Thank you for your response.

About the Tunisian law system. I did finish law school and let me tell you it takes time and effort to go through a single law, let alone a whole system of laws. I did read about your constitution a bit on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Tunisia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Constitution_of_2014). Now, I usually take Wikipedia's word with a pinch of salt, mainly because I don't feel that if it's written in wikipedia that makes it automatically true, or even more precise which details are true and which aren't. For the sake of the argument let's say everything is true there.
I am happy for the tunisian people that they decided to have a secular law instead of a religious law. My opinion on religious law is that it usually doesn't allow for real defense and doesn't accommodate well if at all for changes in society and technology (mainly because religious law is believed to come from God), while secular law, in a democracy, is the expression of the will of the people (and it acknowledges the fact that the will of the people change in time) while still preventing from the tyranny of the majority.

I do expect that there are strong interests for Tunisia to become a fundamentalist country, and there is and will be pressure in order to shift the Overton window in that direction. One of the clues for that are the terrorist attacks that happened in Tunisia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Tunisia). I hope the people of Tunisia will hold their ground in favour of individual freedom than to succumb to religious sophistry.

Like I said in my previous posts, my fight is not with the people, but with the ideology.
I know very well that religion shapes culture, and the more oppressive the religion the more it influences the culture. Religion can also be tyrannical in its practices and teachings (I am reffering to any religion that allows for the "scholars" to gain power over people by using peoples' beliefs against them). But I also consider religion to be one of if not the most powerful tool for creating social cohesion in a nation. And in order to have peace among the population you need social cohesion.

Now, I do think Tunisia is in a geographical location and with a history that allows for secular law to be preferred by its people. Not many muslim countries benefit of the same advantage.

I didn't understand exactly what it means to have an official religion in your country. And I mean to which extent is the official religion a part of the administration of your country. My country, Romania, has the official religion of orthodox Christian, and what that means is mostly a cultural acknowledgement of the importance of our religion in shaping our culture, but it also gives the church some benefits like reduced/no taxes for its services, allowing for the patriarch to give speeches at the parliament at certain historical events.

I do think that your country needed to adjust its laws in such a fashion that would accommodate to some degree the religious sensibilities of those that are more on the fundamentalist side while still allowing to some extent the desire of liberty of those that are mostly cultural muslims. And that I deduce by how you worded this :"we're all muslims(well most of us are) in tunisia, we want to apply the sharia, but you don't get to define what sharia is!". This leads me to think that 1. your people either didn't address Sharia Law head on, letting it be ambiguous in the hopes that in time people would come closer to a secularized version of it. or 2. your people tried to enforce what many if not most of the scholars would see as a watered down version of Sharia. I think the first assumption is more plausibile because that would lower the risk of continuous uprisings.

About your statement that the Coran shouldn't be applied literally... I agree with that, but I also think that many muslims would see you as a bad muslim for this. I agree that any religious text claiming to have the word of God in it (either verbatim or metaphorically) should be analized beyond the words in which it comes presented as, that means you should read between the lines and try to understand the principle behind them.
But at the end of the day, I do think that the Coran's teachings are inherently bent on conquest and on codifying what I consider some attrocious behaviors against those that are not muslim, and against muslims themselves in many cases. And that in many cases you would need to go through many mental hoops in order to interpret some passages as being peaceful. Don't get me wrong, Judaism and Christianity has/had this problem as well, with violent passages. The difference though consists in the fact that neither christians nor jews consider that the holy books contain the actual words spoken by God, but these are the stories of the witnesses of the people that were touched by God. Moreover, even the stories are not taken verbatim as being necessarily factually true, but mostly as archetypal stories.

About analyzing the Coran, my mode of analysis consists on the text and on the events that are happening in the real world. And when I see (some) muslims taking the literal text as a way of living in the most violent ways, I don't really care if other scholars have interpreted the teachings in a peaceful way. To be honest, I wouldn't even care that much if there wouldn't be this whole mass migration trend from muslim countries to western world (with the encouragement of the EU). I always thought that the best way would be for each and every nation to find its spiritual evolution. But, since we live in the current world, and having to face the current reality, I do think people should have open discussion about religions, even though this would lead to hurting religious sensibilities.

With that said, thank you for your honest replies, and for not applying taqiyya.