On the other hand, having غيرة regarding one's rights is actually a positive thing and called for in Islam.

   قال سعد بن عبادة: لو رأيت رجلا مع امرأتي لضربته بالسيف غير مصفح، فبلغ ذلك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال:أتعجبون من غيرة سعد، لأنا أغير منه، والله أغير مني

   Sa`d bin Ubada said, "If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword."

   When the Prophet (ﷺ) heard that he said, "Do you wonder at Sa'd's sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa'd, and Allah has more sense of ghira than me."

   ^{— Bukhari}

   And being devoid of it is condemned and disgraceful:

   ثلاثة لا ينظر الله عز وجل إليهم يوم القيامة: ... والديوث

   There are three at whom Allah will not look on the Day of Resurrection: ... and the cuckold.

   ^{— Sunan an-Nasai}

2. The person entered in the private chamber of the Prophet's Umm al-Walad and was alone with her repeatedly. This part wasn't just an accusation that turned out to be false, rather it was true and would have been proven through the reports of witnesses.

   It is an insult and offense against the honor of a man for another man to enter upon his wife or concubine. Insult against the Prophet ﷺ is punishable by death - "in and of itself". It wasn't necessary to ascertain whether fornication had taken place.

   However, the Prophet ﷺ did investigate the issue as that is what Ali was sent to do - i.e. to investigate and enforce punishment if its criterion was fulfilled. In some more elaborate versions of the hadith (such as in Musnad al-Bazaar) it is implied that Ali was instructed to pass the judgement based on what he observed. A translation of the conversation between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Ali ibn Abi Talib at this occasion is present in Musnad Ahmad:

   عن علي، رضي الله عنه قال قلت يا رسول الله إذا بعثتني أكون كالسكة المحماة أم الشاهد يرى ما لا يرى الغائب قال الشاهد يرى ما لا يرى الغائب

   Ali (رضي الله عنه) said: I said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), when you send me on a mission, should I go and do what you tell me to do (with no delay) or witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out?

   He said: 'Witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out.'

   ^{— Musnad Ahmad}

   It is also possible that the Prophet knew the truth and the outcome of Ali's visit and that he had sent him so that the truth would be known and would exonerate the parties. It is similar to the judgement of Solomon (see in Bukhari), where he commanded for a child to be cut in half, his intent was not to really divide the child rather he knew that giving that impression will resolve the matter in some other way.

   As a result of Ali's act it was established that the person was an eunuch. Hence the person could not have committed fornication, nor was his visit considered an insult anymore since it is not an insult if a eunuch visits the harem, just as it is not an insult if a woman or child does it.

3. As stated above, this is not a case of fornication alone, rather there is a separate crime of committing an insult to the Prophet ﷺ:

   وما كان لكم أن تؤذوا رسول الله ولا أن تنكحوا أزواجه من بعده أبدا إن ذلكم كان عند الله عظيما

   And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.

   ^{— Quran 33:53}

   Insult to the Prophet ﷺ is punishable by death and Ibn Taymiyyah has cited this incident in his book al-Sarim al-Maslul 'ala Shatim al-Rasul. The evidence criterion for Insult and Ta'zir is different from that of fornication. If the Prophet had charged him for fornication then the punishment for that would have been public lashing \ stoning not beheading like this, and it is only for the punishment of fornication that four witnesses would have been required to have seen the actual act of intercourse.

4. I am not sure what this objection means and why it is an objection. Maybe his concern is addressed in the previous points. Otherwise if he is claiming something then he should first provide citation for his claim and then elaborate what is wrong with it.

Firstly, no one can decide who will go to heaven or hell. At judgement day, Allah is going to give final decision based upon our actions.

In this world, we can only express our views like "this is good or bad" according to our observations on events.

There are different perspectives on those events which you refer. One of them is "Ottoman did these wars because of "Jihad". So, their actions were justified."

You can bring some evidences to prove this idea is wrong, or they can show some evidences that explain their findings are true.

In my opinion(Allah knows the best), saying like "the person will go to heaven or hell" is not good and this is not our business.

We can say this behavior is wrong and doing this is a sin based upon rules of Quran and guidance of Hadiths.

Killing a Muslim unlawfully is a serious matter and a grave crime. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.”[al-Nisa’ 4:93]

al-Bukhaari (6355) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“The believer will continue to be encompassed by the mercy of Allaah so long as he does not shed blood that it is forbidden to shed.”

Even, if it is proven that he/she deserves the hadd punishment, it is not permissible for individuals to carry out this punishment themselves. Rather the matter must be referred to the ruler or his deputy to prove the crime and carry out the punishment, because if individuals carry out hadd punishments, that will lead to a great deal of corruption and evil. And this is for a country that is ruled by Shariah.

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Furoo’ (6/53):

It is haraam for anyone to carry out a hadd punishment except the ruler or his deputy. This is something on which the fuqaha’ of Islam are unanimously agreed, as was stated in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (5/280): The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that the one who should carry out hadd punishments is the ruler or his deputy, whether the punishment is transgressing one of the limits of Allaah, may He be exalted, such as zina, or a transgression against another person, such as slander.

In Islam, Vigilantism is a totally haraam.

Considering the issue that you mention happened in a democratic country, it is not permissible to punish the person even if if proven guilty. If someone does it, it is the height of ignorance from pre-islamic era. And if he/she is killed unjustly, then it is a major sin.

Source: Ruling on honour killings

EDIT: Since question was updated, here is an addition :

In both hadith you mentioned, the hadd punishment was carried out by the authorities not any random guy as it happens in honor killings.

Secondly, why she was killed after repentance? Because, hadd punishments are a way to expiate sins.

Al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in his Saheeh (3/143, no. 3679) with his isnaad that ‘Ubaadah ibn al-Saamit, one of those who was present at Badr with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), said that one of those who had been present at al-‘Aqabah told him:The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, with a group of his Sahaabah standing around him:

“Come and give me your oath of allegiance, promising that you will not associate anything in worship with Allaah, or steal, or commit zinaa (illegal sexual activity), or kill your children, or utter slander intentionally forging falsehood (by wrongfully attributing illegitimate children to husbands), or disobey me with regard to anything good (ma’roof). Whoever among you fulfils this oath, his reward will be due from Allaah, and whoever commits any of these sins and is punished for it in this world, this will be an expiation for him. Whoever commits any of these sins and Allaah conceals it for him, then his case rests with Allaah – if He wills, He will punish him and if He wills, He will forgive him.” So they gave their oath of allegiance to him on that basis.

Al-Haafiz said in al-Fath (1/6):

“What we learn from this hadeeth is that the carrying out of the punishment is an expiation for the sin, even if the one on whom the hadd is carried out does not repent. This is the view of the majority. It was also said that he has to repent – this was stated by some of the Taabi’een.”

The previous hadeeth was also narrated by al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan. After quoting it, he said:

“Al-Shaafa’i said concerning this topic: I have not heard any better indication than this hadeeth to show that the hudood (punishments) are an expiation for the people on whom they are carried out. Al-Shaafa’i said: if a person commits a sin and Allaah conceals it for him, I prefer for him to keep it concealed and to repent, keeping the matter between himself and Allaah. Something similar was narrated from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, that they commanded a man to conceal his sin.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 1439). So there is no need for the person who commits a punishable sin to go to the Qaadi (judge) and confess and ask for the hadd to be carried out on him; rather, he is encouraged to keep it to himself and to repent, keeping the matter between himself and Allaah, may He be glorified, and to do lots of righteous deeds, for good deeds cancel out bad deeds, and the one who repents from sin is like one who did not sin at all."

Source: Hadd punishment expiation of sins

As far as I know, there is one hadith which talks about your question, but I guess the name of the Jewish Scholar is not mentioned though.

It was an incident when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had to judge between a couple who were the culprits of adultery, then Prophet (pbuh) called upon a scholar from the Jews to confirm what he is saying about the Torah is right or wrong.

Hadith # 4214 in this page of "The Book Pertaining to Punishments Prescribed by Islam (Kitab Al-Hudud)"

Al-Bara' b. 'Azib reported: There happened to pass by Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) a Jew blackened and lashed. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) called them (the Jews) and said: Is this the punishment that you find in your Book (Torah) as a prescribed punishment for adultery? They said: Yes. He (the Holy Prophet) called one of the scholars amongst them and said: I ask you in the name of Allah Who sent down the Torah on Moses if that is the prescribed punishment for adultery that you find in your Book. He said: No. Had you not asked me in the name of Allah, I would not have given you this information. We find stoning to death (as punishment prescribed in the Torah). But this (crime) became quite common amongst our aristocratic class. So when we caught hold of any rich person (indulging in this offence) we spared him, but when we caught hold of a helpless person we imposed the prescribed punishment upon him. We then said: Let us argree (on a punishment) which we can inflict both upon the rich and the poor. So We decided to blacken the face.............

May the creator guide us all.

The athar is not authentic. No picture or statue was left undestroyed by the Prophet ﷺ.

This story was mentioned in Akhbar Mecca (Arabic: أخبار مكة وما جاء فيها من الأثار) by Al-Azraqi (Arabic: الأزرقي) as shown in the image attached below. It was also documented in Tarikh al-Islam by Al-Dhahabi (Arabic: تاريخ الإسلام ووفيات المشاهير والأعلام) referencing Akhbar Mecca.

Hadith 186 says that Quraish had put inside the Ka'abah pictures of Jesus and of Mary. The footnote in the same book says the hadith is weak, with some people unnamed in its narration.

Hadith 185 says that the Prophet ﷺ, when he entered the Ka'abah, there were pictures of angels among other pictures. He saw the picture of Abraham, and said: "May Allah curse them. They made him an old man practicing divination by arrows." Then he saw Mary's picture. He put his hands on it and said: "Erase all pictures, except that of Mary." The footnote says the hadith is very weak. Likewise, hadith 187, which is of similar wording but mostly missing narration chain, is also ruled as weak in the footnotes.

Hadith 185 was narrated through Yazīd ibn 'Ayyād (Arabic: يزيد بن عياض بن يزيد بن جعدبة) for one narration. Yazīd ibn 'Ayyād has been ruled as:

• Of weak memory by Abu Ahmad ibn 'Uday
• Weak in hadith by al-Baihaqi
• A liar by Malik (this is mentioned in the footnotes of the reference)
• Weak to denounced by al-Rāzi
• A liar and a fabricator by Ibn Hazm
• Not to take hadith from him by al-Dhahabi
• Weak and a liar by Yahya ibn Ma'īn
• and so on.

Hadith 187 is mursal (hurried, with severed narration chain) with no narration chain, save for Asma' bint Shaqar (Arabic: أسماء بنت شقر), who is unknown, through an unnamed woman.

In the name of Allah the compassionate the merciful

Yes, The holy prophet (Peace be upon him and his household) took the life of Ubayy bin Khalaf. It is narrated from Jabir as such:

Some one had domesticated a horse in Mecca. When ever the holy prophet used to pass by his place, he used to tell him:

"I will kill you mounted on this beast"

In the battle of uhud, The holy prophet made a light scratch on his neck which was apparently not effective. but he died by this light hit of the holy prophet.

Shaykh Tabarsi narrates the whole story as following:

...he was Ubayy bin Khalaf. He moved to the Prophet with a weapon saying if you escape me, may I not gain salvation. Whoever wanted to confront him was restrained by the Prophet, till he came near Musayyab bin Zubair and killed him with a spear. The Holy Prophet (S) took the staff of Suhail bin Hanif and threw it at him and hit him near his neck leaving a slight scratch and he clung to the neck of his horse and ran to his company bleating like a cow.

Abu Sufyan said, “Why this weeping and wailing? It is only a slight scratch.” He said: “Woe be on you, don’t you know who has hit me. I was attacked by Muhammad and he used to say in Mecca that he would kill me. And I knew that it would be proved true one day. If such scratch had been inflicted on all Meccans they all would have died.” According to another report, he said: “Even if he had spat on me, I would have died.” Thus the accursed one died screaming.

This event has been mentioned as one of the miracles of the holy prophet in the battle of uhud.

• Legal punishments are enforced when proven by the required evidence i.e. witnesses or confessions. They are not enforced based solely on knowledge of the ruler. The hypocrites were not executed because the necessary requisites of enforcing the legal punishments were not fulfilled.

• The hypocrites did not openly claim to be apostates, rather they outwardly pretended to be Muslims and concealed their disbelief. The Prophet ﷺ was only commanded to enforce outward compliance and to leave the hidden state to Allah.

  أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله، ويقيموا الصلاة، ويؤتوا الزكاة، فإذا فعلوا ذلك عصموا مني دماءهم وأموالهم إلا بحق الإسلام، وحسابهم على الله

  I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.

  ^{— Bukhari}

  ‏ إني لم أومر أن أنقب قلوب الناس

  I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people

  ^{— Bukhari}

  And the same applies nowadays. Apostates are only killed when they say or do something which clearly demonstrates their kufr.

• The hypocrites would feign repentance when confronted. An apostate who repents and returns to Islam is spared. And according to various madhabs a Zindeeq who feigns repentance is also spared, and he is only killed when he insists on being a disbeliever.

• The law of dealing with the hypocrites and other disbelievers changed with time. Initially the Muslims were taught to be lenient as that suited their interests. This is also apparent from the hadith, in which the Prophet ﷺ gave his reason for not executing a hypocrite:

  فقام عمر فقال يا رسول الله دعني أضرب عنق هذا المنافق فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دعه لا يتحدث الناس أن محمدا يقتل أصحابه

  Umar got up an, said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite (Abdullah bin Ubay)!"

  The Prophet (ﷺ) said "Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions."

  ^{— Bukhari}

  Which indicates that he abstained from executing him to serve this interest. And that otherwise killing the hypocrite was lawful.

  And the Quran also initially prescribed leniency and forgiveness:

  ولا تطع الكافرين والمنافقين ودع أذاهم

  And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites and disregard their annoyance

  ^{— Quran 33:48}

  فاعفوا واصفحوا حتى يأتي الله بأمره

  So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command.

  ^{— Quran 2:109}

  However later as the Muslims gained strength, jihad and hudood were prescribed - this means that the hypocrites were punished when their disbelief became evident.

  لئن لم ينته المنافقون والذين في قلوبهم مرض والمرجفون في المدينة لنغرينك بهم ثم لا يجاورونك فيها إلا قليلا ملعونين أينما ثقفوا أخذوا وقتلوا تقتيلا

  If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease and those who spread rumors in al-Madinah do not cease, We will surely incite you against them; then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little. Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.

  ^{— Quran 33:60-61}

  يا أيها النبي جاهد الكفار والمنافقين واغلظ عليهم

  O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them.

  ^{— Quran 9:73}

  Hence, if the Prophet ﷺ spared an apostate or proven hypocrite in some isolated incident then that concession was limited to that specific case and to that specific time and has been abrogated. The Muslims now act on the command that has been given to them.

Ref: Tafsir al-Qurtubi

An important angle to consider is that in Islam, nationalism or tribalism is if not outright haram extremely disliked.

"The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

Surah Tawbah, 71

I believe you are referring to serving in a national army. Self defense is certainly lawful, however hadith speak for the need of the Muslims to hold together as a unified political entity. The identification and adherence to a national identity is contrary to this goal. Note- loving the land where you were born and come from is not the same thing as saying that a colored peace of cloth represents your identity, and then fighting, killing, and dying based on the identity that that piece of cloth represents.