Why Solomon build new temple when a central place of worship was in place
-
The lore is of differing opinion it seems. Quran (seems to) say/s Abraham and Ismael built the house, but other sources such as the Bible say that Ismael was to be separated from his father and to form an assembly "in another place/distant lands". I tend to trust the other sources to be honest that say Ismael traveled away from his father.
It might be Abraham and Ishmael built the house, but which house?
Definitely not Mecca..
Mecca is definitely too far away, 2 months of travel from Canaan region, it could be 3-4 months of Travel, considering Abe was already an old man when Ishmael is around, his walking speed could be reduced to merely 2-3 KM/Hr on average.
3-4 months of travel, through dangerous desert region, without a caravan full of food and water supply.. the chance of even surviving the travel is very slim..On Psalms, supposedly written during David era, the Ishmailites seems to be living nearby, still within the Canaan neighborhood.. And not as far away as Mecca or Hejaz region.. (let alone Yemen.. )
For they have conspired together with one mind; Against You they make a covenant The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal and Ammon and Amalek, Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
Psalm 836The Edomites were living across the Jordan river, the Eastern Bank of Jordan river, of what is today Western part of Jordan.
In a linguistic sense, the word that claims that Abraham (and Ismael) built a house is meaning "assembly" (a foundation on which something stands), so what these folks did was to unite people under a banner of sanity (Islam - as the word salam means to be sound/pristine/healthy). It means people who choose that path should employ logic rather than blind faith which is ironical considered how it is today and how it has been throughout the years after him.
If that's the case.. then it's ironic that even Abe was seem to lose his sanity himself...
I mean sacrificing his own son and all... -
Jafar,
Abraham hardly would sacrifice his son. It is a likely misreading due to language barriers and wild imagination of clerics. Another source by ancient historian Josepheus gives no mention of Abraham's sacrifice. On the other hand is Ismael and Abraham sent out to a place by a vision Abraham has and Abraham needs to sacrifice Ismael to go elsewhere. He is then separated from his father. He is told Ismael is to form a nation there (word nation is usually connoting community by its Semitic word Ummah - same root used to say mother because you speak of your origin or kinship). After this separation there is barely any mention of Ismael in Jewish tradition but is mostly about Isaac, so one can infer that he set off towards where he was inspired and the story of him saved in another record if there was anything written down.
It is contradictory if Abraham would call for Islam (sanity/soundness) and be tricked by an imaginary perception of him sacrificing his son. He would obviously be better than that.
Obviously there are a lot of inconsistencies with both Quran and the Old Testamental Bible and one is that the story of Moses is misgiving. Moses is in command of Egypt's military as a commanding officer and he leads an offensive towards Nubia (if I remember correctly) and is held in high regard. After a while he discloses his faith in God being "Who Is" and does what we call preaching. He gets in a bad day with the Egyptian authorities and raises a mistrust for him. Soothsayers mention him as a prophet (which Semitic word means insightful) and eventually they conspire against him and Moses has to flee, despite what he had done for the nation. His followers are imprisoned, anyone posing a threat to the king/Pharaoh. He cannot stand someone claiming God is "Who Is" when he himself is divine and the high God representative on Earth (they believed like that then).
Moses is feels broken and has lost much of his spirit, but once he passes by a mountain he senses something and approaches the energy (symbolized by a word traditionally claimed to mean fire) and he can hear/feel a voice from within himself. It is then the managers of "Who Is" instructs him of what to do. He is to confront Pharaoh and much of that story you know yourself, it goes roughly like the traditional version although that one is dramatized.
So Moses goes there and says "I am have sent me" meaning like "I sent me through my own being". And his teaching is that God's force is by the person "Who Is".
The highly misconceived word Allah comes from the third-person of what Moses is told to tell the "Children of the Chief (Israel)". Children of Israel is a "codename" for those in the unity of God and has always been. It is no ethnic belonging implied. There was from the start meant to be what people today call idolatry, i.e. God's ("holy" spirit was in them and they were "Who Is". It is the meaning of the word Allah. The word is obviously not a word for a "god" but it is and together and you may recognize the Semitic third person letter/word Heh. So AL - Heh is "the who". Allah (the combination with dual Lam) means "the who which" or "Is Who Is". is " Who Are", if it was "their God" it would be if taking Allah is a name including the . The correct grammar with two is otherwise explicitly employed on other words.
And sorry for turning into preaching, but it is important.
Be well
Amenuel -
Thanks all, for your feedback
Would you agree that all religions believe in certain sacred time, place, books, people, etc which is necessary to follow their rituals and practise their chosen/adopted/inherited religion(s). I understand that today's reality is that kaaba in Makkah is the central place for its followers - the sacred place. If that sacred place was in existence in ancient past also (must-be built by someone important), I wonder what could have been the reason for building another significantly important sacred place by another significantly important person belonging to the same religion. Was it for different purposes (education, administrative, location convenience, etc)? Does it mean that there were more than one sacred places that were simultaneously in active operations by different people/group within the same religion at the same time in past with equal importance?
@Truthseeker11
By the way, Patanahi means 'I dont know' when you read as pata nahi (urdu words). I chose this name for the forum to acknowledge the fact about myself. I want If to explore different versions of known stories I studied (during schooling, etc) and learn what I can't get to know from people face-to-face. Please feel free to pass on any piece of information that is useful (no matter how bizarre it is considered). I shall await from you the information on biblical stories/their origin as referred in your post.Thanks and Regards
-
Would you agree that all religions believe in certain sacred time, place, books, people, etc which is necessary to follow their rituals and practise their chosen/adopted/inherited religion(s). I understand that today's reality is that kaaba in Makkah is the central place for its followers - the sacred place. If that sacred place was in existence in ancient past also (must-be built by someone important), I wonder what could have been the reason for building another significantly important sacred place by another significantly important person belonging to the same religion. Was it for different purposes (education, administrative, location convenience, etc)? Does it mean that there were more than one sacred places that were simultaneously in active operations by different people/group within the same religion at the same time in past with equal importance?
The Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath
-- Mark 2I don't think Solomon belong to the same religion (read Muslim) as those who do their ritual in Mecca, he certainly didn't recite the Shahada properly thus definitely disqualified to be a Muslim. And or he believe in the Quran (or Gospel) let alone Hadiths..
The "place of gathering" was built, as the name implied, as a place for gathering..
It's natural that people build the place of gathering near their location or at least easily reachable by the people that they invite to gather there..Having said that, as the history tells us..
After Solomon built that temple in Jerusalem, few generations after his past away, there's a civil war in the "Unified Kingdom of Israel", the kingdom was later splitted into two, the Northern and the Southern. The Northern gather around mount Gerizim, while the Southern gather around mount Zion (Jerusalem).Why? Because Jerusalem was not inside the territory of the Northern kingdom... so they decide to have a new place. The northerner later on shall be labeled as "Samarites" / "Samaritans"... and they by the Southerner are considered as "A different religion". The Samarites were despised by the Southerners (Judean) and vice versa...
Fast forward through time... we are now seeing a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites.
The Sunnis has clearly defined Shiites as "different religion".. They are 'dangerous', they are "not true Islam" and "We are the true Islam" etc.. etc..
The Sunnis in Mecca is now considering to ban the Shiites from performing their Hajj to Mecca, given they're 'different religion' now.. thus they're a 'kuffar' and their 'blood is halal to be shed'.Soon, it will not be surprising for the Shiites to have a separate and new place for gathering, perhaps closer to where they're living...
I hope the above explain the "reason" on 'building another important sacred place'.
-
Peace Jafar,
Soon, it will not be surprising for the Shiites to have a separate and new place for gathering, perhaps closer to where they're living...
If this video is authentic then what you said has already happened
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNnLC7lEGSE
Peace
-
Peace Jafar,
If this video is authentic then what you said has already happened
https//m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNnLC7lEGSE
Peace
Voila, I'm not surprised at all..
In this universe there are patterns.. learn them.. and you can somehow predict the future events..
Karbala, is of course the natural choice for them.
I don't see anything wrong with it... -
Thanks Jafar, This means that the sacred place was not built by Abraham and also Solomon was not related to the same religion that considers that building in Makkah as the most sacred place and wrongly associate Abraham (Ibrahim) / Solomon (Sulayman) as part of their religion citing Quran verses as per their view and version of Islam.
Who's is actually corrupt? The group who try to form affiliations with past, OR the religion itself. If not both, should i stop breaking my head about one group/religion vs other and call ALL as corrupt/irrelevant. If I still insist that I am not an atheist and also no more a religious person, then who am I following / believing. Although, having or not having any sacred time, place, book, people is gradually becoming irrelevant for me, I still feel an urge to search for Rabb. Should I accept that all religious + non-religious sources (including rituals, scriptures, beliefs, concepts, people, etc) would provide some value and are subject to some corruption, so accept what is right and reject what's not and when I discover what I considered right earlier is no more so and vice-versa, just take a u-turn - keep going this way!!
Pata Nahi!!
-
Thanks Jafar, This means that the sacred place was not built by Abraham and also Solomon was not related to the same religion that considers that building in Makkah as the most sacred place and wrongly associate Abraham (Ibrahim) / Solomon (Sulayman) as part of their religion citing Quran verses as per their view and version of Islam.
Of course it is..
The next question to pursue is actually WHY..
WHY they do that?
Trying to understand the background, the motives, the context and the relation..You are on the right track because you started inquiring the WHY aspect of things..
Who's is actually corrupt? The group who try to form affiliations with past, OR the religion itself. If not both,
Corrupt? or Innovative?
Better understand the WHY part first...should i stop breaking my head about one group/religion vs other and call ALL as corrupt/irrelevant.
You better stop..
Understand the WHY question and you will also stop labelling anyone as 'corrupt'...
Afterwards your view of the universe around you shall become healthier.. because you understand more...If I still insist that I am not an atheist and also no more a religious person, then who am I following / believing. Although, having or not having any sacred time, place, book, people is gradually becoming irrelevant for me, I still feel an urge to search for Rabb.
Follow your conscience, your Rabb speaks through it..
Those who asked shall be given an answer, those who seek shall find..Should I accept that all religious + non-religious sources (including rituals, scriptures, beliefs, concepts, people, etc) would provide some value and are subject to some corruption, so accept what is right and reject what's not and when I discover what I considered right earlier is no more so and vice-versa, just take a u-turn - keep going this way!!
Yes studying human behaviours and culture does provide value..
The way to be familiar with truth is to be familiar with falsehood (it's opposite).When you've encountered so many liars, you can easily recognized an honest man / woman like a gold among the river stones..
Your 'hunch' / 'gut feel' is already trained to do so.. -
Entertainers of doubt....
Investigate properly
Nothing discussed here is remotely 1/100th sufficient as evidence to come to any conclusion about anything
Fear Allah and turn to Him
Seek further understanding from The One Whom upon is the explanation of the Quran through humility, prayer and charity. -
Of course it is..
The next question to pursue is actually WHY..
WHY they do that?
Trying to understand the background, the motives, the context and the relation..You are on the right track because you started inquiring the WHY aspect of things..
Corrupt? or Innovative?
Better understand the WHY part first...You better stop..
Understand the WHY question and you will also stop labelling anyone as 'corrupt'...
Afterwards your view of the universe around you shall become healthier.. because you understand more...Follow your conscience, your Rabb speaks through it..
Those who asked shall be given an answer, those who seek shall find..Yes studying human behaviours and culture does provide value..
The way to be familiar with truth is to be familiar with falsehood (it's opposite).When you've encountered so many liars, you can easily recognized an honest man / woman like a gold among the river stones..
Your 'hunch' / 'gut feel' is already trained to do so..Yes. Why does Rabb ask people to do it? Or does Rabb not ask it but people have said things that are not true?
-
Yes. Why does Rabb ask people to do it? Or does Rabb not ask it but people have said things that are not true?
Why people asked people to do it?
People said things which are 'beneficial' for them..
People said things which are 'favorable' for them..The rituals, the gatherings benefits the people around the temple, it gives income to the priest, the merchant, the guide,the travel agent etc.. Which in turn resulted in taxation income to the ruler..
The ruler then authorized a regulation, a book, a dogma to ensure the continuation of the rituals..
The rituals thus, are proven to be beneficial for the society...But in any way, such rituals will have no influence to God's law of "cause and effect"..
Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But YHVH weighs the hearts.
To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to YHVH than sacrifice.
A haughty look, and a proud heart--the tillage of the wicked.
-- Proverbs 21The rites doesn't matter, how is it perform doesn't matter, where is it perform doesn't matter..
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
-- Mark 2"As Jesus was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, ?Teacher, behold what wonderful pile of stones and what wonderful buildings!? And Jesus said to him, ?Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.?
-- Mark 13 -
But in any way, such rituals will have no influence to God's law of "cause and effect"..
True, the first person I have seen a statement of that was Isaiah in ancient lore. It is the deeds that primarily matter because those reveal what we have in our hearts.