. DIANETICS AXIOM 119. by L. Ron Hubbard

119. Agreement with any Source, contra- or pro-Survival,
postulates a New Reality for the organism.

I am today riding the Hobby Horse against those unspiritual dunces who rail against spiritual realities that will forever be above their heads- until they fall on them and crush them.

There are those who live in a Reality that nothing Spiritual can be allowed to exist- not even themselves. All evidence that any communication of Divine or other Spiritual origin has ever been received by Mankind cannot be allowed by them. It would break their sanity to try to support it.

"A light bulb going off over your head- what’re we talking here- 40 Watts?"

. -Dr. Jordan to the Sheriff in EUREKA.

That Mohammed was, by today’s standards, a pedophile, and by any standards, a mass-murderer, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he spoke by inspiration, or not, as the first Answerer is trying to tell us. It is conceivable that bunch of savants sat down together and cooked up the Qur’an.
WHY? What would be the motive? How would that work? Why would they be unable to tell the truth about how they came by it?

I am no fan of Allah. I think him consistent with a Fourth Rate jacked-up Moon Deity, with delusions of grandeur. If he could claim to be YAHWEH God, it was within His Power to have duplicated every one of HIS Miracles. As a matter of fact, to make Mohammed a miracle-worker, all He had to have done was TELL HIM THAT HE COULD. Any MINOR spirit being from the Heavenlies could have made Islam a Miracle Faith. The reason why Allah could not do that is that it would have turned Islam into a religion of compassion and kindness. Muslims do not care about those who are not able-bodied- not even those who are of their own religion. They make them sit outside- exposed to the elements- begging for a living, so they can make spiritual Brownie-points by giving them Zaka’at (alms). Why not put them in a home, and look after them? No: they cannot THINK about doing that!

As for the able-bodied and handicapped of other religions, they DON’T want to HEAL them- they WANT to BLOW THEM ALL UP- for not banging our brains out five times a day, like them!
(Never you dare argue with any one of them who has circular scar-tissue in his forehead!)

The Qur’an IS Inspired Scripture, but it is EVIL Inspiration.
It falls FAR short of The Glory of YAHWEH God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
References :

However, here we find the same difficulty in tradition contradicting the written record as we find in Judaism and in professed Christianity. The Quran simply does not allow for any miracles. Plainly it quotes God as saying, “We refrain from sending Signs, only because men of former years treated them as false.” (Sura 17:59, Ali) That explicitly does not allow for any signs. If Muhammad had performed signs, why rebuke his hearers for asking for them; why should they complain because of their being none? Yet that is what the Quran does. The written word is ever more reliable than the tradition handed down orally, and we are further compelled to that conclusion by the very fantastic nature of these purported miracles.

In the Quran itself we find admission of such contradictions in that it claims for itself the right of “cancellation” or “abrogation.” Muhammad’s critics had complained that he sometimes contradicted himself, and so he taught that whenever a subsequent revelation contradicted a previous one, the second canceled or abrogated the first. Thus we read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or the like. Knowest thou not that God hath power for all things?”—Sura 2:106; 16:101, Ali.
Since both the former or the canceled verse and the one that came later and does the canceling or abrogating remain in the Quran it can easily be seen how there would be contradictions in the Quran. Especially is this possible in view of the fact that it is not at all certain when each sura was “revealed,” and therefore it cannot always be determined which is the abrogating and which the abrogated text.

Even the sacred book of the Moslems, the Quran, translated into a few tongues, recommends the Bible, saying that the Quran is “confirming that which was revealed before it; for [God] had formerly sent down the law, and the gospel [the Bible] . . . God shall teach [them] the scripture, and wisdom, and the law, and the gospel.” (The Koran, translation by G. Sale, pp. 86, 89)

The Quran’s view, for example, is that Jesus was one of God’s prophets, though not God’s Son nor one who died a sacrificial death. In fact, the Quran claims that “never has Allah begotten a son.” Believers are even told to “admonish those who say that Allah has begotten a son,” because “a monstrous blasphemy is that which they utter.”
The Quran admits that “before it the Book of Moses was revealed,” calling it “a guide and a blessing to all men,” and adds, “This Book confirms it.” The Quran also claims to be “no invented tale, but a confirmation of previous scriptures.” Now, if the Koran is “a confirmation of previous scriptures,” particularly of the “Book of Moses,” how about the scriptures at Genesis 6:2, 4, which speak about “the sons of the true God” and Exodus 4:22, which says: “This is what Jehovah has said: ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn’”? Why would God himself use the illustration of his having a son if the idea is such “a monstrous blasphemy”?
If Jesus was a true prophet of God and yet not God’s Son, why did he repeatedly speak of God as his Father? He even says of himself at Matthew 11:27: “Neither does anyone fully know the Father but the Son.”

The Arabic Quran was considered by Muhammad to be a book intended solely for the Arabs. This was despite the fact that the one represented as speaking is almost exclusively God himself, the Creator of all peoples. Translating the Quran into other languages is considered unfitting; therefore, only the Arabic text can be recited and used for ritual purposes. This may remind some Catholics that prior to the Second Vatican Council, held in the 1960’s, only Latin could be used in Roman Catholic liturgy.
The Bible, on the other hand, makes clear that its message is not to be restricted to any one group. This is in keeping with its claim that it is not “the word of men, but . . . the word of God.” Its proponents strive to distribute it widely, reasoning that every individual has equal right to benefit from his Creator’s words of wisdom.
References :

How odd. I thought independent studies confirmed that the Quran was dependent on source materials from late apocryphal Christian Gospels.

The docetic/gnostic denial of the crucifixion, and the infant miracle story of the clay bird(s), just for simple examples.

That’s apart from your very individual handling of the concept of "proof", more generally.

And as for…
"no one is able to produce a book that would match its beauty, eloquence and wisdom."
…that makes me doubt that you have actually read it.
Or alternately that you have not read very much else.
References :