Convert me if you can

[Regens Küchl]

I have found an argument for Islam that in this case I will copy to let you read it. Mohammed (blessed be his name) succeeded to let preserve the true words of god unfalsified until today.

That the Koran has been better persevered (and there is some doubt about this but that's another discussion thread on the Islam forum so let that go for now) is a lot more easily attributed to the fact that Islam is a significantly younger sect, did not have the difficulty of translating their scripture into other languages and had a more determined goal of preserving the original book. Although I am role-playing a seeker of the right religion, I still will apply Occam's Razor and not attribute to divine intercession what could be easily explained by human efforts.

Please do not dispose the child along with the bathtub. You are right with this reasons playing a role for the excellent preservance of Allahs word.
Mohammed (blessed be his name) was the last prophet, so Islam of course is younger. Arabic was accepted by Allah as the best form of his word, because it is a beautiful and living language used in a great part of the world. Because of the Quran being the true word, the followers were extemely and rightfully determined to preserve it.
All true, but all this is rather more evidence for Islam and not against it.

And, if you will so, all the great prophets are opposed to normal people who are not neccessarily great.

So "great" is internalized into the definition of the word "prophet", just as "dark" might be to the color "black"? Fine. Then it is a tautology to call Jesus a "great prophet".

And so you must admit that it was wrong to say he was no great prophet, as it would be wrong to say a darkness was not black.

Jesus convinced the people rightfully that Allah wants not only Jews but all people to serve him.
That was a enormous success.
It is another story that later humans perverted parts of his message to things like the christian Trinity dogma.

Jesus' followers prayed to him and thought of him as an intercessor to God. A more spectacular failure for the jealous YHWH-Allah would be impossible to imagine short of the Christians all becoming Satanists.

The second half of your statement invokes the dreamscape also used by Protestant Christians that there was a pure form of Jesus' teachings that were corrupted by a later Catholic-Trinitarian teaching. Actual research into early Christianity indicates that both claims are the stuff of fantasy created to justify their own religion, nothing more. While it is true that there were non-Trinitarian Christians, and Muslim apologists will spuriously point to them as Islamic, in fact, all the early Christians regarded Jesus as an intercessor divine agent of some sort, whether an angel, an apparition of God or a higher god. None of these early Christianities are consistent with Islamic teaching nor is there any indication that Jesus declared himself a forerunner of a prophet to come.

Hah here again I have to break to you that the fact that Jesus was highly misinterpreted and on him was based an incorrect cult (Xians), is not an argument against Islam but is a massive argument for Islam.
Besides: It was not the prophet Jesus fault, but the fault of people that he was misinterpreted and not all Xians got it totally wrong. Before Mohammed(blessed be his name) great parts of the ancient world and some emperors were arian, whose concept of Jesus was not so far from the muslim concept of a great prophet. Here is the arian concept:
The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Also on the right path partly were the nestorians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

About success I wrote above, and this particular pretty poertry is also the truest word of god. But you wont see that without reading it with an open heart.

The Koran, at least the English translation, strikes me as being the inconsistent ravings of a madman but let that go. Shakespeare wrote pretty poetry as well. That doesn't prove he was a divine agent. This line of argument is completely irrelevant even if it were true.

Not the poetry, but the message should you let enter your heart. And in the right translation, and one with added comments by experts.
I am sure that an extremelybad arabic translation could fatally destroy the works of Shakespeare. Destroy the poetry as well as the philosophical message within the works.

The same (other way around) goes for Quran. And I meant that you, reading the right Quran with open heart, will feel the rightfullness of the message therein, as you would feel it, lets say, by reading the words of a great noble philosoph.
This is about the message and stands aside from "pretty poetry" or not.

Islam had no holy Inquisition and was historically more tolerant to unbelievers than christianity.

That's the propaganda. Google a news search on Islamic persecution of Hindus, Jews, Christians and atheists as well as the very institutional laws of Sharia regarding the Jizat tax for the other religions (pardon my spelling if that's not the right way) as well as "anti-blasphemy" laws and I think you'll find the claim quickly collapses under scrutiny.

At last once muslims were settled they were more tolerant than xians.
You cannot deny the fact that while the xian west sank down in his dark middle ages, suppressed and destroyed scientific advance as well as many early scientists, the islamic orient came to blossom in regard of culture and sciences.
Because it was born in the orient even the names iences like algebra or alchemy(mother of modern chemistry) remain arabic until today And chemistry comes from arabic chemi = black.
Even our numbers 1, 2, 3, and on are arabic.

So in review, do we have any arguments aside from:

1. Success of Islam
2. Pretty poetry

?

Yes, as I explained above