Gods ideals, are likely to be corrupted by man for his own gain.

Yes, with just a single author we can see that, look at the Koran, but around 40 people across hundreds of years, it cannot be passed off with that.

Qur'an is far more 'pure' than the Bible in a technical sense, it has been edited far less by others, until the twentieth century.

The Bible was never 'edited.' There are different translations, but they are from the original manuscripts. So if you don't like one translation, say the NIV, you can try the ESV or HCS. The Koran is more 'pure' in a sense, but it is true to your first reply, where Mohammad wrote things that followed his desires at different times in his life.

No original* manuscripts exist, only very old ones, and to suggest these do not differ is folly. *original being the real deal first time written down sort of thing

How is it folly? How do you think the Koran was copied? By people sitting down and writing it word-for-word. The same is with the Hebrew and Greek Biblical documents. You ignore the fact that the Old Testament is held in high importance by Judaism. Thus they would copy them exactly.

The thing about the Qur'an is that it was memorised by many theologians, and it's much harder to corrupt something that people know. Obviously not impossible, but harder. The age of the text helps as well

I'm not saying that it was corrupt at all, but it was written by [b]ONE[/b] man. Mohammad claims his religion is one of peace, but he later goes about overthrowing Mecca with a militia and calling for the killing of those who don't convert. The Koran reflects his biography. In contrast, The Bible was written by multiple people, but all the 'books' of the Bible follow the same themes of who God is and the prophesies He tells them. I won't say that there are no bad translations because there are. The New King James Version erases most of the miracles and many verses about Christ's divinity. The Joel Osteen Bible is.... well a joke (I'd never read a Bible written by a man who preaches without a Bible). The majority of corruption and bending of words did not come from copying of the Bible, but rather reading and sermons. During the Dark Ages, Cat-holic priests/monks were the only people able to read the (latin?) translation of the Bible. In order to get more money for the church, or even power, they would make up lies and say that is what the Bible said because no one could cal ltheir bluff; at least not until Martin Luther spoke out.

Well, if Mohammed was indeed the messenger of God, I'm sure his singular authorship could be justified.

And that is where my opinion comes in because I don't believe that Mohammad is a prophet of the God of the Bible. My reason is because in the New Testament, Christ tells the people that they cannot be saved by the law. No matter what they do, once they have sinned, they are damnned. Their salvation can only come from a perfect sacrifice that does not deserve to die, which is what Christ was. Even throughout the Old Testament, God tells that a sacrifice/savior would come. If it is the same God, why does Allah tell (spelling correction! Muhammad) that in order to achieve salvation one must work good, according to the Koran, for it? It contradicts, and even if Muhammad considers Christ as another prophet, like the Jews, he should have then told of a messiah that is yet to come.

Muhammed, Mohammed, the name is spent a multitude of ways. However I am not well versed enough in Islamic theology to counter your arguments, but their are likely answers somewhere, the top theologians of both Islam and Christianity are very intelligent people.