Not trolling but rather just presenting some facts that you're not aware of, understandably so.
Now here is a perfect example of a statement ripe for interpretation. It could be said that it addresses the philosophically elusive nature of facts and the impossibility of anyone achieving full awareness.
or...
It could be an egotistical claim to be the supplier of knowledge not already in the posession of the recipient; which would be unwise on an anonymous internet forum where the person addressed could be anyone from Chuck Norris to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Grand Poobah of Timbuktoo.
I'll be more careful not to make any more overly broad references but the fact that you can find peaceful statements in the Koran are negated by later corresponding sections.
Quoting your favorite sections to support your argument, you ignore that the Koran is not laid out in chronological form, nor is it numbered in chronological order - it is compiled based on the size of the text, leaving the smallest ones at the end of the book and biggest ones first. In 6.34 it states that none can change the koran, yet later on 2.106 that whenever there is a contradiction, it is because the newer text is something better.
The allowance for the existence of other belief systems often shown to be illustrated in 2.236 is replaced by several sections in chapter 9, where it is ordered that non-believers be killed at all opportunities.
Here you seem to be contradicting yourself, as you earlier claimed that "the Koran, which [if] followed in chronological order...". Now, if something is not chronological, then how can you follow it chronologically? If it is also not numbered chronologically then how can anyone be sure which is earlier or later? I am also not entirely sure how 2:106 comes before 6:34 unless they started all the parts simultaneously. This is all entirely irrelevant, however, as it is not how an overwhelming majority of people read the Koran (or anything else of this type, for that matter) anyway.
In addition, and for the nth time, they are not "my favourite sections". I do not have any particular favourites: I was merely countering your "nowhere in the Muslim texts" statement and then your claim that the later verses are all more violent. I am not a believer of Islam, I do not think that it is the religion of peace, nor do I believe that the Koran is some kind of pacifist manifesto. However, I do not think that Islam is significantly any better or any worse than the other (particularly Abrahamic) faiths. As I suggested before: if you want to do "comparative theology" move it along to a new thread, where others can know what they are getting into if and when they join in. Really, we are beating a piece of ground where a dead horse used to be.
The only point I am defending is the one which opposes the thinking that Muslims are in some way special. They are not, they are entirely and depressingly everyday. They are neither uniquely good nor uniquely bad nor uniquely likely to go totally Tonto on their neighbours because some unspecified extremist's explanation of the Koran leading them astray. Any religious text can be used or misused in this fashion, and whatever the Koran may or may not be, it is certainly not unique; in fact I think there is a lot to be said for Reza Aslan's (quoted by Hitchens, but also available all over the place) claim that the Koran is mostly "verses from the Torah and the Gospels, bits of Rabbinic sayings, ancient Persian maxims, passages of Greek philosophy, Indian proverbs, and even an almost word for word reproduction of the Lord's Prayer." The reasons for the current surge of Al Queda and similar terrorist groups are many and various, and are largely territorial. They may use the faith to bind people to the cause (as has happened in all belief systems since time immemorial), but that does not make that particular faith uniquely good or bad, nor should it mean that every follower of that faith can be judged to be somehow more suspect than anybody else.
You state that it "Definitely takes more to make a terrorist than a book, but the book spells the path, and those who believe wholeheartedly in the book fan the flames to exhort those who would follow such a path", and I concur (with reservations). However that is hardly the fault or responsibility of the vast numbers who would not "follow such a path", nor is it a feature particularly unique to Islam. I can think of a few books (not all of them religious) that have had the same effect. With terrorists, mass mudererers and other assorted degenerates: it's not the books, it's not the faith - it's them.
Your interest in focusing on what you see in your daily life to have a full understanding of things as they are and will be brings to mind the summer insect who doubts that such a thing as winter can exist, or maybe even closer, that a frog in a well cannot comprehend how broad the sky is.
We're in a disagreement, and I'm doing my best to not make any direct insults aimed at you and wish you could do the same. Focus on the subject and leave the personal attacks out of it.
Now this really made me chuckle. You've accused me of not understanding the culture in which I live, and of ignorance of the texts in question. You have likened my powers of observation to that of the blind and, now, of having all the perspective of an insect or a frog down a well, yet you reserve to right to be touchy when I say you may be "possibly trolling".
I may have to revise the opinion that you are "possibly trolling"; which is another perfect example of a statement that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
