Messages

accidentally i wrote the answer in the other post here https://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2977.0 but let me put here as well:

for starters, your article dives deep into complex linguistic and theological debates about terms like al kitab and al hikma. while thats impressive, it also highlights a big problem: understanding these concepts requires a deep knowledge of Classical Arabic, Quranic exegesis, and historical context. that level of complexity just doesnt align with the idea that a divine message should be universally accessible. if the Quran is meant for all of humanity, why does its core message require so much specialized knowledge to unpack? shouldnt it be clear and straightforward for everyone, regardless of their background or education?
you make a compelling case that al kitab doesnt necessarily mean a physical book but can refer to divine decrees or authoritative instructions. thats an interesting linguistic point, but heres the thing: if a divine message is truly universal, it shouldnt rely on nuanced interpretations to convey its core truths. the fact that we need scholars to explain these terms suggests that the Quran isnt as accessible as it claims to be. if its only understandable to experts, how can it be a guide for all of humanity?
another issue is the ambiguity around terms like al kitab and al hikma. your article points out that these have been interpreted in various ways by different scholars over centuries. but if the Quran is supposed to be a clear and unambiguous divine guide—especially when eternal consequences are at stake—this level of ambiguity is a serious problem. u argue that al hikma is an attribute of the Quran rather than a separate source of guidance, but even that interpretation isnt universally accepted. it ends up coming down to personal tastes and preferences, which isnt exactly the hallmark of a divine message.
and then theres the reliance on human interpretation. ur article emphasizes the role of human intellect in understanding the Quran, but that contradicts the idea that a divine message shouldnt need intermediaries or fallible human input. u handle the interpretations of al kitab and al hikma well, but u dont provide a definitive, objective interpretation. instead, u leave room for individual understanding and reflection. thats fine for a philosophical discussion, but if the Qurans message depends on human interpretation, how can it be considered a clear or objective divine guide? it just ends up undermining its claim to be universal and timeless.
so, while i really respect the work youve put into this, i think these are some serious shortcomings when we hold the Quran up to the standards of what a divine message should be. its not just about the intellectual debate—its about whether the Quran can truly be a guide for everyone, in every time and place, without relying on fallible human intermediaries.

....

where I got my criteria for a divine message? these criteria are not arbitrary but are based on the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and universality. If a message is truly from God and intended for all of humanity it must be accessible, clear, and verifiable by every individual. this is not a subjective standard but a logical necessity for any claim to divine universality. If the stakes are as high as eternal salvation, anything less than perfect clarity and accessibility would be unjust. Do you believe that God would create a system where understanding His message depends on factors like language, culture, or historical context? If so how is that consistent with the idea of a just and merciful God


the fact that no such book exists does not invalidate my argument; rather, it highlights the failure of current religious texts to meet the standards of a truly divine message. If God exists and wishes to communicate with humanity, he is certainly capable of creating a message that is clea, universal, and self-verifying. The absence of such a book does not mean my criteria are flawed it means that the existing texts including the Quran fall short of what  divine message should be. Shouldn't we hold a text claiming divine origin to the highest possible standard? or we should accept in a circular logic its divine because it says so and use all our intellect to prove it is so by first accepting it out of habit, culture, and our ancestors' following of it just like a hidden fanatism with a guise of intellectual dressing it and boast around how much time you devoted to understand it to put it into perspective and you have no respect for ordinary people who are also meant to got the message but too lazy or not intelligent like you to study it for years or because of your being arabic or knowing arabic give you a moral high ground because you understand it well comparing other poor beings?

Quran claims to be a clear and accessible guide for all of humanity (e.g., 12:1–2, 54:17). However in practice it requires knowledge of Arabic historical context and scholarly interpretation to be understood fully. This creates a contradiction between its claim to universality and its actual accessibility. If the Quran is truly a divine message, why does it not provide a self-verifying mechanism that anyone, regardless of background, can recognize? Why does it rely on fallible human intermediaries to explain its teachings? These are not criticisms made in ignorance but observations based on the Quran's own claims and their practical implications

You argue that I must demonstrate sincere study of the Quran to engage with its teachings. But this demand contradicts the Quran's claim to be a divine guide for all humankind. If the Quran's message is only accessible to those who devote significant time and effort to studying it, then it becomes a subjective experience, shaped by the interpretations of scholars who often disagree among even themselves. This undermines the Quran's claim to be a universal and objective moral guide. If divine guidance is meant to be timeless and universal, why does it require human intermediaries to be understood? And if the Quran's message is not clear to every individual, how can it hold humanity accountable for failing to follow its teachings?

Dear Fireheart47 i am just seeing you are trying to walk around the problem but not even trying to address the issues stated above as a list instead you are calling for a submission based on personal historical emotional reasons. you could kindly look at this link for my humble idea of how a holy book claiming to be salvation of people coming from god should be: God Testing Humanity: Crystal Clear Approach Suggestions   and also kindly check this Why Would...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe God wants you to challenge even Him? Not just blindly follow what came before you—things you can't verify with crystal clarity, like so-called "clear revelations." You've got a choice here: either surrender to what you read in these books, dig a hole, and bury all your thoughts while your mind screams for answers, comforting your soul by saying, "God works in miraculous ways," until one day your brain just stops functioning like it should and surrenders fully, just like your soul.

Or—you pull yourself together with all the courage and sincerity you've got, call God out for His actions, expose what's wrong, and don't let some repeating words or meditations turn your brain into a sponge, ready to soak up any nonsense disguised as divine authority.

Maybe God is more honored to see His creation challenging Him. After all, didn't He say in 8:22:
"Indeed, the worst of all beings in the sight of Allah are the ˹wilfully˺ deaf and dumb, who do not understand"?

So, your exit ticket to freedom and happiness is this: willfully, honestly, and sincerely challenge what you accept as true. Stop attributing everything to some hocus pocus, spiritual dogmas, and divine word salad. Don't turn yourself into a slave and then feel proud that you used your brain to become a slave—like that somehow makes you different? Phew.

Challenge everything. If God exists, He doesn't want bots surrendering their will and mind—things He keeps pointing out are so important, the very things that make us human. So, why not think outside the box? Reach beyond.

Consider this fascinating paradox: During the periods when divine books and prophets came in succession (like from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad), human civilization was relatively stable. The basic structure of society, technology, and human challenges remained largely similar across centuries. Yet even in this period of relative stability, divine guidance was repeatedly updated and renewed through new messengers and revelations.

Now let's contrast this with our modern era:
In just the last 200 years, humanity has experienced unprecedented changes:

We've moved from horse-drawn carriages to space travel
From handwritten letters to instant global communication
From simple tools to artificial intelligence
From local communities to a globally interconnected world
From basic medicine to genetic engineering
From traditional family structures to radically different social arrangements
From simple economic systems to complex global finance

The rate and magnitude of change in human society today far exceeds anything seen in the previous 1400 years. We face entirely new moral and ethical challenges that couldn't have been imagined in the 7th century: genetic modification, artificial intelligence, digital privacy, environmental crisis, nuclear weapons, space colonization, and so much more.

This raises an intriguing question: If divine guidance needed regular updates during humanity's most stable period, wouldn't it be even more crucial now, when we're experiencing the most dramatic transformations in human history? How do we reconcile the concept of a final revelation with the exponential pace of change and unprecedented challenges of our modern world?
This isn't just about new rules for new situations - it's about fundamental questions of human existence and divine guidance in an era where the very nature of human experience and consciousness might be transformed by technology and social change. 

Indeed in that are signs for those who discern.

[1. Why is Consent the Only Issue?]

yes you didnt really answer my point so maybe i can make a list which should be addressed:

1. Why is Consent the Only Issue?
Why does the Quran only prohibit forcing slave women into prostitution, but not the act itself if she "consents"?
In a system of slavery, where power dynamics make true consent impossible, how can this distinction be morally justified?
Does this not create a loophole where exploitation is allowed under the guise of "consent"?

2. How Can a Slave Girl Withstand Her Master's Demands?
How can a young girl—barely past puberty, perhaps as young as 10—stand up to her master, who owns her as property, either through purchase or as spoils of war?
In a system where she has no rights, no autonomy, and no protection, how can she possibly say "no" without fear of punishment or worse?
Is it not absurd to expect her to resist when her survival and safety depend entirely on her master's whims?

3. Why Does God Ignore the Men Involved?
Why does God turn a blind eye to the men—both the renters and the beneficiaries—who profit from this exploitation? Why are there no divine threats or punishments for these men, while the vulnerable slave girl is left to suffer? How can God, who claims to be just and merciful, not use His might to protect the weak and punish the oppressors?

Why is God shy of commanding—or even threatening—those who exploit slave women, declaring their actions wrong and against His religion? He can easily send His followers to war, commanding them to kill and be killed, yet when it comes to protecting vulnerable girls—barely past puberty—He is silent. How can we expect these young girls, widows, and traumatized women to raise objections and say 'no' to their masters, when they have no power, no rights, and no protection? Instead of addressing the root cause of the exploitation, God says He will forgive the slave girls if they are forced into prostitution. But what exactly are these girls and women being forgiven for? Did they choose to be sold as property? Did they choose to be exploited by their masters? Why are the real perpetrators—the men who buy, sell, and profit from this exploitation—not threatened, shunned, or even called out as sinners? God claims to be all-merciful, yet His mercy seems to flow only to the victims, not to the oppressors. If a slave woman is 'forced,' He says, 'Don't worry, she will be forgiven.' But what about the men who forced her? Why are they not held accountable? With a wave of divine forgiveness, the case is closed—but the injustice remains. If God is truly just and merciful, why does He not use His power to end the exploitation rather than merely offering forgiveness after the fact?
4. Does God Prioritize Worship Over Justice?
Why does God prioritize punishing pagans for their disbelief over protecting vulnerable women from exploitation?
Is God more concerned with being worshipped than with the suffering of those He created?
How can this be reconciled with the claim that God is just, merciful, and compassionate?

5. Why No Clear Command to Stop This Heinous Act?
Why doesn't God issue a clear, unequivocal command to completely abolish this practice, as He does with other commands like waging war against pagans?
Why does He instead offer forgiveness to the exploited slave girl, as if her suffering is secondary to the comfort of her oppressors?
If God can command believers to kill pagans "wherever you find them," why can't He command them to stop exploiting vulnerable women?

6. The Absurdity of Expecting Resistance from the Vulnerable
How can we expect a slave girl—traumatized, powerless, and often just a child—to resist her master's demands?
Is it not cruel to place the burden of resistance on her while offering no protection or justice?
Why does the Quran not address the root cause of her vulnerability—the system of slavery itself—instead of merely regulating its abuses?

7. The Hypocrisy of Selective Severity
Why is God so severe in punishing pagans for their beliefs but so lenient toward Muslim masters who exploit slave women?
If eternal consequences are at stake, why is disbelief treated as a greater sin than the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable?
Does this not reveal a troubling inconsistency in God's priorities?

9. The Failure to Protect the Most Vulnerable
Why does the Quran not explicitly protect the most vulnerable—widows, orphaned girls, and those traumatized by war—from being exploited by their own community?
If God is truly merciful, why does He not intervene to shield these women from further suffering?
How can this be reconciled with the claim that God is the ultimate protector of the oppressed omnibenevolent?

All of this makes one wonder: why does God take the worship of idols by pagans so seriously, threatening them with eternal hellfire and even allowing believers to kill them 'mercifully' when the opportunity arises, yet when it comes to a slave girl—someone far more vulnerable and in need of divine protection and mercy—He seems to look the other way? If a slave girl is coerced or forced into prostitution, the Quran says God will forgive her if she is compelled, but it doesn't directly threaten or punish the masters who exploit her. Why is there no divine warning or severe consequence for those who commit such a heinous act?

It's striking that God's wrath is so fiercely directed at pagans for their beliefs, but when it comes to the exploitation and suffering of a powerless slave girl, there's no comparable force or urgency to protect her or hold her oppressors accountable. If God's justice is meant to be absolute and His mercy all-encompassing, why does He not use His power to threaten or punish those who exploit the vulnerable, rather than focusing so heavily on those who simply worship idols? Shouldn't the moral urgency of protecting the weak and oppressed outweigh the condemnation of disbelief?

Quran 24:33: "And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.
If the Quran is a timeless and universal moral guide, how do you reconcile Quran 24:33, which prohibits forcing slave women into prostitution but does not explicitly forbid the act itself if the woman is 'okay with it'? The verse seems to focus on easing the pain of the slave girl if she is forced, but it does not impose harsh consequences on masters or those who exploit them. Doesn't this create a moral loophole where exploitation can still occur under the guise of 'consent,' especially in a system where power dynamics make true consent impossible? If the Quran is meant to uphold justice and dignity for all, why does it not unequivocally condemn the practice of using slave women for sexual purposes, rather than merely regulating it? How can this be reconciled with being omnibenevolent.

ok le me dive a little deeper to this core idea and simpilfy:

Universial comprehension:
A divine message for everyone should be clear to all people, no matter their language, culture, or time period.
If you need specific languages (like Arabic, Hebrew, or ancient Greek) to understand it, it's not truly universal.

The Paradox of Interpretation:
If a message is from God, why does it need humans to explain it?
Relying on human interpretation for something as important as eternal salvation doesn't make sense

The Authentication Problem:
A real divine message should have a way to prove it's from God, something anyone can recognize.
Instead, religious texts rely on human history and tradition, which can't be fully trusted.

Cultural Imprisonment:
Religious texts are tied to specific cultures and times, making them hard to understand for others.
If the message is for everyone, why is it so culturally specific?

The Justice Question:
It's unfair if understanding God's message depends on:
Knowing ancient languages.
Studying history.
Dedicating ur life.
Being born into the "right" religion.
This makes access to divine truth a matter of luck or personal interest or some other emotional situations, not justice.

Challenge to Believers:
If your religion claims to have universal truth:
Why does it need experts to explain it?
How can it be universal if it's not clear to everyone?
How do you know your understanding isn't just shaped by your culture?

Conclusion:

A truly divine message would be clear, self-verifying, and accessible to everyone from , everywhere, at any time.
It should be equally understandable to people of all backgrounds—whether a shepherd, a professor, a farmer, or a tech entrepreneur—regardless of their language, culture, or education level or any other barrier which could lessen the chances of their receving the message for their eternal happiness!.
If eternal consequences are at stake, anything less than perfect clarity and fairness would be unjust.

People should not have to rely on fallible human assumptions, hearsay, or ancient cultural preservation to discover a message that determines their eternal fate. If the stakes are so high, why obscure the fact that they are being tested, forcing them to decipher clues from thousands of years ago or trust contemporaries who claim to have solved the puzzle for them? Proponents of these systems argue that humanity was "mature enough" to receive a final, eternal book, yet when confronted with its failure to abolish slavery or address other moral failings, they claim humanity "wasn't ready" for such changes. This raises a glaring contradiction: if humanity was ready for a divine, eternal test determining the fate of billions, why wasn't it ready to end the suffering of slaves? A truly divine and just system would ensure everyone, regardless of time or place, has equal access to clear, self-evident truths—anything less undermines the fairness and universality of the message.

https://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2977.0

It lacks objective criteria for evaluation.

It relies on subjective judgment, which is influenced by bias and personal perspective.

It is based on circular reasoning, making it unfalsifiable.

It is practically impossible to evaluate due to the subjectivity of language and literature.

If a book claims to be of divine origin and is intended for all of humanity, it should indeed be accessible, clear, and verifiable by every individual without the need for intermediaries, historical context, or linguistic expertise or barriers. This is especially critical if the stakes are as high as salvation or eternal consequences.

Accessibility and Clarity:
A divine message intended for all of humanity should be universally accessible and understandable, regardless of language, culture, or historical context. It should not require intermediaries, scholars, or clergy to interpret or explain it.

Self-Verification:
Every individual should be able to verify the authenticity of the message independently, like a "key and lock" mechanism. This would eliminate the need for fallible human intermediaries and ensure that the message is coherent and clear to all.

High Stakes Demand High Clarity:
If the stakes are as high as salvation or eternal consequences, the message must be crystal clear and easily verifiable. Anything less would be unjust, as it would leave people at risk of misunderstanding or being misled by fallible interpreters.

Critique of Current Religious Texts:
Current religious texts, including the Quran, Bible, and Torah, fail to meet these standards. They are deeply tied to historical and cultural contexts, require interpretation by fallible humans, and are not universally accessible or verifiable.

an honest and sincere email to God:

Subject: A Humble Request for Clarity and Accessibility in Divine Messages

Dear God,

If You exist and have sent divine messages to humanity, I humbly request that You consider the following:

Universal Accessibility:
A divine message intended for all of humanity should be accessible to every individual, regardless of language, culture, or historical context. It should not require intermediaries, scholars, or clergy to interpret or explain it.

Self-Verification:
Every person should be able to verify the authenticity of the message independently, like a "key and lock" mechanism. This would eliminate the need for fallible human intermediaries and ensure that the message is coherent and clear to all.

High Stakes Demand High Clarity:
If the stakes are as high as salvation or eternal consequences, the message must be crystal clear and easily verifiable. Anything less would be unjust, as it would leave people at risk of misunderstanding or being misled by fallible interpreters.

Current Religious Texts:
Current religious texts, such as the Quran, Bible, and Torah, fail to meet these standards. They are deeply tied to historical and cultural contexts, require interpretation by fallible humans, and are not universally accessible or verifiable.

If You truly care for all of humanity, I ask that You provide a message that meets these criteria, so that every individual can independently verify its authenticity and decide whether to follow or refuse it.

Sincerely,
a Humble human being and i know u already know

even if they came with a script to match who would decide it is better or lesser than quran? the argument is logically flawed.