Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I know that God sent 4 holy books; the Thawrat, Zabur, Injil(The Bible), and the Quor'an. My question is why 4? Why not just one, and avoid conflict and complications? I have not intentions of blasphemy or offense to anyone, I'm just curious to know the opinions and thoughts that you all may have on this topic.

Peace

Well, the Quran says that all people were sent messengers - it doesn't say that the list of holy books is comprehensive (and indeed doesn't really call the injil a holy book as such).

Given that all people were sent messengers and therefore all were sent Divine messages, one could argue that where these were written down, they too are holy books.

The Quran is unique, in that it claims to be the literal (word for word) revelation from God and also claims to be the final scripture. But apart from that I don't think the named books in the Quran has any deeper signficance - they just happen to be earlier revelations (which all say later messenger with a 'final' message will come in future).

Cheers,
Shafique

That is interesting indeed. But I still wonder, couldn't God have avoided all religious conflicts by sending the Qur'an from the start?

P.S. You truly seem to be a very knowledgeable person, and I would love to have a verbal conversation sometime over a cup of coffee, mainly because it is very difficult these days to find a Mu'min who truly is tolerant of such questions. You truly represent the way Muslims are supposed to discuss such matters, and I appreciate that very much.

Thanks icenic - it is good to be able to share my limited knowledge - I also find that I'm always learning as well.

The question about the Quran not being revealed at the start is one I've pondered over, and when we take into account the evolution of societies, the reason for earlier local religious teachers becomes apparent.

Islam says that the message God sent to mankind matched the progress that man was making - and met the needs of the time. Before Islam, societies were such that a person could only really see a relatively small part of the world in their lifetime, and their message would only be spread slightly wider than this. There was a natural limit to how many people Noah, say, could communicate to and give his message. The same goes for say the Messenger sent to Northern India, or East China or Japan a few millenia ago.

Therefore, because of the needs of the time - localised and 'temporary' messages/religions were sent to people. When society had developed to the extent where a whole book could be transmitted, commited to memory, written down and then subsequently spread world wide - then it was sent down.

God could have created the world perfectly and set the technology to be like that of the 25th century - with transporters, no money, a federation etc. Instead the world and humans have evolved over time.

Islam therefore teaches that previous messages and messengers were right for their people and their times. Indeed look at the messages that they all brought and they don't claim to have a universal or eternal message - all say that 'more' is yet to come. It is only with the Quran that a scripture announces that it is the final and unviversal message. (Of course, non Muslims are free to not accept this claim of the Quran - but that is what the Quran says).

As you are probably aware, the hadith talk of over 100,000 prophets having been sent to the world (IIRC) - but the Quran only lists around 30 prophets (again, can't remember the exact number - but less than 50). Given that they are all bringing messages for the people they are preaching to - then logically we are talking about more than just the 4 books mentioned in the Quran (counting itself).

A nice side-effect of this logic is that if you read other scriptures - from Hindu puranas, Confucian sayings, Buddhist Sutras, Zoroastrian writings (Avesta) - you see a lot that reinforces the Islamic teachings that all peoples were sent messengers - there is a lot of overlap when you get to the core of what these religious teachers taught.

Muslims are taught to seek knowledge from where-ever one can - but unfortunately today many medieval mullahs don't seem to have digested this instruction from the Holy Prophet, pbuh.

My advice is to read widely and don't let anyone dissuade you from asking awkward questions! (And question the answers you get too!). Also - don't necessarily believe what an opponent of a philosophy/religion/group says about the group - go to the proponents of that group, and better still read the original scriptures/teachings etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

I will definitely read other scriptures and research this topic further, and I thank you for all the information you have given. Another thing, do you know any unbiased sites of reference? There are many Islamic sites out there, and many of their content is questionable.

All sites have their biases - if you want to study other religions, I suggest you go speak to those practicing the other religions and search for those who are willing to discuss. I have found others to be most generous in sharing their scriptures and interpretations (and these days, pretty much everything is available on line - when I started my research I used to get books mailed to me from around the world - all for free).

Its stating the obvious, but worth repeating, Google searches are a great resource for questions and great for getting/reading both sides of contentious issues. I'm a great advocate of testing one's beliefs and have actively looked at questions about Islam, for example - and for that there are many resources out there. There are equally good resources to answer these queries - but there are different perspectives at the periphery of Islamic theology, but the core issues are pretty well covered by most Islamic resources.

If you have specific questions or issues you want to research - let me know and I'll happily give you any suggestions that I can recommend.

Cheers,
Shafique

Once again, I deeply thank you for all the information you've shared.

Well, the Quran says that all people were sent messengers - it doesn't say that the list of holy books is comprehensive (and indeed doesn't really call the injil a holy book as such).

Koran 7:157 Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find written in the Torah and the Gospel

Koran 3.3 He sent down the Law and the Gospel

Written text, book - tomato, tomato.

^You're right eh - I should clarify my statement that the Injil is not 'a holy book as such'.

The Injil is revelation given to Jesus, and some of this was indeed written down. Contrast that with the Psalms of David and the Tawrat of Moses which also were written down.

Now the Christian Gospels are analagous to Hadith in Islam - in that we have multiple books by mulitiple authors/compilers with verses which contradict each other and of different lengths etc. There are whole books of gospels which are rejected by some/majority of Christians and there are verses within the Canon which people say should be ignored (women should not speak in Church etc etc)

'not a holy book as such' refers to the point that the Injil is therefore not referring to 'Holy Bible agreed and canonised by Pauline Christians after they had defeated Arian Christians' nor even the 'the synoptic gospels'. It doesn't actually refer to one book that was produced that only contained Jesus' revelations.


I hope that clarifies the issue - and that it is clear that church deliberations over which Gospels to accept or reject based on the prevailing Christian dogma, doesn't really affect what the Quran describes as the previou scriptures.

Cheers,
Shafique

'Holy Bible agreed and canonised by Pauline Christians after they had defeated Arian Christians' nor even the 'the synoptic gospels'.

LoL.

Arius was a 'follower' of Paul just as much as his contemporaries.

You have no idea what you're talking about, just spewing missionary crap you read off Ahmadiyya websites in the hopes of sounding right.

And you are a learned scholar of Islam perhaps ?

^LOL

(Note that our young 'scholar' doesn't dispute the canonisation of the Bible by the victors - who are, indeed, Pauline Christians. It is quite simple for people to look up what Arius believed and what the victors believed. It is only after Nicea that Arius' belief became a heresy, before then it was simply what a proportion of Christians believed.)

Cheers,
Shafique

(Note that our young 'scholar' doesn't dispute the canonisation of the Bible by the victors - who are, indeed, Pauline Christians. It is quite simple for people to look up what Arius believed and what the victors believed. It is only after Nicea that Arius' belief became a heresy, before then it was simply what a proportion of Christians believed.)

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about, just dropping power words and phrases like 'Pauline' and 'victors'.

Arius wasn't in conflict with 'Pauline' Christians.

LoL

LOL indeed.

Now, back to the discussion about the Holy Books - the similarities between the scriptures is a theme that coincidentally is also picked up in the book I'm currently reading - Ian Morris' 'Why the West Rules the world - for now'.

He lists the Jain and Buddhist scriptures in his list - as well as the teachings of Confucious and Tao/Dao writings.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, maybe you can start a thread with a review of that book later? Sounds interesting.

^Will do - less than half way through right now - over 700 pages long- a very comprehensive view of history (starts with the first humans and the various theories about the spread of humans around the world). Currently reading the world in around 1000 - 0 BCE- and trying to keep track of the various Chinese dynasties and the changes in power in the 'West'.

One point though - he defines 'West' to include the Middle East - so that a lot of the West vs East in these earlier periods is really comparing Chinese centred civilisation with that in Iraq and the Eastern Med (Mesopotamia, Syria, Iran). The Greeks and Romans will feature in coming chapters I imagine.. but it is interesting to note that the 'West' according to this historian is a history of the Mid East and Europe!

(Sorry for the off topic post - normal service is resumed)

Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future
Ian Morris

“Morris’ new book illustrates perfectly why one really scholarly book about the past is worth a hundred fanciful works of futurology. Morris is the world’s most talented ancient historian, a man as much at home with state-of-the-art archaeology as with the classics as they used to be studied . . . He has brilliantly pulled off what few modern academics would dare to attempt: a single-volume history of the world that offers a bold and original answer to the question, Why did the societies that make up 'the West' pull ahead of 'the Rest' not once but twice, and most spectacularly in the modern era after around 1500? Wearing his impressive erudition lightly — indeed, writing with a wit and clarity that will delight the lay reader — Morris uses his own ingenious index of social development as the basis for his answer." —Niall Ferguson, Foreign Affairs

http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-No ... 0374290024

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks!