A real study about Islamic sources & Hadiths :

[WinterHold]

True of all societies in antiquity.

Moreover, there were degrees of literacy then as now.

The Romans attained a literacy rate of about 10% mainly by teaching military recruits how to read Latin. But just because you could read the duty roster for cleaning the latrine did not mean that you could read advanced philosophical texts. That was reserved to the upper classes alone.

I remember that this habit also existed in Christian Europe also, the Church monopolized education, a very disgusting habit.

What helped the spread of knowledge though within Islamic societies, is the elimination of this method of categorization. Since the Quran is written, teaching people how to read it would be an act of charity, which is why scholars turned mosques into libraries & mini-schools.

As I said many times ; minimalist : religion does produce good acts.. I believe that what Muslims did during that era broke the monopolization of knowledge.

---

The Quran was put together years after Mohammed died from fragments written on parchments, pieces of bone and from memorised oral accounts it wasn't straight from Mohammeds mouth to paper it was assembled and collected together from a mishmash much like the Bible. But I'd give it the benefit of the doubt that it represents what Mohammed said the same as I would regard the hadith as what Mohammed did. There's no double standard there.

It's different, Zone. If you read the Quran in arabic you would understand. 300 years aren't 2 years. Notice that they did gather it in a very tight timeline, which gives a minimum chance of error.

If something was wrong in this book I would've known. It's flawless when it comes to language & context. The context would've got screwed if it was fake, just like the hadiths.

It's hard to find 600 pages which doesn't contradict themselves not even in a single word.

I read it many times & tried to fetch context errors. There are None.