What do you mean when you say you judge a religion by its arguments?
here's a very simple example from the Quran:
Premise: creation is evidence/proof the Creator God exists.
Argument: since there is no evidence for other deities, then there's no deity but (the Creator) God. That's the basic argument for Islam's central message, monotheism (which is, by the way, very similar to Atheism's argument which is based on a different premise: there's no evidence for any deity at all).
Regardless of the premise, the argument is sound (personally I believe the premise itself is obviously sound too, but that's irrelevant to judging the argument itself).
Here's another example from Christianity:
Premise: Yahweh can never forgive without a worthy sacrifice (it's His nature).
Argument: Since no man can present a sacrifice worthy of Yahweh, Yahweh sacrifices His own beloved son, whom He loved more than anything else. This just shows how much Yahweh loves you!
This sounds like when someone wouldn't accept an apology unless they cut their arm first. Is it a convincing argument? Obviously it is to billions of Christians, but not to me, and that's why I'm no Christian and I can never be (the heart of Christianity is Jesus' sacrifice).
So that's what I meant by my previous statement: There's no conclusive evidence Quran is God's word (nor should there be one, otherwise, there won't be any other choice but to believe). A religion (any religion) is a set of claims and arguments. I judge a religion by its arguemnts, as there's no way to verify its claims.
Also, what is your stance on disbelievers? Is it "wrong", so to speak, not to choose Islam? And is that wrongness worthy of punishment?
no, and no. i discussed this plenty of times before, and i'm only here briefly, and honestly, i'm not interested in discussing Islam any more.