I think you're misunderstanding your own point.
So, peaceful people hijack a religion where the customary greeting is "Peace be unto you." and where the founder stressed that community and living in harmony is what their God wants, and made it all about peace and living in harmony?
Isn't it far more likely that the religion has been systematically misrepresented as being violent by people who have a massive interest in normalizing violence in areas where they require violence to obtain cheap access to oil from these areas where the most high profile people are Muslims?
Particularly given that it's a religion that requires it's members to contribute to charity and to fast every year in order to remember the ordeals of the less fortunate.
So far you have yet to provide any evidence of that other than a few select quotes from a hate site that remove the context from them.
It's pretty simple: Pick up a history book and look into what was happening in his region at the time and what kind of rulers opposed the existence of Islam.
You just linked to a hate site which is notoriously inaccurate and tends to do things like attribute every homicide that happens in the Arabic world to Islamic "terrorism" (as though non-Muslims people don't kill each other regularly), quotes sections of the Quran with the most inflammatory translation possible (example, translating jihad to "holy war" instead of "spiritual struggle") and no context and then just makes shit up if it can't find anything on any given week.
This is much akin to advocating that you're not racist, you just know that black people are inherently inferior and supposed to be slaves because a nice man in the Ku Klux Klan told you it was an objective fact. I very strong suggest you diversify your reading and perhaps avoid sites that are specifically built to create alarm and hate.
This is also in contradiction to your claims about wanting to judge Islam off the words of Muhammad since the site does not catalog any of Muhammad's calls for forgiveness, peaceful solutions, etc but does happily make such claims as Islam demands the Burqua by misinterpretations as referring to commandments of "The Prophet's wives" as referring to all women (and not the actual wives of the actual Prophet, all of whom were give a special holy status and often sought for counsel by men and women alike, and didn't want to deal with awkward gazes). Doing so is like demanding that Catholocism demands all men abstain from sex because it expects Monks and Priests to.
More correctly: When Muhammad was a simple merchant and preacher, he was able to practice peacefully as nobody cared, but as he started gathering hundred and thousands of followers, people started to interpret him as a threat and he was required to begin engaging in military action to protect his people. Much like: Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists and basically every large group that has ever existed outside of very strong law protection.
(A big give away btw, is any site that refers to Islam as the "religion of peace" is not likely not going to be reliable since the person who essentially made that phrase topical was George W Bush, thus it's a pretty big give away they're not interested in the actual gritty details but the modern sensationalism.)
But that would mean you should consider the possibility you have deceived yourself and radically oversimplified the situation.
And so advocate more nasty stuff in the name of pre-emptively stopping nasty stuff? That's not how nasty stuff works.
Rather, when people misrepresent millions of people and blame them for the misfortunes they had no say in, accuse them of advocating things that they don't stand for, etc you build a foundation of conflict. That inevitably leads to some of them deciding that if the system will not provide them opportunities or justice, they will create their own.
Despite all of this, however, they are still far less dangerous than the people on the other side who are raised on horrifying fairy tales that the outsiders are dangerous, and they are far superior - and thus commit terrorist attacks at a much higher rate simply because they feel entitled to smite the "other" and assert their right to everything they want.
The only way to reduce the nasty stuff is actual understanding and the adjustment of the system to provide the most opportunities and justice possible to the most people.
Flipping a table, improvising a whip out and chasing businessmen out of their marketplace by swinging the improvised whip at them - interesting how you want to downplay even this relatively minor act of violence by Jesus. However Jesus did propose many forms of radical passive aggressive resistance that would create major problems for the occupying Roman Empire.
Also, you can't just dismiss the Old Testament violence because it was specifically chosen by the founders of Christianity as an institution - who also curated what parts of New Testament that they wanted to keep - so far all we know there was a bit in there about Jesus punching people in the dick for laughs but they decided that was Off Brand. It is, for example, already known that there are versions of the New Testament where Jesus was not resurrected.
Because, unlike Muhammad, Jesus did not build Christianity - it was formed decades, arguably even centuries after his death. In fact one of the earliest debates between Christian scholars was: "Are we Jews?"