And what is "fighting for Islam"? Many throughout history have interpreted it as being conquest. That's all that is though - interpretation. I find it ironic that "Seize them and kill them wherever they are," showed up in your first block of quotes as I had previously quoted the full passage from which that comes - as a means of showing that it discusses self-defense.
In terms of Christians and Jews, there's also this: "And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." 29:46.
And admittedly, there's also this: "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" 29:30
There's a xenophobic streak in much of Muhammad's writing; he expected that Muslims would have defend themselves a lot and, as he'd already predicted the decline and eventual fall of polytheistic religions, it stands to reason that Muhammad believed the Muslims would wind up having to defend themselves against Christians and Jews.
Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.
