"Modifiable" is fundamentally contradictory to a core concept of Islam; the Qur'an (mother of books) is infallible and not open to change by mankind - it has existed beside God from the beginning and transcends time. This is where it is quite radically different to Christianity (New Testament).

How could infallible information even be stored in fallible information storage units a.k.a words? Interpretation by mankind is the same thing as changing it. Anyway, I'm not saying change or amend the books. Qur'an 2.0 would be carrying forward the "Qur'an" label, the opposite of what I'm talking about. Christianity amended in the past for whatever reason but I don't think we'll see that happen again, they're playing the same game. Since the majority of of people in both camps are visibly not following these books by the letter, I think it's safe to assume most don't actually believe them 100% and should stop labeling themselves.

It's a belief system, Muslims believe it was orated to Muhammad, perfectly, without error (except that one time) - your technical view of information transfer is disingenuous with the topic at hand; just try your proposal on moderate, practising Muslims and see how far it gets.

Some of the content of the Old Testament and Qur'an are pretty explicit in their brutality so I don't see how you would get round that... Redact it?

If most Muslims believe it, why aren't most brutes? Or are most?

> (except that one time)

That made me laugh even though I don't get the reference. What is it?

Also, according to Wikipedia, the Qur'an isn't even believed to be directly written by Muhammad. Is everyone involved in it's current compilation assumed to be just as perfect as him?