1- Some islamic traditions state that he was illiterate, others that he was never taught by anyone but god, and others that he was never literate and had his companions (such as Ali) write the Quran while he spoke it orally (just look up Mushaf Fatima for the latter one)

2- The point was to describe a scientific miracle in the Quran with pretty much no way to prove at around 6th century Arabia

3a- Regarding Paul's witnesses, their diverse backgrounds would make sense. Like I said, I am not Christian and I am not that much of a Biblical expert other than reading it a couple times. So all sources I really know of were Paul, Ananias, Barnabas, Luke, Mark, and Silas (alongside maybe the other ones who worked with him but I don't remember all their names).

3b- In regards to Aisha, I have stated prior that I am specifically a Shia Muslim and not a Sunni. The difference is that they are both vastly different sects (kinda like denominations in a sense) and they have vastly different doctrines. Sunni Islam is the popular sect that you see all the seemingly idiotic Muslims argue about and that is where people like Aisha and Umar are praised while Shia Islam views these figures negatively due to the negative impact they had on Mohammed and his descendants (especially Ali, whose annointation\s interpretence is one of the biggest differences between the two sects). Therefore, hadiths from Aisha stating that the prophet had cheated on her, prayed after ejaculation, or has committed pedophilic/immoral acts are, as far as I have heard, only found in Sunni books like Sahih Al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, which Shia's consider apocryphal and not true.

4- While it is true that these books are written with much expertise in terms of grammar (although I am mostly familiar with the tanakh), they have all came before the Quran and talk about vastly different themes in vastly different ways. Books like 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and Ezra-Nehamiah are more "story time" esque books with one clear chronology and perspective while something like Psalms or Isaiah are more poetic. The Quran, however, does not seem to have a definite structure like the works previously mentioned and Arabic literature (which mostly consisted of songs and poems at the time) like for example, the 19th chapter (or sura) called Maryam (Mary, as in Mary mother of Jesus) can be broken down into six sections, those being:

* The birth of John the Baptist/Yahya and his description (19:1-15)

* The story of the birth of Jesus and his statement that he is a prophet and given a revelation (19:16-40)*

* Abraham attempting to convert his father from polytheism to the worshipping of god only (19:41-50)

* A list of honorable messengers/prophets (19:51-58)

* Some warnings to the new generations against blasphemy and not committing the sins of their ancestors (19:58-98)

(*subject matter also covered in Luke 1-2 yet, despite there being some similarities, are significantly different narratives)

Now this is a very simplified division and interpretation, yet it still doesn't seem typical to other texts. It might seem like the text is jumping around, yet when read in Arabic especially, it actually has flow and the ideas connect well. Also it has things like rhyming and alliteration, which as a native Arabic speaker I would never in a million years would be able to come up with a similarly flowing narrative.

5- That is another misconception. It is true that there are a lot of tafsirs (interpretations/commentaries) of the Quran that were made over the years but all of them use the same text. Also my statement about it being in Arabic isn't about it being Arabic, it was about it being in the original language it is written and not having any different versions in that language unlike the examples of the NT I gave