The Quran claims that Muhammad is illiterate:

Those who follow the Messenger, the illiterate (ummi) prophet... S. 7:157

Definition of 'Illiterate':-

a person who is unable to read or write.

Therefore, if we find sufficient evidence from the Quran and the ahadith which demonstrate that Muhammad was literate, it would necessitate a reevaluation of the Quranic assertion of his illiteracy.
The prevailing belief among many Muslims is that the historical figure of Muhammad was illiterate and therefore incapable of producing the Quran. However, it is important to note that both the Quran and the ahadith provide evidence that Muhammad possessed the ability to read and write!

Evidence from the Quran

The following verses commanded Muhammad to read:

Read! (Iqra) In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists) … Read! (Iqra) And your Lord is the Most Generous, Who has taught (the writing) by the pen [the first person to write was Prophet Idrees (Enoch)], S. 96:1, 3-4

The mention of the pen clearly indicates that Muhammad was being directed to read a written text, rather than merely recite spoken words.
In fact, the Quran says that Allah will make Muhammad read the Quran so that he won’t forget it:

We shall make thee read (O Muhammad) so that thou shalt not forget S. 87:6

Other places where Muhammad is commanded to read the Quran include:

When you read the Quran, you shall seek refuge in GOD from Satan the rejected. S. 16:98
When you read the Quran, we place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter an invisible barrier. S. 17:45
A Quran that we have released slowly, in order for you to read it to the people over a long period, although we sent it down all at once. S. 17:106 And lo! It is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds, Which the True Spirit hath brought down Upon thy heart, that thou mayst be (one) of the warners, In plain Arabic speech. And lo! it is in the Scriptures of the men of old. Is it not a token for them that the doctors of the Children of Israel know it? And if We had revealed it unto one of any other nation than the Arabs, And he had read it unto them, they would not have believed in it. S. 26:192-199
Your Lord knows that you meditate during two-thirds of the night, or half of it, or one-third of it, and so do some of those who believed with you. GOD has designed the night and the day, and He knows that you cannot always do this. He has pardoned you. Instead, you shall read what you can of the Quran. He knows that some of you may be ill, others may be traveling in pursuit of GOD's provisions, and others may be striving in the cause of GOD. You shall read what you can of it, and observe the contact prayers (Salat), give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and lend GOD a loan of righteousness. Whatever good you send ahead on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD far better and generously rewarded. And implore GOD for forgiveness. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. 73:20
and, when the Koran is read to them, do not adore? S. 84:21

The evidence strongly suggests that Muhammad had access to a manuscript from which he could read to the people. Without access to such a manuscript, it raises the question of what he would have been reading from.
If a Muslim claims that the above texts do not necessarily mean that Muhammad was reading an actual book, because there was no Quranic manuscript for him to read, note what the following passage states:

Those who disbelieve say: "This (the Qur'an) is nothing but a lie that he (Muhammad SAW) has invented, and others have helped him at it, so that they have produced an unjust wrong (thing) and a lie." And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon." S. 25:4-5

Not only did Muhammad have the Quran written down, showing that he had access to an actual manuscript that he could read, the Quran even refers to pure pages that Muhammad was reading to the people:

A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages (yatlu suhufan mutahharatan) S. 98:1-2

The term suhuf refers to an actual scripture just as the following verse proves:

The Books (suhuf) of Abraham and Moses. S. 87:19

Therefore, we can now conclude that the Quran provides compelling evidence supporting the claim that Muhammad possessed the ability to read and write. A more in-depth examination of the ahadith is now necessary to further substantiate this assertion.

Evidence from the Ahadith

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Once the Prophet wrote a letter or had an idea of writing a letter. The Prophet was told that they (rulers) would not read letters unless they were sealed. So the Prophet got a silver ring made with "Muhammad Allah's Apostle" engraved on it. As if I were just observing its white glitter in the hand of the Prophet… (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 65)
Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to write to the Byzantines, it was said to him, "Those people do not read your letter unless it is stamped." So the Prophet (ﷺ) took a silver ring and got 'Muhammad, the Apostle of Allah' engraved on it .... as if I am now looking at its glitter in his hand. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 764)
Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet (ﷺ) intended to write to the Byzantines, the people said, "They do not read a letter unless it is sealed (stamped)." Therefore the Prophet (ﷺ) took a silver ring----as if I am looking at its glitter now----and its engraving was: 'Muhammad, Apostle of Allah'. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 276)
Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88)
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, 'Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' But 'Umar said, 'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, 'Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me." Ibn 'Abbas came out saying, ""It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114)
Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was Umar bin Al-Khatttab, the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray."Umar said, "The Prophet (ﷺ) is seriously ill, and you have the Qur'an, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while some of them said what Umar said. When they made much noise and differed greatly before the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." IbnAbbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their difference and noise prevented Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) from writing that writing for them. (Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468)
Narrated Yazid ibn Abdullah: We were at Mirbad. A man with dishevelled hair and holding a piece of red skin in his hand came. We said: You appear to be a bedouin. He said: Yes. We said: Give us this piece of skin in your hand. He then gave it to us and we read it. It contained the text: "From Muhammad, Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), to Banu Zuhayr ibn Uqaysh. If you bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, offer prayer, pay zakat, pay the fifth from the booty, and the portion of the Prophet (ﷺ) and his special portion (safi), you will be under by the protection of Allah and His Apostle." We then asked: Who wrote this document for you? He replied: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 19, Number 2993)
Narrated Al-Bara' bin 'Azib (RA):The Prophet (ﷺ) sent 'Ali to Yemen. The narrator mentioned the complete Hadith. He said, "Ali sent a letter regarding their (the people of Yemen) acceptance of Islam. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) read the letter, he prostrated in gratitude to Allah the Most High for that." [Reported by al-Baihaqi].

Muhammad also had access to Syriac books. He also commanded Zaid Bin Thabit to learn the Syriac Language and the book of the Jews:

Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath: It can be made that he learned their language, reading and writing, because he used to read their books to him and write to them if he wanted to write to them. This is indicated by Al-Tirmidhi’s classification of this hadith by saying: Chapter on what was mentioned in teaching the Syriacs, and in it he mentioned another narration that says In it Zaid: The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, commanded me to learn Syriac, and in Sunan Abu Dawud: Zaid bin Thabit - may God be pleased with him - said: The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family, commanded me to learn the book of the Jews for him, and he said: By God, no Jews believed in my book. So I learned it, and only half a month passed before I mastered it. I would write to him when he wrote, and I would read to him when he wrote to him.
The author of Awn al-Ma’boud said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, commanded me, that is, to learn the book of the Jews, so I learned for him, that is, for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. He said, meaning, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, is a conjunction of my command to explain the reason for the matter. The Jews did not believe in my book, that is, I fear if I commanded a Jew. By writing a book to the Jews, or reading a book that the Jews had come to add or subtract from, so I learned it, i.e., a Jewish book, until I mastered it with the dictionary dhāl and waqf, meaning I knew it, mastered it, and taught it, so I used to write for him, i.e., for the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, whenever he wrote, i.e., if he wanted to write.

Al-Tahawi said in Al-Mu’tasir:

It was narrated from Zaid Bin Thabbit, that he said:
The Messenger (PBUH) said: “Do you know Syriac well? I receive Syriac books.” Zaid said: “No.” The Messenger (PBUH) said: “Learn it (Syriac Language).” Zaid said: “So I learned it in seventeen days.”
https://islamweb.net/afatwa/161555/

The evidence from additional hadiths (links given below) attributed to Muhammad strongly indicates his ability to write.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2699
https://sunnah.com/mishkat:4049
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1637b
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1637c
https://sunnah.com/nasai:3101
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3053
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4431
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7366
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5669
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:114
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4432
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2387
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4505
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3649
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2667
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6880
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1355a
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4214
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2938
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5875
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7162
https://sunnah.com/nasai:5201
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2092d
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2092e
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:65
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5872
https://sunnah.com/shamail:89
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2092c
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2715
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2377
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5158

Muhammad's Literacy in the Sirat(s)

Muhammad could read and write as we read in Sirat Ibn Ishaq, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir' by Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Sa'd, and Al Sira Al Nabawiyya by Ibn Kathir:
Sirat Ibn Ishaq
https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume
Page 106, about the cave of Hira revelation:

So I (Muhammad) read it, and he departed from me.

Page 649, about correspondence with Musaylima

Musaylima had written to the apostle: ‘From Musaylima the apostle of God to Muhammad the apostle of God. Peace upon you. I have been made partner with you in authority. To us belongs half the land and to Quraysh half, but Quraysh are a hostile people.’ Two messengers brought this letter. A shaykh of Ashja’ told me on the authority of Salama b. Nu’aym b. Mas’ud al-Ashja’I from his father Nu’aym: I heard the apostle saying to them when he read his letter ‘What do you say about it?’ They said that they said the same as Musaylima. He replied, ‘By God, were it not that heralds are not to be killed I would behead the pair of you !’ Then he wrote to Musaylima: ‘From Muhammad the apostle of God to Musaylima the liar. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. The earth is God’s. He lets whom He will of His creatures inherit it and the result is to the pious. This was at the end of the year 10.

Page 256

The apostle wrote to the Jews of Khaybar according to what a freedman of the family of Zayd b. Thabit told me from ‘Ikrima or from Sa‘id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas: “In the name of God the compassionate the merciful from Muhammad the apostle of God friend and brother of Moses who confirms what Moses brought…”

• KITAB AT-TABAQAT AL-KABIR' by **Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Sa'd, one of the most important and earliest surviving collections of biographical details of the early Muslims, spanning just over the first two centuries of Islam** https://religion.antropo.es/libros/fuentes-islamicas/Ibn-Sad_Kitab-al-tabaqat-al-kabir.pdf

Volume 1, Parts II.73.2

He (Ibn Sa'd) said: Al-Haytham Ibn 'Adi al-Ta'i informed us; he said: Mujàlid Ibn Sa'id and Zakariyá Ibn Abi Zà'idah informed us on the authority of al-Sha'bi; he said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, used to write after the style of the Quraysh: In Thy name, 0 Allah! Then the verse, "Embark therein! In the name of Allah be its course and its mooring," (Qur'an, 11:41) was revealed, **and he began to write: In the name of Allah.**Then the verse, "Cry unto Allah or cry unto the Beneficent" (Qur'an, 17:110) was revealed, and he began to write; In the name of Allah the Beneficent. Then the verse, "Lo ! it is from Solomon, and Lo ! it is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful" (Qur'an, 27: 30) was revealed, and he began to write: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Volume 1, Parts II.73.3

He (Ibn Sa'd) said: Al-Haytham Ibn 'Adi informed us; Dalham Ibn Salih and Abu Bakr al-Hudhali informed us on the authority of 'Abd Allah Ibn Buraydah, he on the authority of his father, Buraydah Ibn al-Husayb alAslami; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa'd) said: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq related to us on the authority of Yazid Ibn Rumàn and al-Zuhri; (third chain) he (Ibn Sa'd) said: Al-Hasan Ibn 'Umàrah related to us on the authority of Firas, he on the authority of al-Sha'bi; their narrations are mixed up: He (Ibn Sa'd) said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, wrote [P.20] an epistle to the people of Yaman detailing in it the regulations of Islam and duties on animals and properties. He directed them to treat his Companions and messengers well, and his messengers were Mu'adh Ibn Jabal and Malik Ibn Murarah. He informed them about the coming of their messengers to him and acknowledged the message which he had received from them. They said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him,wrote personal letters to several persons of Yaman; the names of some of them are, alHarith Ibn 'Abd Kulál, Shurayh Ibn 'Abd Kulal, Nu'aym Ibn 'Abd Kulál, Nu'man the prince of Dhu Yazan, Ma'àfir and Hamdan and Zur'ah of Ru'ayn; and the last was the first of Himyarites to embrace Islam... The Apostle of Alláh, may Allah bless him, wrote to them that Malik Ibn Murárah had delivered the message and defended their right in absentia. They said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, wrote to Musaylimah, the liar, may Allah damn him, inviting him to join the fold of Islam, and sent it through 'Amr Ibn Ummayyah [P. 26] al-Damri. Musaylimah wrote a reply to his epistle saying that he (Musaylimah) was a prophet like him, and asked him to divide the Earth; he also added that the Quraysh were not just. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Curse him; Allah has also cursed him. The Prophet wrote to him: your letter (full of) falsehood and fabrications against Allah has reached me... They said: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, wrote a similar epistle to Bang Mu'awiyah, a branch of Kindah.

• Volume 1, Parts II.74.83

'Ath'ath Ibn Zahr and Anas lbn Mudrik waited on the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, with the members of the Khath'am after Jarir Ibn 'Abd Allah had broken Dhua'l-Khalasah and had slain those of Khath'am whom he had slain. Then they said: We believe in Allah, His Apostle and what was revealed by Allah. (They said) write a document for us so that we may follow what might be written therein. Thereupon he wrote a document for him and Jarir Ibn 'Abd Allah and those present testified to it.

THERE ARE MORE EVIDENCES BUT I WILL NOT PROVIDE ALL
AL SIRA AL NABAWIYYA by Ibn Kathir (4 Volumes)
https://archive.org/details/AlSiraAlNabawiyyaByIbnKathirAllVolumesInOnePdf

• Volume I P33

when the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to Chosroe inviting him to accept Islam, he became enraged, tore up the letter and then wrote his own instructions

• Volume I P234

the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to the Jews of Khaybar as follows, “In the name of God the most merciful and beneficent, from Muhammad, the Messenger of God, …”

• Volume I P267

He wrote a document for us as follows: “In the name of God, the most Merciful and most Beneficent; this is from Muhammad, the Messenger of God, …”

• Volume I P273

Amr b. Murra and those others of his people who had accepted Islam then went to the Prophet (SAAS). He welcomed and honoured them and wrote for them a document, the text of which was as follows, 'In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Beneficent, this document is from God through the tongue of the Messenger of God and is a trustworthy document…”

• Volume II P122

… the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to Mus'ab b. Umayr telling him to establish the Friday prayer

• Volume II P 212

… the Prophet (SAAS)__** wrote up a contract between the Emigrants saying that they would respect one another's strongholds, that they would treat with kindness those in distress and bring peace between the Muslims.**
The sahih collection of Muslim quotes Jabir as saying, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote an aqula, a blood-wit pact, for each sub-tribe." Muhammad b. Ishaq stated, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote a contract between the Emigrants and the Helpers…”

• Volume II P242

…the Messenger of God (SAAS) sent forth 'Abd All& b. Jahsh b. Ri'ab al-Asadi along with eight Emigrants; … He wrote a letter for 'Abd All& b. Jahsh…

• Volume IV P72

They asked them, “Uthman and Abd al-Rahman, your Prophet wrote us a letter and we have come in response to it…”

• Volume IV P73

When they went to him next day,** he wrote for them the following document, 'In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Beneficent. This is written by Muhammad, the Prophet, the untutored, the Messenger of God, to Najran…”**

• Volume IV P75

The bishop, Abu al-Harith, went to the Messenger of God (SAAS), along with al-Sayyid, al-Aqib and important persons from their people…. He wrote the document for the bishop and those bishops to come after him: 'In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Beneficent. From.Muhammad, the Prophet,…”

• Volume IV P100

The Messenger of God (SAAS) then wrote a letter to this Mutarrif…

• Volume IV P101

The Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote them the following document…

• Volume IV P103

“The following is the letter we have that the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote for 'Amr b. Hazam…”

• Volume IV P113

”He then wrote a document appointing me their leader … He then wrote me another document.”

• Volume IV P123

The Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote a document to this effect, as follows, "In the name of God, the most Merciful and Beneficent. This records what Muhammad, Messenger of God, has given to Rabi, Mutrif and Anas…”

• Volume IV P134

The Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote back to him as follows…

• Volume IV P135

He wrote him a document specifying his charge and his orders to him.

• Volume IV P318

…the Messenger of God (SAAS) wrote to him and he restored it to them.

• Volume IV P496

The Prophet (SAAS) **wrote a letter to those of Banu Jurash who accepted Islam,**ordering them to peform the prayer, pay the zakat, and to donate one-fifth of the booty they took.

THERE ARE MORE EVIDENCES BUT I WILL NOT PROVIDE ALL because I am too lazy.
The evidence presented in this post strongly supports the claim that Muhammad was literate and not illiterate, as claimed by the Quran and the Muslims! So, the answer to the question in the title is a BIG NO.

اسلام عليكم
As you've read the title already I'm a little confused again over the twelver shiism and ismaili shiism. While chatting with a Nizari online, he told me Ismail is the true successor of Imam Jafar As. To combat his statement I responded that Ismail had died before Imam Jafar As. He then mentions the incident of Musa As and Harun As stating that Musa As appointed Harun As as his successor, but later on Harun passed away before Musa As. That's one issue I need help on.
Second issue is, He mentions this hadith in the favor of Ismail's imamate.
Ali b. Babawayh al-Qummi (d. ca. 328-329/939-941), al-Imāma wa l-tabṣīra, (Madrasa Imam al-Mahdi, Qum 1404/1984 Mu’assasa Aal al-Bayt, Beirut 1407/1987), p. 73 / p. 210 [Hadith #63] and reports Imam Ja‘far telling his son ‘Abdullah that his full-brother Mawlana Isma‘il possesses the Light (al-nur) of Imamat in his face and that Isma‘il is from his [the Imam’s] own soul (nafsi). The latter is identical to how Prophet Muhammad said that “‘Ali is from my own soul (nafsi).”:

Imam Ja‘far [Abu ‘Abdullah] was reprimanding and admonishing ‘Abdullah [his son], saying: ‘Why can’t you be more like your brother?’ By God, I recognize the Light (al-nur) in his face.’ ‘Abdullah said: ‘Aren’t my father and his father the same? Aren’t my mother and his mother the same?’ Then Imam Ja‘far [Abu ‘Abdullah] said: ‘Verily, Isma‘il is from my own soul (nafsi) while you are my son.’

• ‘Ali b. Babawayh al-Qummi (d. ca. 328-329/939-941), (al-Imāma wa l-tabṣīra, Madrasa Imam al-Mahdi, Qum 1404/1984, 73 / Mu’assasa Aal al-Bayt, Beirut 1407/1987, 210, Hadith No. 63;

[The Imam’s] saying: “he is from my soul (innahu min nafsi) while you are my son” means “you are related to me by bodily lineage while he is related to me both bodily and spiritual lineage such that his soul is like my soul, his knowledge is like my knowledge, his character is like my character, his action is like my action” extending to the other attributes of perfection without any disparity… His saying “I see the Light within his face” and “he is from my soul” is a clear indication that he is the locus of the Imamat to the exclusion of others.

• Muhammad Salih al-Mazandarani (d. 1081/1671), (Sharh Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 6, 179-180)

This hadith aswell.
3rd and final issue,
He argues that if an Imam is in hiding he's not guiding us hence he's not an Imam. He talks about how 'Imam e mubin' is mentioned in the Quran meaning Imam being present ie present and living. He also says that the twelver Imam has been living in the earth for 1000s of years and that it's not possible for any normal being.
I'm sorry for such a large post, and I say my thanks in advance for the ones who answer.
May Allah Swt bless you all. Jazakallah.

Yes. ISIS does exactly what Muhammad did in the 7th century. And it also adopts a lot of what the subsequent “rightly guided” caliphs did. Because after all, ISIS is a Salafi organization (Salaf- as in “Al-Salaf Al-Saleh” = the rightly guided predecessors - referring to the four “rightly guided” caliphs following Muhammad).
Long answer:
Let’s take a look first what ISIS is doing. If we can agree what these “atrocities” are, then we can look further and dig deeper whether we can find something similar in Islamic scripture and history.
So, here’s what ISIS does:
BEHEADING OF PRISONERS
Scriptural base:
Qur’an 8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”
Qur’an 47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”
What Muhammad did:
Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
Narrated Aisha . . . No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawud)
TAKING FEMALE SEX-SLAVES
Scriptural base:
Qur’an - 4:24 - "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.
What Muhammad did:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, # 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." (See Qur’an 4:24 above)
Sahih Bukhari Vol.3 #432
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."
Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, page 151
"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."
Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194
"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
THROWING DOWN HOMOSEXUALS FROM ROOFS AND STONING THEM AFTERWARDS
Scriptural base:
Qur'an 4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
What Muhammad and companions did:
Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version...on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law] had two people “burned” and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them.
Modern Exegesis:
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 5177
Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq judged in accordance with this, and he wrote instructions to this effect to Khaalid, after consulting with the Sahaabah. ‘Ali was the strictest of them with regard to that. Ibn al-Qasaar and our shaykh said: the Sahaabah agreed that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be killed. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq said that he should be thrown down from a cliff. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said that a wall should be made to collapse on him. Ibn ‘Abbaas said, they should be killed by stoning. This shows that there was consensus among them that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be executed. This is similar to the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning the person who has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram [incest], because in both cases intercourse is not permitted under any circumstances. Hence the connection was made in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill them.” And it was also reported that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram, kill him.” And according to another hadeeth with the same isnaad, “Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill the animal with him.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 2420; Abu Dawood, 4464; al-Tirmidhi, 1454; al-Haakim, 4/355).
Imam Sirajudeen Bakrin, Nigerian Tribune, December 30, 2011
However, there is a divergence of opinions on the methodology to be used in executing the punishment. While some scholars such as Abu bakr [the first Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Ali [Muhammad's son-in-law and the fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph ] were of the view that such a person should be beheaded and set on fire thereafter, Umar [the second Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Uthman [the third Rightly-Guided Caliph] thought the wall should be fell on him. To Ibn Abbas [Muhammad's cousin], he should be taken to the tallest building in the town, thrown upside down while some men stand on the ground waiting to meet him with stone in replication of the destruction done to the people of Lut (Lot) by Allah.
STONING OF ADULTERERS
Scriptural base & what Muhammad did:
Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79) - Two people guilty of illegal intercourse are brought to Muhammad, who orders them both stoned to death.
Sahih Muslim (17:4192) - "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year"
Sahih Muslim (17:4196) - A married man confesses to adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and had to be dragged back.
Sahih Muslim (17:4206) - A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, then has her stoned.
The description is graphic: "Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her."
Ibn Ishaq (970)

• "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.

ASSASSINATION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS & “SLANDERERS OF ISLAM”
What Muhammad did:
Bukhari vol.3 book 45 ch.3 no.687 p.415.
(687) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, 'Who would kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, 'I will kill him.' So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka'b and said, 'I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of foodgrains.'" After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time."
Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.
Al-Tabari vol.9 p.167:
Al-Aswad was assassinated because he claimed that he was a prophet, after coming out of the Khubban cave. He was killed a day or two before Mohammed's death.
Al-Tabari vol.9 p.121
"The Messenger of God called me and said, 'It has reached me that Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali is gathering a force to attack me. He is either in Nakhlah or 'Uranah, so go to him and kill him.'"
Abu Dawud vol.1 no.1244 p.328
"He (the prophet) said, :Go and kill him. I saw him when the time of the afternoon prayer had come. I said : I am afraid if a fight takes place between me and him (Khalid b. Sufyan), that might delay the prayer. I proceeded walking towards him while I was praying by making a sign. When I reached near him, he said to me : Who are you? I replied : A man from the Arabs ; it came to me that you were gathering (any[sp] army) for this man (i.e. the Prophet). Hence I came to you in connection with this matter. ... I then walked along with him for a while; when it became convenient for me, I dominated him with my sword until he became cold (dead)."
Al-Tabari vol.8 p.122
According to Ibn Ishaq: Kinanah b. al-Rabi' b. Abi al-Huqayq who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him, but he denied knowing where it [the treasure] was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, "I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning." The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: "What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you. "All right he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it, so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, saying, "Torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired [died]; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah."
The list goes on.
CONCLUSIONS:
All the included sources are Muslim sources. A lot of scholars are using this material to come up with Fatwas and also material for their sermons.
If you have read through my brief write-up, you can see that what ISIS is doing today is almost an exact carbon copy of what Muhammad and his warband were doing back then.
Therefore I urge you all to study all the facts about Muhammad and Islam first, before defending the narrative that ISIS is not Islamic.

¿Por qué años atrás era fácil conseguir dólares al tipo de cambio oficial y ahora desaparecieron de los bancos y cuestan en el mercado paralelo un 30%+- del tipo de cambio oficial?
La respuesta es un poco larga y abrimos hilo para explicártelo 👇:
Empecemos por definir que es un régimen o sistema cambiario: es el conjunto de reglas y políticas que un país adopta para gestionar el valor de su moneda nacional en relación con otras monedas extranjeras. Que generalmente es en relación al dólar estadounidense.
Este régimen define cómo se determina el tipo de cambio, la tasa a la cual una moneda puede ser intercambiada por otra. Es decir, por cuantos bolivianos puedes obtener un dólar. Los 4 principales tipos de regímenes cambiarios son:
A. Tipo de Cambio Fijo: El valor de la moneda se fija en relación a una moneda extranjera o a una canasta de monedas. El banco central se compromete a mantener este valor fijo e interviene constantemente en el mercado de divisas.
Ya sea comprando dólares del mercado o vendiendo dólares de sus reservas internacionales. Esto permite controlar la oferta y la demanda del dólar y estabilizar su valor a nivel nacional.
Ventajas: estabilidad, predictibilidad y control de la inflación.
Desventajas: requiere grandes reservas de dólares, limita la política monetaria y es vulnerable a ataques especulativos.
Ejemplos: Argentina (1991-2002) México (1988-1994) Tailandia (1984-1997) Indonesia (1971-1983) Rusia (1995-1998) Turquía (1994-2001)
Estos países mantuvieron un tipo de cambio fijo por el periodo mencionado. Sin embargo, sus efectos negativos, combinados con la incapacidad para sostenerlo, provocaron una crisis financiera. No tuvieron otra alternativa que transicionar a un tipo de cambio flotante.
B. Tipo de Cambio Flotante: El valor de la moneda se determina por las fuerzas del mercado, es decir, la oferta y la demanda de divisas en el mercado. El banco central no interviene activamente para mantener el valor de la moneda.
C. Tipo de Cambio Flotante Administrado: Aunque el valor de la moneda se determina principalmente por las fuerzas del mercado, el banco central puede intervenir ocasionalmente para estabilizar la moneda o alcanzar ciertos objetivos económicos.
D. Tipo de Cambio Híbrido: Combina elementos de los regímenes fijo y flotante. Un ejemplo es el "crawling peg" (deslizamiento controlado) que permite ajustes periódicos y controlados del tipo de cambio, proporcionando una mezcla de estabilidad y flexibilidad.
Cada régimen cambiario tiene sus propias ventajas y desventajas, la elección de uno u otro depende de las condiciones económicas, los objetivos de política económica y las características específicas de cada país.
En Bolivia, después de la hiperinflación de los años 80, el régimen cambiario entre 1986 y 2011 fue híbrido, utilizando un tipo de cambio de crawling peg. Y oficialmente, desde 2011 el tipo de cambio ha sido fijo (1 dólar = 6.96 bolivianos).
Ya sé que muchos se preguntan: si el tipo de cambio oficial es fijo, ¿por qué no puedo comprar ni un pinche dólar a ese precio?
Lo que sucede es que desde 2023, el tipo de cambio oficial es DE JURE, es decir, solo existe en la imaginación colectiva de nuestras autoridades. Y esperan que el tipo de cambio se mantenga fijo por arte de magia.
Dejamos de tener un tipo de cambio fijo cuando el Banco Central de Bolivia (BCB) cesó su intervención en el mercado por el agotamiento de dólares en las Reservas Internacionales Netas (RIN).
Entonces, desde el año pasado, el tipo de cambio real, también conocido como tipo de cambio DE FACTO, se ha vuelto flotante. Los precios de compra y venta del dólar son ahora dictados por la oferta y la demanda del mercado, mientras el BCB observa impotente sin intervenir.
Ahora, seguramente muchos se estarán preguntando lo siguiente:
Si antes el Banco Central de Bolivia tenía dólares para mantener el tipo de cambio fijo, ¿por qué ahora no los tiene?
Porque las condiciones cuando se estableció el tipo de cambio fijo en Bolivia son diferentes a las actuales. Ahora, el auge gasífero ha terminado y su ciclo está llegando a su fin.
Durante este siglo, Bolivia ha tenido un crecimiento económico gracias a las exportaciones mineras y, principalmente, a un auge gasífero. Las exportaciones anuales de gas en los tiempos de bonanza eran aproximadamente 6000 millones de dólares.
Esta bonanza del gas creo una gas-dependencia en el gobierno central, gobernaciones, alcaldías y universidades públicas de todo el país. Debido a que sin hacer nada, recibían millones de dólares por concepto del Impuesto Directo a los Hidrocarburos (IDH).
Durante el auge gasífero fue fácil mantener el dólar con tipo de cambio fijo, subvencionar los hidrocarburos y otros alimentos, pagar bonos, crear empresas públicas deficitarias, derrochar dinero en el Fondo Indígena y otras “obras públicas” inservibles, etc.
En 2011, el éxito gasífero causo una avalancha de dólares que ingresaban a las reservas internacionales del BCB, esto embriagó a las autoridades, quienes se atribuyeron el auge económico y asumieron que duraría indefinidamente bajo su mandato.
Y tomaron una decisión que parecía fácil de cumplir a corto plazo: impusieron un tipo de cambio fijo del dólar. Aunque este régimen cambiario tiene ciertas ventajas mencionadas, también conlleva riesgos significativos de crisis financiera a largo plazo.
El principal problema es que mantener una moneda con un tipo de cambio fijo requiere grandes reservas de dólares. Para ilustrar esto, pensemos en la siguiente analogía: una represa que abastece de agua a una ciudad.
Cuando las lluvias son regulares y abundantes (flujo de dólares hacia Bolivia), la represa se llena fácilmente, satisfaciendo la demanda de agua (demanda de dólares) para toda la población.
Sin embargo, cuando llega una sequía prolongada y deja de llover, la represa comienza a utilizar su agua almacenada (dólares en las reservas del BCB) para seguir cumpliendo con la demanda de agua.
Si la sequía continúa y no hay lluvias para reponer el agua, la represa se vacía gradualmente. Eventualmente, la represa puede secarse por completo, dejando a la ciudad sin agua y provocando una crisis de suministro (crisis financiera).
Lo que ha sucedido en Bolivia es que, hasta el 2013 - 2014, hubo un abundante flujo de dólares producto de la exportación de gas. Esto permitió que las Reservas Internacionales Netas alcanzaran un récord histórico de aproximadamente 15 mil millones de dólares.
En lugar de usar los excedentes del gas para pagar la deuda, el gobierno prefirió aumentarla mediante la emisión de bonos soberanos y prestamos bilaterales/multilaterales. Sí, leyó bien, incluso durante el auge económico, también nos endeudaron.
Deuda que tiene que ser pagada por las siguientes generaciones mediante impuestos. Esta deuda incluye intereses que se han pagado cada año con dólares de las reservas internacionales, y es una de los causantes de la merma de las reservas y escasez de dólares.
Hasta 2013, los ingresos provenientes de la bonanza gasífera permitían mantener el régimen de tipo de cambio fijo, pago de intereses de la deuda, subvenciones y gasto público sin ningún problema.
No obstante, en 2014, estos ingresos comenzaron a reducirse, lo que provocó una desaceleración económica.
Entonces, desde el 2014, el gobierno de Evo Morales tenía dos opciones:

• Reducir el gasto público en función de los ingresos del gas e impuestos.
• Mantener el gasto público con deuda interna/externa, emisión monetaria y uso de los dólares de las reservas internacionales.

Y el gobierno no eligió ninguna de las dos opciones. Prefirió incrementar el gasto publico cada año hasta la fecha. Algo que venía sucediendo desde que el MAS llego al poder. Pero una cosa es hacerlo en un auge y otra cosa durante la desaceleración económica.
Así, desde 2014, el BCB comenzó a usar los dólares de las RIN en combinación con las divisas provenientes de la venta del gas y préstamos para mantener el tipo de cambio fijo, pagar deuda/intereses, financiar subvenciones al diésel/gasolina y sostener el gasto público.
Sin embargo, cada año los ingresos por la venta de gas disminuían progresivamente, mientras que los gastos para mantener el tipo de cambio fijo, la deuda con intereses, la subvención a los hidrocarburos y el aparato estatal aumentaban constantemente.
Esto ha creado una bomba de tiempo que explotará cuando las RIN ya no sean suficientes para cubrir las necesidades básicas de importación, como el diésel, la gasolina, los alimentos y los bienes de producción, pago de deuda e intereses, entre otros.
En octubre de 2012, en pleno auge gasífero, el BCB ponía diariamente 150 millones de dólares a disposición de la población. Esta cantidad de divisas sobrepasaba la demanda.
En contraste, del 6 al 12 de marzo 2023, el BCB vendió 24.124.300 dólares. Es decir, una venta diaria aproximada de $U$ 4 millones. Esta cifra no satisfacía la demanda de dólares y apenas equivalía al 2.7% de los $U$ 150 millones que estaban disponibles diariamente en 2012.
Actualmente, la situación es aún peor. El BCB dejo de vender dólares directamente, y la única forma de conseguirlos es en el mercado paralelo, pagando un sobreprecio de aproximadamente el 30% de la cotización oficial.
A esto se suman los problemas derivados del tipo de cambio fijo: la limitación que impone al BCB para ajustar su política monetaria, como la imposibilidad de modificar las tasas de interés de manera efectiva, y el riesgo de ataques especulativos.
El BCB ya experimentó estos ataques especulativos el año pasado. Es un fenómeno ampliamente documentado en la teoría macroeconómica y en la historia de varios países que no pudieron mantener el valor de su moneda con respecto al dólar.
A la fecha, las Reservas Internacionales Netas están casi al mismo nivel que en los años 2005-2006. Sin embargo, hay una gran diferencia: en aquel entonces, la población era de 9.5 millones de habitantes, mientras que ahora es de 12 millones.
Esto implica que hoy las reservas internacionales netas per cápita son significativamente menores. Además, las necesidades de importación, la subvención a los hidrocarburos, deuda y el aparato estatal son ahora exponencialmente mayores que en aquella época.
Para terminar con el análisis de las reservas internacionales utilizaremos un indicador económico que mide el tamaño de las Reservas Internacionales Netas de un país en relación a su Producto Interno Bruto (PIB).
El indicador de RIN/PIB evalúa la solidez económica, la sostenibilidad de las políticas fiscales y monetarias, la capacidad de pago externo y la confianza de los inversores.
Un RIN/PIB alto indica una economía bien respaldada con reservas suficientes para enfrentar crisis, mientras que un RIN/PIB bajo sugiere vulnerabilidad económica y limitaciones en la capacidad de intervención del banco central.
En Bolivia, el indicador de RIN/PIB es similar al de principios de la década de 1990. Aproximadamente un 4%. Desde 2015, ha mostrado una tendencia descendente pronunciada y sostenida.
Esto significa que las reservas internacionales están tan débiles como lo estaban años después de la hiperinflación de los años 80. Esto se evidencia porque no pueden cubrir 3 meses de importaciones.
Las importaciones en 2023 fueron 11.496 millones de dólares. Tres meses de importación serian $U$ 2.874 millones. Pero las RIN hasta abril eran de $U$ 1.796 millones. Entonces, las RIN solo pueden cubrir 7 semanas de importación.
Hoy en día, la situación económica es muy crítica, estamos al borde de una crisis severa que está siendo generada por el cáncer múltiple de la subvención a los hidrocarburos y gasto publico descomunal.
La inflación, merma de las reservas internacionales, escasez de dólares, pérdida del poder adquisitivo del boliviano, mayor desempleo e informalidad son simplemente los síntomas.
La estrategia del gobierno de ocultar los dólares de las reservas internacionales, monetizar el oro de las RIN, realizar emisión monetaria, pretender que tipo de cambio del dólar sigue fijo…
…adquirir más deuda externa e interna, prestarse los dólares de la población mediante bonos y obligar a los exportadores a entregar sus divisas es equivalente a tomar dióxido de cloro.
Solo producen un efecto placebo que no curará el cáncer y, de hecho, causaran más efectos contraproducentes en la economía y bolsillo de la población.
Bueno, eso es todo por hoy, y no se olviden compartir

Muammar gaddafi. The former Leader of libya. Who was killed after the 2011 uprising.
He printed what he called "The Jamahiriya Quran" . مصحف الجمهيرية. https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9
However. Scholars accused gaddafi of supposedly distorting the quran.
When he would recite Surah an Nas. Surat al falaq. And ikhlas. He would recite those without saying "say" "قل".
His justification was that when there's a "Say" or "قل" in any verse he would say it like this in the following:
Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One
“He is Allah, [who is] One
Say, “I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
“I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
Say, “I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak “I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak.
What are you're thoughts on this? Is his interpretation right? Or is he wrong for excluding a word from the holy quran?

Innovation is the lifeblood of business growth and development. Without it, your organization will fall behind its competition and eventually die out. However, innovation is expensive, and many small and medium-sized organizations can’t afford to innovate unless they get financial help from external sources.

Investments in bio-engineering can be risky, as many startups and early-stage companies may face regulatory hurdles, intellectual property challenges, or other barriers to success. However, for investors with a long-term outlook and a strong appetite for innovation, bio-engineering can offer significant opportunities for growth and returns.
Venture capital is one of the most common sources of financing for organizations that want to invest in innovation. Venture capital is a type of dedicated financial help that funds businesses to make a capital gain until publicizing them or even selling them outright. A distinguishing feature of venture capital involves screening, monitoring, and advising on a portfolio of its businesses. These non-financial services enable venture capitalists to choose businesses with high growth potential and make them succeed. The three distinctive features discussed before add to the venture capital’s edge over other types of financing that are not as dedicated (Sorensen, 2007).
Venture capitalists normally select companies that they can exit fast enough. This means that they select innovative organizations whose ROI is expectedly high. Therefore, such organizations are those that use knowledge to generate innovative capabilities to create profit in the short term.
Innovation is a process of continuous improvement and growth. It leads to the creation of new value or business ideas, which in turn contributes to the growth of any organization. The ability to innovate helps in increasing the revenue and profit margins of an organization by making it competitive in its industry.
Venture capitalists are interested in investing in innovative startups because they believe this will help them achieve their financial goals faster compared to the companies that do not invest in innovation. Venture capitalists want their investment to grow fast so they can exit quickly after making their money back at a higher rate than what they invested initially into it.
In the age of the knowledge economy, innovation is a main source of competitiveness (Daghfous, 2004). Based on what is known as the knowledge-based vision, the performance of the organization lies in its capacity to create, blend, recombine, and make use of knowledge (Grant, 1996). Therefore unstated, knowledge is indispensable to the capacity of an organization to innovate and favorably compete with others, causing it to be a strategic resource (Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2021). The knowledge inside a firm is normally formed internally or by the outward acquisition of information and know-how. Accordingly, the knowledge absorptive capacity (AC) of a firm is vital for the creation of value inside a firm (Xie et al., 2018).
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge cannot be completely dispersed without the backing of absorptive capacity. At the same time, the transfer of knowledge within a firm will come up as a main hindrance without the backing of absorptive capacity, inserting value on the significance of absorptive capacity within firms (Wuryaningrat, 2013).
Absorptive capacity has been described as the capacity of an organization to acknowledge the value of fresh outward information, integrate it, and implement it for business goals. Besides, it has become amongst the most dominant research scopes in business management. Huang et al. (2015) also note that absorptive capacity refers to a group of organizational practices that need to recognize and use knowledge, stressing the significance of absorptive capacity in the process of managing knowledge.
Most studies back the idea of absorptive capacity directly or indirectly prompting innovation and organizational financial outcomes (Tseng et al., 2011). The procedures of absorption of outward knowledge have grown into key aspects for innovation in organizations, making them to better adjust to transformations within the competitive atmosphere. Because of this, there are still many opportunities for research within the scopes of relational learning, absorptive capacity, as well as the attainment of a competitive edge (Tseng et al., 2011).
According to Xie et al. (2018), two vital gaps restrict deep hypothetical and empirical progresses in the management of absorptive capacity. Foremost, some programs of research have considered diverse proportions of absorptive capacity, while this dimensional separation of the construct and its function is not clear, conceptually and practically. Nonetheless, some studies have concentrated on the relationship between the diverse measures of absorptive capability and the innovation performance of a firm (Yaseen, 2020). Absorptive capacity is a tacit and intricate concept, making it challenging to measure. Learning the connection between venture financing and absorptive capacity can hence enhance our comprehension concerning how the source of financing impacts the innovation tactic of entrepreneurial organizations.

Absorptive Capacity and Innovation

Companies are working within a very competitive setting and need great measures of knowledge, which has turned into one of their most vital resources (Lian and Wu, 2010). To compete favorably, organizations cannot depend only on their external knowledge web but must progress their absorptive capacities to dynamically source new knowledge (Sancho-Zamora et al., 2021). This imposes methods that enable learning, allowing them to disperse and use the knowledge that will offer them fresh organizational innovations. Furthermore, the merging of this acquired knowledge is decided by an organization’s absorptive capacity. Hence, firms are required to possess and create, internal absorptive capacity to enhance innovation performance. This is vital since this form of capacity can impact the efficiency of innovation actions.
The first parties to describe absorptive capacity as the ability of an organization to assess fresh knowledge from outside, integrate it, and use it for commercial reasons were Cohen and Levingthal in 1990 (Wuryaningrat, 2013). A firm can obtain and efficiently utilize external and internal knowledge that will impact its innovation. This style looks at absorptive capacity as an outcome of not just research and development activities but similarly the variety or depth of the knowledge base of an organization, its former learning encounter, a mutual language, the presence of cross-functional points, and the mental frameworks, as well as problem-solving capability of the members in an organization (Camison and Fores, 2010). In this manner, absorptive capacity is vital for organizations to utilize outward knowledge and hence trigger inner innovation (Dutse, 2013).
Knowledge has become the most vital resource for organizations; outward knowledge concerning markets and technologies is thought to be key for generating inner knowledge in research and development units. Using absorptive capacity, organizations can change outward knowledge into innovative capabilities. Originally, absorptive capacity begins with gaining knowledge from the environment and it culminates by getting the best out of it (Saebi and Foss, 2015). This dynamic ability enables organizations to be in a better place to grow any form of innovation. Organizational learning theory recommends that an organization’s innovation actions are an outcome of its knowledge base.
Earlier research discovered that organizations having a greater absorptive capacity were more predisposed to undertake product, process, organizational, or even marketing innovations. In the same way, Calero-Medina and Noyons (2008) mapped programs of research connected to absorptive capacity and its connection to diverse domains, identifying substantial relations between absorptive capacity and innovation within the organization.
More current work, like the one by Chen and Chang (2012) discovered that the more the level of absorptive capacity of the organization, the more the level of innovativeness within the organization. They also discovered within their systematized literature review that most prevailing research concerning innovation literature accentuates the capacity to use outward knowledge. Moreover, this relation with fresh external knowledge enhances the absorptive capacity.
According to a research program undertaken by Liao et al (2007), empirical proof was given that innovation stems from the necessity for sharing knowledge, instigated by its absorptive capacity. When absorptive capacity progresses, it becomes very simple for anyone to form a noteworthy innovation grounded on acquired knowledge. Indarti (2010) similarly notes that absorptive capacity can be observed as a procedure by which a certain entity establishes innovative business goals (Wuryaningrat, 2013).
Notwithstanding the proof connecting absorptive capacity to innovation, this notion has developed in due course. The most comprehensive reconceptualization was suggested by Indarti (2010). They connected the idea to a set of company-wide routines and strategic procedures by which organizations acquire, change, and utilize knowledge to establish an active organizational capacity.

Dimensions of Innovation Capacity

Innovation is a vital element of the research enterprise, is very developed, and exists in all business procedures (Alshanty and Emeagwali, 2019). Nonetheless, the function of innovations, a main driver concerning a venture’s performance, has transformed in the latest years because of globalization and improved foreign competition (Pustorvrh et al., 2017). As a result, we comprehend innovation as the capacity of a firm to use knowledge and create novel products, services, and processes. Nonetheless, innovation typically encompasses some level of risk, which explains why outcomes are not always satisfying.
Various studies have demonstrated that innovativeness allows organizations to attain results, for instance, enhancement of the organization’s performance; growing exports; making a competitive edge; and or adding to the growth of the business. Generally, innovation assists organizations to react to competitive difficulties in globalized settings.
Innovativeness is an intricate capacity through which fresh knowledge and ideas are constantly used to attain excellent business performance using the integration of new offertories, product innovation, and the development of new processes for creating and distributing those novel offerings, and process innovation. These improve or sustain their efficiency and competitiveness. Process innovation concentrates on enhancing the efficiency and inner operations of an organization’s procedures to produce, bring together, or deliver the product. In this manner, another process can lessen the expenses or bring about extra production ability for an organization. Product innovation, conversely, is where an organization can present improved, distinguished, or even new products to the market to satisfy the needs of the consumers. Product innovation concentrates on the market and depends on robust abilities like quality, efficiency, speed, and flexibility, whereas process innovation has its place within the space of technical innovation. Both forms of innovation are closely connected and make up intricate procedures that normally encompass all functional sections of the organization.

References

Alshanty, A. M., and Emeagwali, O. L. (2019). Market-sensing capability, knowledge creation and innovation: the moderating role of entrepreneurial-orientation. J. Innov. Knowl. 4, 171–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.02.002
Calero-Medina, C., and Noyons, E. C. (2008). Combining mapping and citation network analysis for a better understanding of the scientific development: the case of the absorptive capacity field. J. Informetr. 2, 272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.005
Camisón, C., and Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: new insights for its conceptualization and measurement. J. Bus. Res. 63, 707–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.022
Chen, S. T., and Chang, B. G. (2012). The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on organizational innovation: a study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable. Contemp. Manag. Res. 8:7996. doi: 10.7903/cmr.7996
Daghfous, A. (2004). Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge-intensive best practices. S.A.M. Adv. Manag. J. 69, 21–27.
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dutse, A. Y. (2013). Linking absorptive capacity with innovative capabilities: a survey of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 12, 167–183. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.12.2.167_1
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge based theory of frim. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2486994
Huang, K. F., Lin, K. H., Wu, L. Y., and Yu, P. H. (2015). Absorptive capacity and autonomous R&D climate roles in firm innovation. J. Bus. Res. 68, 87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.002
Ibarra-Cisneros, M., Demuner-Flores, M. R., and Hernández-Perlines, F. (2021). Strategic orientations, firm performance, and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J. Strateg. Manag. doi: 10.1108/JSMA-05-2020-0121, [Epub ahead of print].
Indarti, N. (2010). The Effect of Knowledge Stickiness and Interaction on Absorptive Capacity. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Liao, S. H., and Wu, C. C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 1096–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.109
Pustovrh, A., Jaklič, M., Martin, S. A., and Rašković, M. (2017). Antecedents and determinants of high-tech SMEs’ commercialisation enablers: opening the black box of open innovation practices. Econ. Res. 30, 1033–1056. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1305795
Saebi, T., and Foss, N. J. (2015). Business model for open innovation: matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. Eur. Manag. J. 33, 201–213. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
Sancho-Zamora, R., Peña-García, I., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., and Hernández-Perlines, F. (2021). Moderating effect of proactivity on firm absorptive capacity and performance: empirical evidence from Spanish firms. Mathematics 9:2099. doi: 10.3390/math9172099
Sørensen, Morten (2007) ‘How Smart is Smart Money: An Empirical Two-Sided Matching Model of Venture Capital,’ Journal of Finance, 62 (6), 2725–2762.
Tseng, C. Y., Chang Pai, D., and Hung, C. H. (2011). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in KIBS. J. Knowl. Manag. 15, 971–983. doi: 10.1108/13673271111179316
Wuryaningrat, N. F. (2013). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity and innovation capabilities: an empirical study on small and medium enterprises in North Sulawesi. Indonesia. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 15, 61–77. doi: 10.22146/gamaijb.5402
Xie, X., Zoub, H., and Quick, G. (2018). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in high-tech companies: a multi-mediating analysis. J. Bus. Res. 88, 289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.019
Yaseen, S. G. (2020). “Potential absorptive capacity, realized absorptive capacity and innovation performance,” in International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies 2019, AISC 1018. ed. Ahram (Cham: Springer), 863–870.
Authors

Emilija Vukovic

Business Architecture Practice

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

(Mods, please do not delete this. I am truly in need for help and not in any means trying to troll or disrespect anyone.)
Hello everyone!
This going to be a long read and I hope that you will read it all in order to help me clarify my doubts and correct me if I misunderstood some concepts here.
First of all, I am from an Islamic country. I was born Muslim and I am (still) a Muslim.
Before you begin reading, I want to clarify that I am NOT a troll or just someone trying to waste your time. I am a Muslim in doubt and in desperate search for answers. I am expecting serious answers from people who know much more than I do and who can backup their claims/arguments with valid and truthful sources. I really hope I can find answers and clarifications to the things I am going to list below because this is going to define the future of my beliefs and decide if I will remain a Muslim with a stronger faith than ever, or not.
Now, about the main topic of this post:
In the recent weeks, I started having doubts about Islam, my mind is getting filled with questions that I can't seem to find the answers to and wish to get answers to all of them. I always had doubts in my life but I always found answers to them because my doubts were kind of idiotic and not as "big". This post is going to have titles/sections about each question with its source from the Quran, my view about it and what is bothering me.

First Point: How Did Satan (Iblis) Refuse to Prostrate to Adam while He Was in Heaven?

From the Quran (Surat Al Hijr):

So the angels prostrated all together—
but not Iblîs, who refused to prostrate with the others.
Allah asked, “O Iblîs! What is the matter with you that you did not join others in prostration?”
He replied, “It is not for me to prostrate to a human You created from sounding clay moulded from black mud.”
Allah commanded, “Then get out of Paradise, for you are truly cursed.
And surely upon you is condemnation until the Day of Judgment.”

According to Islam, Heaven is a place where hearts are full of purity, blessings and happiness with no hate and no negativity whatsoever. And from the verse above, Satan refused to prostrate when Allah (SWT) ordered him to. Where did this hate and arrogance come from if Heaven is pure? Iblis considered himself superior to Adam and that is something that should not be possible in Heaven.

Second Point: How Did Satan Whisper to Adam in Heaven?

We all know that Satan whispered to Adam in Heaven and here is the source from the Quran (Surat Al-A'Raf):

˹Allah said,˺ “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise and eat from wherever you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.”
Then Satan tempted them in order to expose what was hidden of their nakedness. He said, “Your Lord has forbidden this tree to you only to prevent you from becoming angels or immortals.”
And he swore to them, “I am truly your sincere advisor.”
So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and ˹did I not˺ tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?”

What is bothering me here and making me wonder so much is how was Satan able to "trick" Adam and his wife into eating the fruit if Adam and his wife were in Heaven while Satan got expelled from it? How did Satan communicate with them?

Third Point: Marrying Non-Muslims

In Surat Al-Baqarah it says:

Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe; for a believing slave-woman is better than a free polytheist, even though she may look pleasant to you. And do not marry your women to polytheistic men until they believe, for a believing slave-man is better than a free polytheist, even though he may look pleasant to you. They invite ˹you˺ to the Fire while Allah invites ˹you˺ to Paradise and forgiveness by His grace. He makes His revelations clear to the people so perhaps they will be mindful.

The order is clear here: Do NOT marry polytheistic women and men.
In Surat Al-Ma'idah it says:

Today all good, pure foods have been made lawful for you. Similarly, the food of the People of the Book is permissible for you and yours is permissible for them. And ˹permissible for you in marriage˺ are chaste believing women as well as chaste women of those given the Scripture before you—as long as you pay them their dowries in wedlock, neither fornicating nor taking them as mistresses. And whoever rejects the faith, all their good deeds will be void ˹in this life˺ and in the Hereafter they will be among the losers.

Here, it clearly says that Muslim men are allowed to marry chaste women (from the people of the book). Which means women that are not Muslim, but pure women from other religions (Christianity, Judaism).
So those people of the book, and more precisely those chaste women, are pure but still don't believe in Islam and the Quran which makes them non believers (Kafirun) even though Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) came with the message of Islam that is the true on only religion.
So Muslim men are allowed to marry those chaste women (even though they are not Muslim and they assign partners to Allah (SWT) which makes them polytheists or Mushrikun) according to the Ayah in Surat Al-Ma'idah, but Muslims were clearly ordered NOT to marry non believers and polytheists in Surat Al-Baqarah.

Fourth Point: Misunderstandings in Islam

Islam is a very clear religion with a clear book according to Surat Al-Ma'idah:

O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the Scriptures and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book

If Islam and the Quran are clear and can't be misunderstood, then why there are many branches (Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Kharijite)? Why there are so many disagreements between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims? Aren't Muslims supposed to be brothers and one Ummah. How are there different interpretations of Islam between these branches?
This is all I can recall at the moment. I hope I get serious answers with clear proof.
Thank you for reading!

I know it's budget and very low end but-
cash out retirement plan- $2,500,000
sell residence- $900,000 profit
buy used tent from Walmart clearance - $10
extension cord- $5
"first million espresso maker'- $1,000,000
CNC OD Grinder-$55,000
regular flights between atlanta and Indonesia, first class- $14,000 3x week to procure beans
I know this is very entry level and I apologize. my spouse really likes her cafe mocha and the Eversys Shotmaster pro (47,000$) just isn't giving the same flavor as Tim Hortons'
TY

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View.
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one of the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.
For those that have no time to read everything, I placed TLDRs under the most important points. Even reading that should give you a basic idea of what I'm talking about