Most western countries governments like Britain really don't see Islam as a problem though, islamic schools and sharia are continuing to flourish
was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril),[6][7] gradually over a period of approximately 23 years, beginning on 22 December 609 CE,[8] when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632, the year of his death.
My guess is there should be an Official Print (OP) published by the UN for the holy books of the major faiths! The OP should add some Critical Comments (CC) provided by a committee of worldwide scholars and faith leaders. The CC should concentrate on merely some obviously illogical, impossible, impractical, misleading, harmful, and delusional verses, if any (see below), through not only explaining their rational, logical, scientific and evidence-based reasons, but also asking life-time personal research and investigation to be further carried out cautiously and seriously by readers. The total number of CC should be kept to an absolute minimum. Quality is more important than quantity. Ideally, an interfaith concept of God, after considering contemporary philosophical development such as Stoicism, would be also introduced/ mentioned primitively. Initially, all public places such as airport, public schools, prisons, hotels, government-funded libraries/ museums/ universities/ etc, etc. should be only allowed to use this OP. Otherwise, individuals can buy a copy of the OP from general bookshops or Amazon.com. In the long run, world governments should be able to stimulate/ motivate most preachers to use this OP of their faith in their worship places. Perhaps should have been done long time ago. Never too late! lol
For those nations, not yet conquered, who are willing to face the rash of data regarding the exploitation of soft targets by book-inspired warriors: "Islam" is a vague word. 'Koran' is more specific (although text can often be interpreted different ways). Separating Mohammed from the Koran, the book can be looked at more critically, especially the parts that advocate for continual world-wide war until total domination by (submission to) a supremacist class of overlords. I'm trying to remember the source that suggested Mohammed may NOT have written the book...that it may have been constructed in a dark age when it was hard to check facts/sources. A google search of "Did Mohammed write the Koran?" immediately yields information about his illiteracy. But its more than that. There was a long period of oral tradition where someone (who?) eventually wrote down what served his/their own agenda. It could have been Mohammed was harmless, attacking no one, only to have his legend completely hijacked.
That's a claim anyone could have made in constructing the Koran post-legend. Possibly there may have been a desert nomad who felt he was communicating with an angel, but what does an angel say to an illiterate nomad? Who knows! But anyone with an agenda, and a pen, can later, over the course of a hundred years, put words in the mouth of an "angel", as well as words in the mouth of a "prophet". Not like it hadn't happened before. Personally, i would not credit Jesus with much more than 5% of the red letters of the "new testament" part of the Judeo-Christian collection of god-lore. The raids described in the Koran may have been centuries old tales of tribal warfare, where the name Mohammed is inserted as the leader.
I think this kind of criticism would become more common in a state that has already put out a treatise on why Mohammed is not associated with the Koran at all...having nothing to do with it. I don't think this kind of statement would be baseless propaganda. I think there is a good, solid argument for it, that stays out of the weeds of the content. Once Mohammed is dissociated from the book, the book can be legislatively treated as the weapon that it is. That could mean a state issued version, purged of the most offending passages. Anyone not availing themselves (if they call themselves Muslims) of the purged version, will simply reveal themselves as an enemy combatant.
I'm not sure how a state could draft, for example, a Foreign Constitutions Act, or a Weaponized Literature Authorship Act. Because the Koran is largely plagiarized from mostly Judeo-Christian literature, it might be hard for a state populated by a large demographic of Jews and Judeo-Christians to tackle the problem head on. In that case, i predict on-going warfare, for a few more centuries. The reason is because i see the Koran as a military response to the psychological warfare represented by the Judeo-Christian body of literature, a combination of folk-lore and god-lore called the "bible". It's hard to ignore the world-domination themes set out in the bible. Arriving in Arabia, a few warlords may have recognized the weaponized aspects of the Judeo-Christian "holy books", and decided to weaponize a few books of their own. Effective, the rest is history.
Well if Wikipedia says it, that settles it. Re: Wikipedia: Let me tell you a story. There's a guitarist with enough albums out to have his own Wikipedia page. The page tells the story of the development of the guitarists career, who he associated with, when, what the names of the bands were that he associated with. I noticed that the article named just about every other guitar player he associated with, and when...except me. Even it was 37 years ago, people can't get the story right. So i took the liberty to edit the page to rectify what i knew about certain periods, making a reference to an un-named other guitar player, namely, me (worth a few laughs). While i didn't think my name was important, i did think the chronology and the associations were important. Still, the page perpetuates some strange fiction about how far back the current name of the band goes. It's really messed up, even while the subject is still alive and able to edit things himself. Getting back to Mohammed, it's admitted that a lot of it was devoted to memory. If even for a few years, things can start to go south quickly. We are supposed to believe these people were good at memorizing whole books of great length. Already the tale is stretched. No, i don't believe anything the wiki article tells us. A state actor, on the other hand, might have some influence on a wiki article, especially if there was a book published describing another, more plausible theory, on how the Koran came about. Given enough published books, a wiki article can be dominated. I see the Koran as wholly concocted, barely hanging on a thread of a legend (Mohammed), designed as a weapon of war, a constitution, and a flag to be planted in the conquered territories. As such, you aren't necessarily going to have a clear picture of how it originated. Currently, we have something called a "backstory". That's all.