[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_A...
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You make the assumption that the Saudi version of Islam is the only valid one. It's not.
Direct correspondence to the original text is not the way most religions work, and it's not the way Christianity and Islam have worked historically.
Scripture is not always interpreted literally, and the people who insist on a literal interpretation are usually innovators, because it wasn't done that way originally.
The literalists are not more thorough than the others in their understanding of their religion or their dedication to it -- they are just more literal in their reading, and often more simplistic in their beliefs as a result.
Besides that, the perceived validity of religious interpretations is largely in the eye of the beholder and statistically varies with sociocultural context and many other factors. Personally, the farther away from literalism people get on the literalist-modern Unitarian scale, the happier I'd be.
To read scripture literally is not more thorough than to interpret it in some other way.
Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz:
> When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.
> By “an old Jew of Galicia”.