The Celtic Viking: Chill the out man, I'm not calling for your death or anything. Relax, seriously.

Uh, no. If you think they could, without lying their teeth out, then I have no idea what world you're living in. Seriously.
Eh, yes, I do. My point was that your perception of Islam and al-Zarqawi's or Osama Bin Laden's perception of Islam are virtually the same. You regard it as a violent religion, they regard it as a violent religion.

Have you read the Quran? The Hadith? Any of the quotes I gave you? No?
I have read a lot of the Qur'an, parts of ahadith, and those quotes, too.

You didn't, and you haven't. You're even willing to rewrite history to keep your little delusion.
Getting ahead of facts. I analyse Islamic political theory and history. "My little delusion" is founded mainly on research conducted by Hugh Kennedy (Muhammad and the Age of the Caliphates, The History of Muslim Spain and Portugal) and Antony Black (The History of Islamic Political Thought).

And I suppose you've bought into this lie that the life of a dhimmi is, was or will ever be the same as tolerance? Or respect? It wasn't. It's why Christians are referred to as "street sweepers" in muslim countries, because dhimmis are relegated to that kind of demeaning work. The point is that they have to not just be subdued, but constantly feel themselves to be like that as well.
Citation required.

I was arguing about the popularity and the historical frequence of Quranic interpretation.

Taqiyya isn't just a shiite doctrine, it's in sunni islam as well. It's based on Muhammed himself, when he told an assassin that he had the right to lie if he had to do it in order to murder his target (a jew who was saying bad things about islam).
Taqiyya, while present in both Shi'ite and Sunnite doctrine, as you rightly pointed out, is explained in more detail in Shi'a Islam than in Sunni Islam. I'm not aware of the exact historical precedent from which it originated, but I'm willing to bet that this event is not so much an example as it is an exception. Taqiyya has largely been interpretated as "lying to save your life", not "lying to be able to kill someone at a later point that is insulting you". Of course, al-Zarqawi would disagree with me.

Yeah.
Okay.

...

Wow. Just... wow. Perhaps you'd like to read the story that this very thread is about?

I mean... wow. You can't be this... wow.
Yes.

Sigh. I'm getting the feeling that you're just trolling me now. Not all jihadis are active in killing people all the time. You are strawmanning me, because you know very well that you have no real argument.
I don't feel obliged to respond to this at all.

There's plenty of passages that supports my view in the Quran, the Hadith and islamic jurisprudence. You, on the other hand, have nothing to point to. You have no basis for that belief. We'd all like the world to be a pink, perfect little land where everyone could get along and sing kumbaya, but that's not the reality that we live in. It's dangerous not to acknowledge that.
Yes, and there are also verses in the Qur'an that support my point of view. So what? We can spend this entire time throwing Qur'anic verses at eachother and arguing on how a verse should be interpreted and in what context.

I don't disagree with the fact that there are some very problematic things with Islamic culture as it is now, but we should clearly seperate the Qur'an, historical events and the present situation. They are naturally intertwined, but you can't point out the present situation, claiming it is absolutely and completely based on the Qur'an and completely ignoring all historical events.

And yet, they have perfect support from the Quran, the Hadith and islamic jurisprudence, and nothing that disagrees with them. But never mind that! They must be wrong! Why? Because I believe so!
Okay, I don't really know what you're trying to say with that last part, but eh. In any case, no, they have perfect support from their interpretation of the Islamic texts. Interpretation. You ever heard of Shaykh Ali Abdel Raziq?

So what? Of course there's infighting in islam. I know this. This isn't exactly an argument for why islam is a peaceful religion.
Missing the point, it's not about infighting, they're not killing Muslims they believe to be non-Muslims, they're killing other Muslims. Why? I don't really know. To attract attention.

Where were these secular muslims during the whole Danish cartoons drama? We had muslims murdering people in racist attacks, we had muslims demonstrating against it in countries that generally don't allow demonstrations, we had burning of embassies and condemnations of free speech all over. We had "moderate" muslims saying that this was the cartoonists fault. I heard no muslim stand up for secularism or free speech. Why is this, do you think?
Yes, and we had moderate Muslims condemning the threats directed to the employees of Jyllands-Posten:

However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has denounced calls for the death of the Danish cartoonists. OIC's Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated in a press release:
The Secretary General appeals to the Muslims to stay calm and peaceful in the wake of sacrilegious depiction of Prophet Muhammad which has deeply hurt their feelings. He has stated that Islam being the religion of tolerance, mercy and peace teaches them to defend their faith through democratic and legal means.
This took me less than a minute to find on Wikipedia.

As a final note, as most here probably know, I come from a partially Islamic family. My father is one of the supporters of the same Ali Abdel Raziq I mentioned earlier (if you don't know who he is, he spoke out against the concept of the Caliphate and the Islamic state, arguing in favour of laïcité). I have noticed visible contrasts between the Islam* I experienced at home, the Islam I experienced when reading or watching the news, and the Islam I analysed historically.

I'm not willing to believe, and I have very little reason to believe, that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers. I might be misguided due to my family's influence, but I don't really think so. I wasn't forcefed Islam from birth. I wasn't circumcised at age seven. I have never had to recite the shahada. I chose to search out the roots of Islam, not from a theological point of view (it just doesn't appeal to me), but from a historical point of view, and I have found that while there have been surges and changes in the perception of Islam (from Al-Ghazali's refutation of the Philosophers to Ibn-Taymiyya's interpretation of Jihad, to the writings of Ibn-Khaldun and finally the writings of the Iranian ayatollahs, al-Afghani ("I went to the West, and saw Islam, but no Muslims, and I went to the East, where I found Muslims, but saw no Islam"), and Ali Abdel Raziq, I am very optimistic for the future of Islam. But then, I've always been a fairly optimistic person.