Skybird I'm sorry to put it like this, but you have simply entered a nonsense one-way street with your reasonings about Islam. You define Islam as radical, totalitarian and primitive, and when you get the proof that someone so-called muslim does not follow that pattern, you simply say that he can't call himself a muslim. This is a self-circling reasoning that leads nowehere, it's a tautology completely empty of any sense.
In my average experience as jurist, I can tell you that I daily see in the courts nearly unbelievable interpretations of any law. You woulnd't really believe how a lawyer can manage to make a law say exactly the opposite of what it means through argumentation.
Quran has a set of laws, a set of principles and yes it is radical and intolerant in its base, much like any religion. But it can be interpreted nearly as far as you want, and serve to support more tolerant ideas. The bible itself is full of radicalisms and intolerance, and it has however been reinterpreted as a more tolerant religion than it originally was.
You have today catholics, orthodoxs, protestants, evangelists, anglicans and a good amount of minor variants who claim to be the only ones making the correct interpretation of the bible. In the Islam itself you have the chiis and the sunnis, with rather different views in many basic aspects.
You are commiting a tremendous error when trying to create -and freeze- a definition of what Islam is, tailored to your ideas and opinions, and then excluding any other interpretation of it. When doing so, you are nothing else but supporting the vision the radical muslims have about Islam. You could as well say that only The witnesses of Jehova are doing a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all the rest, the catholics, orthodoxs, and any other, are not real christians.
Arguing like that is just cheating
