Just remember that there is no abrogation of any verse of the Quran.
Yes, you keep saying that, but all you can present as evidence is a silly conspiracy theory about a monk which you cite
no evidence for.
Every religious book has some violence and every religious book has self-defense, but if you were to buy the Quran FROM THE FOREIGN COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN (where do you live?)-you will see that the issue of violence and self-defense are but one issue of many issues in the Quran. However, if you want to look at the issue of violence and ONLY the issue of violence then very well-you will never be guided. Keep doing that and keep twisting the verses that you get off the internet from anti-muslim websites (or it could be that the anti-muslim websites have already twisted the verses to make them seem negative and you being the sort that you are-instantly believe them because that is precisely what you are looking).
wasalam
First, I must warn my Muslim friends that the non-sequitor logical fallacy is not going to work.

If (for the sake of example) the Rig Veda was a hundred times more violent than the Koran, it would still have no relevance for a topic that focuses solely on the Koran. It also inadvertently admits the other person’s point - by saying, “The Koran is violent? Well so are other holy books!”, you’re basically telling the person, “I admit the Koran is violent, but that’s OK.”
Now, while I admit that some of my Christian peers seem a bit anxious to find any nook and cranny to fit in another criticism of Islam, some criticism is still valid. For example, the violence found in the Koran is not always self-defense, as evident by this passage:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [S. 9:29]
This was one of the last verses revealed in the Koran, after Mohammad had taken Mecca. There is no mention of self-defense, but attacking those who do not believe until they pay a tax and “feel themselves subdued.” Remember that I posted this passage before, and that I pointed out that Pickthal translates “subdued” as “being brought low,” and Shakir translates it as “in a state of subjection.” This is not only violence but oppression of other faiths. The full context of Surat 9 makes it clear this is not a “metaphorical war,” like fighting against sin, but a war against unbelievers. This isn’t an anti-Muslim website talking - this is the Koran itself.
Incidentally, remember our discussion about apostasy, and how the early Muslims killed those Muslims who left Islam? That’s in the Koran too.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks; [S. 4:89]
The “renegades” were those Muslims who had converted to Islam and then left. This is evident in the hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah’s Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief)…[Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483]
…Ibn Abbas added, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the following was his will (Prophet’s will) to his followers:–It is incumbent upon those who are present to convey this information to those who are absent Beware don’t renegade (as) disbelievers (turn into infidels)…” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 26, Number 795]
Again, these aren’t anti-Muslim sources I’m using - these are directly from Muslim sources.