There is one simple answer. Using violence to promote the spread of your view (any religion or ideology) is not Islamic. And NO, Islam as a religion was NOT spread by violence by force that is the orientalist view not the Islamic view.
But that is your interpretation. I've read some of the dissertations written by Islamic extremists and Christian extremists. They all justify their behavior with passages used from the holy book, while ignoring others. The same way "positive" Christianity ignores passages about stoning children who don't listen to their parents, for example, while expressing that Jesus ministry was all about love.
The issue isn't whether your interpretation would be ideal or not. Of course it would. I hope all in Islam and Christianity and all other faiths subscribe to this position.
The problem however is that it is not so simple. Because the second you give divine authority to a book that is incredibly open to interpretation (and both are, indisputably), then you have people who will interpret it this way. And, I'm sorry to say, they cannot be said to be more 'wrong' than you are, except that your way happens to be ethically/morally right by common sense.
I want to emphasize I am not justifying these acts. These are horrible people, and I hope more people think like you do. I am simply expressing why there is so much problem with trying to make it this simple.
I would say a 'legitimate expression' of Islam as a polity would be the Rashidun Caliphate since those Caliphs were the closest companions as well as family of Muhammad. Also Muhammad's rule after Constitution of Medina was drafted.
But even in that event, that's only their interpretation of what Muhammad would have wanted. Without being Muhammad, there's no way to know what he actually would have wanted (we won't even touch how problematic it is to give such authority in a single individual like Muhammad in the first place, so I'll set that aside).
And while I agree with you that these are closer to the ideals such a faith should live up to, even those who believed in the Rashidun Caliphate and followed its authority collectively committed some horrible acts over the years in the name of faith.
Well I'm just saying, yeah there are different sects with different interpretations, there's religious extremism and then there's just uncivilized barbarism and assertion of power for dominance. Yes interpretations have changed over the centuries and in the case of religions like Christianity, we do see some modernization.
But while I haven't read the Qu'ran in a long time, I don't recall anything about mutilating childrens' vaginas.
I don't either. But believe me, you can use holy books to justify just about anything. And we've seen just about anything used to justify all manner of horrible acts over the years.
For the sake of discussion, I want you to realize that I am not dismissing your interpretation whatsoever. I am simply trying to argue that the reason we see stuff like this is because it is not so simple.
