I'm a former devout Muslim writing this from Islamabad. I have personally witnessed the sheer hatred and violence perpetrated against Christians led by the verses I quoted. So don't teach me about Islam thank you.
You're also misconstruing my point in the least charitable way, and in the process implying that all Pakistani Muslims are extremists. I'm sure you see the problem with that. The only reason I brought up my family is that you stated very clearly that by being from Islamabad, and being an ex-Muslim you could not learn anything from me about Islam, with the implication being that I'm therefore ignorant since I lack the same experience.
All I have been trying to suggest is that the violence you are seeing is from a violent minority, who do not reflect the values of all. On top of that, I'm suggesting that the majority follow a different view of the issue that the extremists you're talking about. Which is a fact. Your argument is equivalent to saying that the Irish Christian terrorists mean that Christians hate Protestants. This is false, a small and violent minority do. To say it does would be cherry picking. No matter how many Northern Irish folks tell me until they are blue in the face that it is representative of all Christians, it will not make it true.
On top of that, you're veering into flame-war/abusive territory here. I'd suggest you review the HN guidelines, since your comments are getting less constructive each time: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your flamewar accusation is nonsense.
I see the disconnect. I agree that they say everyone else are infidels, however there's some infidels who are more acceptable than others. My understanding has always been that the sentiment is a lot closer to "these infidels are so close to the truth!". Or, at least, close enough to allow marriage and coexistence. This point was intended to counter the comment that religions say others unilaterally wrong. In this case, there's some acceptance that the others are 'on the right track'.
The outcome of that will also be telling of whether or not you're being truthful of your quantitative experience of the Quran.
There's at least 6,236 verses of the Quran. Get tagging, make it an open source project, I'll contribute.
Since you seem to be acquainted, can you list them and tell us what makes them vastly different from each other?
> (was illiterate and had to pass it on orally)
What are your sources for the claim that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate? He's described as al-Nabi al-Ummi [1], an "unlettered" Prophet, meaning unacquainted with the scriptures. Sahih al-Bukhari 114 describes the Prophet[2] as literate.
[1]https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20... [2]https://sunnah.com/bukhari:114
As a follow up suggestion, why do you not start with the Quran you already read as per your statement:
> (I'd know, I've read the entire 600 pages at least 10 times).
Here you mentioned a singular Quran, ie. you were not impeded by "multiple versions" to come to your conclusion that 90% of the Quran is what you say it is... so you already know where to start.
The real irony is the one accusing hate after himself spreading hate and falsehood, while not justifying or proving any of his claims.
And as if pointing out polemical characteristics is the same as writing hate…
Don’t bother with another response if you aren’t going to focus on backing up all that you’ve said.
Of course, you and I both know you have no choice but to flee from this because there’s nothing for you to justify.