"The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians, it was not feasible thus to corrupt the text, because those scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation. No interpolation could therefore be made in them..."
For those of us Indians who travel between India and the Persian Gulf, the following is a familiar sight: young Arab or Indian Muslim women board a flight in a Muslim country, dressed in burqas. Once the flight lands in Mumbai, they dump their burqas under the aircraft seats and step out with garish make-up and immodest clothing. What does this illustrate? Freedom of choice brings out the true colors of people. The Mumbai clothes express what the girls really are, whereas their burqas are merely a facade constructed to avoid lashes and bullets.
God deals with moral realities of the heart, not external facades (1 Samuel 16:7, James 2:14). Thus, God will give no credit to these woman for her modest burqa. "Morality under compulsion" is no morality at all in the sight of God; thus, freedom of choice does not bring in immorality - it merely opens our eyes to see who is truly moral.
Islamic societies where there is no force are highly immoral. For example, Afghanistan is the pedophilia hub of Asia, and Saudi oil-rich elites (who are above the law) spend their time in drunken sex orgies. In contrast, although sexual immorality abounds in the West today (because of its embrace of atheism), vestiges of its Christian past are still seen in its better law enforcement, low levels of corruption, value for human life, equal status of women and men, freedom, strict laws against sexual abuse, etc.
And finally: when you count the number of Muslims, are you sure that everyone you include is really Muslim?
Does this sound like self-defense?!
The violent verses were given in a particular situation but there is nothing in these verses to confine their application to that particular situation. As an example:-
Surah 9:5 asks Muslims to "slay the idolaters (non-Muslims) wherever you find them". Muslim apologists will tell you that this was delivered at the time of battle of Badr. Note that Muhammad did not start out as a king. Thus, this battle (just like all the other battles he commanded) took place not for political reasons but only because Muhammad wanted all the Arabians to become Muslims but they weren't willing. Muhammad was acting according to Allah's commandment to "establish Islam" (Surah 6:72). The same commandment applies today and idolaters exist today as well! So obviously, the same directive to slay non-Muslims applies today!
The idea that religious books should not be taken literally but figuratively was invented in 18th century Europe by people who wanted something in between traditional religion and materialistic atheism. This idea was unknown in Muhammad's time. How do we know? By examining how Muhammad interpreted the Koran! During the last 10 years of his life Muhammad commanded 65 battles in an attempt to force Islam on others. We also have his sayings in the Hadith and his biography, which show that he took the violent verses literally.
Islam is defined by the Koran, the Hadith, and Muhamad, not the behavior of a suitably chosen section of Muslims. But why are so many Muslims not violent if their Koran asks them to be violent?
They don't know what the Koran really teaches: My wonderful, peaceful Muslim friends belong to this category. In Hindu India, most Muslim preachers don't have the guts to preach violence. Indian Muslims just recite a few verses from the Koran in Arabic (which they do not understand) during religious rituals. They don't read and study it in English or Hindi. So some Indian Muslims don't know that the Koran preaches violence.
There are no available objects of violence; most of the "1 billion Muslims" live in Muslim majority nations in the Middle East where the non-Muslim population has either been driven away or exterminated centuries ago.
Appearing peaceful is a strategic choice. Even Muhammad was peaceful when he was weak. He signed a peace treaty with the non-Muslim inhabitants of Mecca. In his heart he was not peaceful; the peace treaty proved to be an opportunity for him to buy time to strengthen himself. Once this was done, he broke the treaty and became violent. The following show that appearing peaceful is indeed a strategic choice:-
Most of the "1 billion Muslims" are not devout enough to risk violent death. The Koran condemns such Muslims.
A significant percentage of the "1 billion Muslims" are not really Muslims! They are just "going through the motions" of Islam because if they express their true feelings, they will be killed (Islam prescribes death for apostasy). Don't believe me? Then please cancel the death penalty for apostasy and invite Muslims to openly express their skepticism about Islam!
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and other experts estimate that 15 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide believe that Islam is violent. Think about it: 240 million Muslims, the devout kind, the ones who know Arabic, read the Koran - they are inspired to be violent. Are you saying that they are all getting their semantics wrong?
To conclude, the supposed "peacefulness" of most Muslims does not vindicate Islam.
"From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it."
"Having thus given a cursory view of the Koran, I lay it before the sensible person with the purpose that they should know what kind of a book the Koran is. I have no hesitation to say that it cannot be the work of either God or of a learned man, nor can it be a book of knowledge. Here its very vital defect has been exposed with the object that people may not waste their life falling into its imposition. The Koran is the result of ignorance, the source of animalization of human beings, a fruitful cause of destroying peace, an incentive to war, and propagator of hostility among men and a promoter of suffering in society. As to defect of repetition, the Koran is its store."