How accurate is this? Are there any historical fallacies?

More useful as a historical document than the bible and torah.

>>1968846

There's very little description about any historical events in the Quran. It's mostly allegory and poetry.

Most of the historical records we know about early Muslim history come from the Hadith and sparing contemporary records.

We do however know that the Quran is roughly contemptuous to Muhammad as we have Quran fragments that can be radio carbon dated to around the reign of Uthman (the Caliph who compiled the Quran). We also know from those fragments that the textual integrity of the Quran has been largely maintained.

>>1968873
>the textual integrity of the Quran has been largely maintained

After Uthman burned all other variants. And if you ignore all the different versions from differing vowels...

Doesn't it say Mohamed rode a donkey with wings that breathed flames from one side of the Arabian peninsula to another in like 20 minutes?

I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

>>1968873
>It's mostly allegory and poetry.
Yep. It's an angry angel rant, not a history book.

>>1968930

no mention of that

that's only mentioned in the Hadith (which were written 200 years after Mohammed's death)

>>1968873

>we have Quran fragments that can be radio carbon dated to around the reign of Uthman

we have fragments that can be dated even earlier to the time of Mohammed himself

>>1969364
the case you are refering to was a dating of the parchment, not the ink. it was not too uncommon to reuse writing material in that era because of how expensive it was

>>1968846
It mentions the alexander romance story, referred to as dhul qarnayn, the seven sleepers of ephesus and other legends current at the time. It also says the crucifixion never happened, it just appeared to.