Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

You're proceeding from a logical falacy ... the one has nothing to do with the other. How many Catholic nations would pass your test? Not too many in Latin America, not Spain or Ireland, nor Greece, Cyprus, or Malta. How many nations populated predominantly by those of Sub-Sahara African descent would pass your test? Not too many anywhere. How many current or former Communist nations could pass your test? Not very many there, either, are there? How many Asian nations would pass your test, or Third World nations, or emergent democracies?

What you've got there is a prejudice, not a premis.

2.256 "There is no compulsion in religion."

You're being dishonest because you call Islam a dangerous religion but say you aren't judging Muslims. How is that possible?

For one thing, you're trying to have a discussion with a dead man. For another, timberlandko was spot on!

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
— Qur'an 2:106, [1][4]

When We substitute one revelation for another, – and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),– they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
— Qur'an 16:101, [2][4]

2.255 and 2.256 are one of the firmest verses of Quran (to understand the meaning of firm, please see Muhkamat and Mutashabihat), A firm Ayah doesn't abrogate by any other Ayah.

Having a girl child was a shame for families. Worse than that, killing a girl child was a value. In such a society, he kissed the hands of his girl and said, Women are nearer to God than men because their heart is milder.

*cough* even the religion itself differentiates between the religion, and the person who is a follower:

Ideas as we know, are always found in the leadup to wars, and always found in the leadup to terrorist events. Such negative ideas should be able to be criticised.

That is not the point. You are judging Muslims.

negative ideas should be criticized. however they should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas.

B. that system of ideas is interpreted and adhered to in many different ways - some good, and some bad, by different human beings. To criticise the good people who don't follow the negative ideas of (A) while still identifying with most of (A) is silly.

you should hold the people actually responsible for crimes accountable, not the people who have taken absolutely no part in those atrocities.

when you start talking about ideology, suddenly it's not about bad people doing bad things, but about Muslims the world over who people like you give a greater propensity for terror.

We agree, as I said in my last post to you, quote below. So why you raise it I don't know.

It is the (Islamic) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Islamic terrorism;

You need to explain your meaning a bit more clearly.

If you agree that "[such negative views] should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas," then why do you have a problem with this:

- 'the terrorists are not true muslims'
- 'the terrorists have hijacked Islam' etc.

you could substitute Islamic for anything else, and this statement would make sense.

It is the (Christian) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Christian terrorism.

It is the (Buddhist) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Buddhist terrorism.

Yet no one would question someone who called those Christian or Buddhists non-Christians/Buddhists.

Whether or not it is your intention for people to criticize good Muslims, if you say there's a dangerous and violent Islamic ideology you still end up associating those people with danger and violence. i.e., you assign (i initially used "give") them, wrongfully, a greater propensity for terror.

Again, the fear of the ideology overshadows the faces of the people who committed the crimes, and instead a new image comes to the forefront--anyone associated with the ideology.

You misunderstand me. Yes it could be considered Islam, but why do you have a problem with it not being considered Islam. What do you think is wrong with that approach?

Why there is even a subject about "peaceful Muslims" in the first place reinforces the idea that Muslims are violent.

Add to that the rhetoric of Donald Trump, and we now have that subject reinforced into our society