Well, looking a squirtle's long glut of text there- though honestly, breaking up your argument into tiny quote chunks really does make it awkward to follow and weak.
Your main thrust remains rooted in that non sequitur. You keep trying this line that nothing is relevant unless it can be directly linked to what a so-called holy book says in its support. Like I said, I am only interested in behaviour, not some academic debate about what the books mean. Completely irrelevant to your opinion, Christian ideology simply was used in the justification of brutal acts throughout history. You can;t see this was 'false' Christianity because it was ALL of it- this was the organisation 'Christianity' that the world recognised. They would say you are wrong and non-Christian in your interpretation of the Bible. You can argue back against that as much as you like- it makes not one jot of difference to how they behaved and what they did. And to be honest, the interpretation at the time that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' as only applying to Christians (though even there they didn't follow it up) is no more absurd on interpretation grounds than dumping all that stuff about killing homosexuals or adulterous women and the like in the modern day. The Inquisition saw the torture and horrific abuse of enemies of the Church as a fundamental expression of the love of Christ- what they saw as love is different to what Christians generally do now. Your obsession with referring back to the dogma makes you incapable of recognising the realities of history and this debate- values lay in the interpretation of the time. That IS what Christianity was like back then, regardless of what the Bible does and does not say. You can't divorce the Crusades from Christianity- they are the primary representation of the time It doesn't matter what the Bible and Quran say. That's a useless obsession. What matters is the meaning people saw and see in it, and why. The ideology is not in the book- it is in the minds of the people.
And then, as pointed out, Christianity changed over time in response to social/cultural upheaval from the renaissance onwards. But it didn't change because of anything the Bible said- it already said what it said and that didn't stop anyone killing in Christianity's name. Christianity changed because of social upheaval not actually connected to religion itself- indeed, in most cases founded on the challenging of religion. If Islam had gone through the same process, it would be in the same place today It didn't, but that was nothing to do with Islam itself. It is the way history panned out.
Writing off Christian-based violence to politics and power- but denying that same excuse to Islamic countries- is absurd cognitive dissonance. Meanwhile, 'three centuries' is just something you made up; the Christian violence was constant. It;s also impressive that you put all that effort into talking about Bibles being banned (actually only done in particular locations and points of time, not a general approach) as some sort of way of excusing the Bible itself, but again do not extend that courtesy to the Qu'ran, the vast majority of whose adherents could not read. All anyone was ever doing was going off what people told them in those days, and on all sides anything was manipulated for effect. For example, militant Qu'ran expansionists were never told that the Qu'ran specifically forbids forced conversion (indeed, there was an example of uneducated African Islamic terrorists in prison who are equally taken aback today when informed of this- the manipulation goes on) and goes out of its way to state that to you, your religion, to me, mine. This is all just part of a broad picture of religious authority of any type being shaped as necessary, Christian or Islam alike.
Meanwhile, of course Islam also showed intolerance at times (aside from anything else, it was an age of intolerance from humanity in general, so this can only ever be a relative judgement), but quite famously during the times of the Crusades they were astonishingly tolerant in the Holy Land itself, compared to Christian genocidal approaches. Islamic cultures have never been big on personal representations in visual arts but your claim that only the medieval west showed artistic achievement is laughably absurd. Far more Jews were persecuted by Christians than Muslims.
You must move away from this obsession with Biblical text. It is the interpretation and use of religion that is important and relevant- and what you say the Bible means is far from definitive; what you say a 'true' Christian is, likewise. Modern Christianity will keep deviating from that text also, just in morally positive ways- like gay marriage and the ordination of women. Getting into some particular 'what does the Bible literally say?' war is the provenance of baiting atheists looking for a fight or academic/irrelevant discussion within Christianity itself, a kind of petty point scoring exercise in pedanticism that does not actually produce any answers or evidence.. Like I say, increasingly it is just a guidebook, not the source of truth, and so it can be for the Qu'ran. What is or is not Christian/Islamic is NOT down to what (you think) the books say. It is down to how its adherents behave. The book is just a book. It is exactly the same, incidentally, when analysing Marxism or any ideology. Heck, there are almost no Marxists now that base their ideology on Marx's work- it has developed since then. To judge a Marxist ideology, you judge them on their beliefs and actions. If you tried to judge them based on Marx's original work, you'd get it totally wrong. You need to have some semblance of context and nuance in your analyses. It really is lacking.
In short, you have let this myopic focus of yours distract you from the actual reality. That being so, it's left you unable to engage in the actual argument here. But that said, you still throw around spurious phrases like 'no reasoning needed, just evidence'. You need to take a good, long think about what reasoning is and why it has value- especially in matters philosophical like this. Again, all my relevant backing for what I say is in my previous posts.
In the end, we understand the ideology much better than you do- because you've obsessed yourself with the wrong thing. You need to take a step back and start again. I suspect your actual motivation here is that you just really want Christianity to be intrinsically better, but that's a skewed viewpoint. From an objective view, there's no reason to think that and history bears that out. It's really about humans and cultural development; religion is just another tool that gets used. Christianity has gone further down that development in modst modern cultures than Islam has in most of if its cultures, but the culture trumps the religion. And the ultimate logic, in the end, is that Christianity and Islam alike will become merely historical curiosities. It will happen to Christianity first if the modern day is anything to judge by. Anglicanism is already developing itself out of existence.
And so- back to my point. Islam has a big problem today- but not because of what it is, because of the way history has developed in cultures associated with Islam. It would be the same way regardless of their religion; you could swap The Bible and the Qu'ran and be in pretty much the same place today, because the same process that made the West question and re-interpret the Bible would have done the same to the Qu'ran. We can see evidence in this in Islamic countries that have moved away from dogma showing the same sort of development as many Christian countries, and in Christian cultures that have not moved away from dogma that are just as bad as the worst Muslim areas.
So by attacking Islam directly as the problem, all we do is alienate much of the world and prolong the issue. If we instead encourage by diplomacy and good example about this vital cultural counter-balance needed to religion that caused it to become questioned and altered, the Islamic problem would solve itself. Human rights and progressive political and philosophical thought is the answer, but it is a slow process.
So, fight for human rights. Oppose abuses of women in many Islamic cultures; oppose the outrageous treatment of homosexuals. But do the same in Christian countries with the same issues. We confront the behaviour, not get bogged down in a fake ideological war based on irrelevant textual obsession. That is the way for humanity to progress.