Inspired texts may, at times be just that - by which I mean "inspired" by some aspect of their (human) writer's experience, but I do not think they are the literal work of some supernatural deity dictating the "literal word". I think Moses carved his own commandments for the social and political needs of his group at his time, and later followers wrote the "testaments" for much the same reason. Mohammed wrote the Koran, stealing liberally from other traditions and infusing it into the context of Arab culture. If he saw the archangel at all it was probably in his dreams, or with the aid of stimulants; his purpose was to politically unite a divided people.
I find the Devil's Apocrypha, Luciferian Magic and the Satanic Bible to be inspirational (to name but three works of many), but they are the works of humans, applying their insights and ideas to craft a philosophy or world view, and through it seeking to provoke thought by their readers. That may be inspiration (it's a subjective matter of taste and interpretation) but it is not the divine writing universal truths through human secretaries; in short it is not the word of God, but the mind of a human.
Similarly, the Al-Jilwah and the Liber Domini provoke and inspire, and as such their authors have brought a new of looking at our lives and the universe in which we seek to live; but equally it is the mind of human communicating a vision, or challenging their readers. I find both works provocative and inspiring as well.
Where the real problem comes with attributing to texts the idea that they are "the literal word of God" is that they then become the source of an inflexibility of mind and attitude which leads to social and cultural tyranny. This destructive attitude serves two kinds of minds; the oppressor who wants to enslave the masses, and those who prefer not to think and therefore wish the "divine" to tell them how it is so they don't have to think on their own. Neither is healthy to human affairs, as the last two thousand years of history have proven.
The Bible was written by many authors over a long period of time; yet the modern version that we have went through several editions and translations, and was compacted by an early church equivalent of a board of editors, who acted to reinforce church interests and to appease the Roman Emperor Constantine. They threw out the majority of "inspired" texts as heretical; but who were they to conclude what was, or was not "the world of God?" They weren't, because it wasn't. They were editors serving a political and social purpose of their time.
Those who believe the Bible to be the direct word of God do not know or understand this history, nor are many aware that there are many more alternate texts with at least an equal claim to being "the truth", and that this "truth" is often contradictory, because it is the product of differing views expressed by many authors over a long period of time. So it is with he books that made the editor's cut. To accept that the Bible, or any other "holy book" is the literal word of God is just an excuse for laziness. To promote that idea is, at best dishonest, or more likely, a control mechanism akin to the "big lie".
