I have no clue who the "you" is, but if you would ask me, I would answer, yes, I need to know that I believe what I believe for a reason. That's why you have empirical, versus stated beliefs. You have Occurrent, Dispositional, Explicit, etc Beliefs.
My beliefs are empirical indeed -- some of the things in the Qur'an are extraordinary claims, others less so. I have to ask though, what reason would be sufficient for you to believe? I refer back to my allegory earlier; it is of no difference to the man whether he convinces you or not, he decided of his own will to tell you the tale. I think what more we are looking at here, rather than types of belief, are types of analytical behaviour.
I infer that you believe things based on the truths present and work backwards from there, I believed in the Qur'an by working from the basis that this is a series of 'truths' being presented to me, and then compared them with my own experience and knowledge. As in modern science, even things that have been observed to be true remain a theory. Without the willingness to accept something alternative is the truth, it becomes impossible to progress.
I once thought I saw a UFO. Later inspection showed me it was wishful thinking combined with a trick by my brain. So I stopped believing I saw a UFO.
I don't feel this is a fair analogy, seeing something in the sky could be anything from a unique angle of an object in the sky, to indeed, a UFO. The Qur'an is either the work of man, or the work of God as it claims.
And that is precisely why there is something called faith. Which I lack. So if a person claims he has a Toyota in his garage I accept it. If the claim is there's an invisible dragon in my garage or a 747 I sort of would expect extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.Again, I don't feel this is a fair analogy. It feels a lot like the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. If you switch God with something ridiculous and remove the basis of the belief in God -- i.e his works, then it is only logical that you wouldn't believe the claim.
What "extraordinary insight" are you talking about? I am not aware of anything extraordinary said of Muhammad. Except maybe the splitting of the moon, but that is more allegoric than factual.
Not 'of Muhammad', 'by Muhammad'. If you take away God being the author of the Qur'an, then the book must be written by Muhammad -- or Muhammad and his allies. In this case, one would consider the Qur'an to be something extraordinary Muhammad wrote, in the same way The Illiad is something extraordinary Homer wrote.
What exactly would you call "like the Qur'an"? And if someone did, who would be the judge and by what standard? Sorry, the inimitability claim fails badly in reality.
A book claiming to have knowledge 'of the Unseen' if you like. As for judges, considering humanity is subjective the only fair judge would be all of those who read it. However, this is irrelevant, as is the question posed at the end of my first post. The Qur'an itself claims it is of no difference whether you believe it or disbelieve in it, for the author is free of need.