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?