I've always argued against the biggest islamic claim that the Quran is somehow unaltered since it was revealed to Mohammed.

I did some light research and found out about how it was compiled after the death of the illiterate man who had the visions. It took some 30 years or so to compile. The sayings of Mohammed were memorised and some were written down by his followers. Lots were lost due to death so what was collected was inevitably incomplete. Many attempts were made and rejected before one was accepted.

There are so many questionable aspects to this alone let alone the claim that it has been unaltered.

There is also a massive problem with the chosen language of Arabic too in that it is full of multiple meanings with the same words opening it up to vast interpretations. In fact there are 12 recoginised ways to read it and 20 versions in circulation. The way it is actually altered is through the hadiths which are basically interpretations and there are over 2000 of them. But anyone can come up with one and there are probably 100,000's out there.

So I think the claim that it is unaltered is mute because of this and that its very nature makes it ambiguous as opposed to precise. It really doesn't matter that it is unaltered because it was never precise or complete in the first place. Its like preserving a ship wreck with various sections missing that only our imagination can fill and claiming its still sea worthy.

To me, the Quran is an attempt to confuse and politically control the population left behind by a crazy warlord who was idolized by his subjects. After all he brought his followers wealth, power and status.