Why would God limit itself with with a final book and a final messenger?

[relearning]

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.

[relearning]

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.

[Wakas]

peace,
I recommend this article:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/kitab-hikma.html

Specifically the discussion on what is "hikma"/wisdom.

[relearning]

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.