To be fair that passage is referring to a specific historical event (a war and the end of a cease fire period) it's kinda like taking Churchill "we shall fight them on the beaches and in the skies" speach to back up a claim that the UK has some genocidal tendencies towards seaguls
not it isn't like that at all
yes it is a passage concerning war at a time when Islam was quite militant and expansionist, ISIS are at war with (in their eyes) unbelievers with the aim of expanding a caliphate with their brand of fundamentalist Islam (or what they'd see as simply 'Islam') - it is relevant to them
ak22 - also wants to add in something about forgiveness for pagans who ask for asylum... Well I guess maybe if the West wants to avoid terror attacks maybe we should all surrender and ask for forgiveness then - we can all pay a 'Jizya tax' like the non-muslims residents of Mosul (well at least the Christian ones - some of the others, Yazidhi have simply been killed and/or taken into slavery)
no doubt he'll have some convoluted reasoning about why imposing a special tax on non-muslims is reasonable etc..
but like I said before I even quoted an example passage this is all futile - a moderate muslim is already going to be convinced that their interpretation is right in comparison to a fundamentalist and vice versa. The point wasn't to dispute the moderate interpretation but to simply show that these are just interpretations - there is plenty of nasty stuff in the quran and some of it is the basis of Islamist violence - there are a significant enough followers of the more fundamentalist proponents of Islam that simply dismissing them as not being proper muslims would be naive... and frankly dismissing people as non-muslims is what allows the fundamentalists to carry out these attacks in the first place.