Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity.

That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams.

There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest".

Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?

No. You haven't read Quran. You would not be able to write what you do. Even in "Letter To Baghdadi" those who signed quote:

www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

"God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)."

And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said:

"32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; "

That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards.

Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow):

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qare...

I'm sorry, "no"? "No" to which part?

That ISIS uses modern propaganda techniques?

To the article I linked?

To the assertion that holy texts need interpretation?

That there is a doctrinal dispute between factions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore showing there can be no single interpretation?

All of it?

You're so hell-bent in replying "wrong" and "no" to every post you disagree with, it's really hard to understand what you actually mean, beyond "here are some horrible passages from the Quran".

The claims you make aren't based on even attempting to read Quran. So it's "no, you haven't read anything from the sources" you just try to make the case based on some bad articles, bad because they also haven't read from the sources or distort the facts enough to give a false impression. How do I know? I've read not only the line with the quote that is claimed to be peaceful but the whole chapter. You can do that too. Please read, then I'd like to see you writing with straight face what you wrote. Because it's not "some places." Just try reading that book, like, at least 20 percent. If you manage 20% then you'll be able to recognize the rest, as it's quite repetitive. I don't see why not reading? If it's really beautiful, peaceful and "nuanced" you'll feel good reading it, even the whole of it. It anyway inspires 1.5 billion people of the world. Find out how yourself.

But I didn't attempt to read the Quran, so that cannot be the basis for your disagreement. I claimed that, since most Muslims aren't raving fanatics attempting to slay the infidel, there must be something more to Islam. I've also shown that people who have read the Quran (like a professor of religious studies who specializes in Islam) think it's open to interpetation.

I also think that understanding a religious book isn't as simple as sitting down one day and reading end to end. It's not just the Quran anyway; there is a huge body of followups that must be read in order to understand it. Some of them contradictory, some open to interpretation, some of varying degrees of reliability.

Have you read them all?

Go away. If you aren't willing to read it yourself, your arguments are just the arguments of "intentional unwillingness" to even consider the original material I try all the time to discuss with you. You ignore the primary holy books of Islam and ignore the history of Islam conquest, some 1400 years. What's left? Your vain "argument" that not every Muslim blew himself up with the bomb belt already should prove that the religion isn't violent? Not everybody has to blow himself up, just a percentage of young men willing to fight (and die) or just oppress is more than enough to make the permanent damage to this civilization (as proven through the history). They do the dirty work, the clerics will just rule. That just a few are enough, ask Malala

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

ask the victims of Boko Haram:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

It's not something exclusive for this period in history, the motives, principles and methods can be traced through all the 1400 years of the existence of Muslim faith.

I think reading the full Quran is immaterial to this discussion (I haven't read the Holy Bible fully either... gasp!). I rely on the testimony of experts on Islam, which you fully disregard even though you are not an expert yourself. I also haven't read every issue of The Watchtower but I still have an opinion about Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't find reading holy books about religions whose beliefs I don't share all that interesting.

I understand there are Islamic extremist groups; I've never disputed that. I'm arguing here that it's the extremism and not the Islamic that's worrying. I've read about Islamic culture and its history, and much like Christendom, it has both admirable and reprehensible parts. It's simply not true that the majority of the Muslim world do or support violent terrorist acts. Your position simply doesn't stand a reality check.

Have you read the Quran back to back, fully, including the verses that preach tolerance and compassion?

Well, that's religion for you: the C++ of ideological systems, where you pick the components that work for you, and then claim that's the only way to do it.