BROTHER PETE | home
ISLAM 101 | JIHAD CONQUEST TERRORISM | MECCA | UNFORGIVABLE SIN OF SHIRK | THE HAJJ AND UMRAH | ANTI-ZIONISM | BANU QURAYZA MASSACRE | THE SABIANS & ISLAM | SIMON MAGUS, GNOSTICISM, THE EBIONITES & ISLAM | MOHAMMED'S NIGHT JOURNEY | HAGAR & ISHMAEL | CHILDREN OF THE FLESH | THE TWELVE SONS / TRIBES OF ISHMAEL | ORIGINS OF ISLAM | BACA, BAKKAH & MECCA, MAKKAH | VOLUNTARY DHIMMITUDE | OLDEST MOSQUE QIBLA | FABLES & FANTASIES | UNDERSTANDING ISLAM | MOHAMMED'S CONUNDRUM | QURAN INSPIRATION | WHO WAS CRUCIFIED? | ISLAM IS THE OPPOSITE | SPIRIT OF GOD | OLD TESTAMENT VIOLENCE | CHURCH TRADITION | RELIGIOUS PLURALISM | SUM OF ISLAM | INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM | BIBLE IN THE QURAN | SCRIPTURES OR QURAN CORRUPTED? | FREE TRACTS FOR MUSLIMS | QURAN 666 | RESOURCES | YOUTUBE VIDEO TEXTS | CONTACT US
BACA, BAKKAH & MECCA, MAKKAH
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Few things more clearly demonstrate the absence of a love of truth among Muhammad's followers, than this subject. The struggle over the content of this subject, that propagandizes with a preposterous falsehood, also demonstrating the Islamization of Wikipedia. To discuss this subject and much more, please join us in the Islam-Christian Forum, by clicking here.
The name "Makka", is mentioned in Quran surah 48:24, and again in 33:50 (but in parentheses), and some suggest it is one in the same with the name "Bakka", that is found in Surah 3:96. Even if Mohammed had used two names for Mecca, Islam's holiest city - the epicenter of Muhammad's religion allegedly since Adam - would then only be mentioned three times in the Quran. Compare this with the name Jerusalem, which is mentioned over 800 times in the King James Bible.
There is no historical or archaeological record that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD, yet some Muslims try to suggest that there is at least a scriptural reference of Mecca mentioned in the Old Testament as "Baca", by removing the following verse from context and trying to suggest a similarity between the 3,000 year old Hebrew name "Baca" and the 7th century Quraish Arabic name "Bakkah", from the Quran.
Psalms 84:6 [Who] passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.
The excitement builds as the term "well" is mentioned in the same verse, as if to suggest the well of Zamzam was the only well on earth. This even though Islamic history records that the well of Zamzam was dug by Mohammed's grandfather Abdel Mutaleb in the 6th century, when it was dedicated to the most venerated priest and priestess of the Arabian jinn religion Asaf and Naelah. Please see the Hajj and Umrah page for more on that subject.
But blessedly we can set all the speculation aside once we discover that the most obvious difficulty with these claims is the very next verse:
84:7 They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] in Zion appeareth before God.
Zion is mentioned 153 times in the Bible because it is the name of the easternmost hill of the city of Jerusalem.
Thus we see this passage describing a journey to ZION - to Jerusalem - to the Holy Land. Baca simply being a stop along the way.
Since the well of Zamzam lies 1200 kilometers across harsh barren desert, away from the temple site in Jerusalem - in the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs - the whole notion that this verse has anything to do with Mecca is utterly ridiculous.
In regard to the valley of Baca, which means balsam trees and weeping, web search - battle jerusalem balsam trees - then try - mulberry balsam trees -
“The Valley of Rephaim lay southwest of Jerusalem and formed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 15:8). It may correspond to the ‘Valley of Baca’ (Psalm 84:6), due to the balsam trees that were there (1 Chronicles 14:14-15). These are named, literally, ‘weepers’ because of their drops of milky sap.” (Payne)
"(Psalm 84:6; R.V., "valley of weeping, " marg., "or balsam trees"), probably a valley in some part of Palestine, or generally some one of the valleys through which pilgrims had to pass on their way to the sanctuary of Jehovah on Zion; or it may be figuratively "a valley of weeping."" Easton's Bible Dictionary
"BACA ba'-ka bakha': In the King James Version in Psalm 84:6, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "the valley of Weeping," with a marginal variant which is best put in the form, "the valley of the balsam-trees." The word is elsewhere used only in the duplicated account of one of David's battles (2 Samuel 5:23, 24 1 Chronicles 14:14, 15). There the translation is "the mulberry trees," with "the balsam-trees" in the margin in the Revised Version (British and American). Conjecturally the word is, by variant spelling, of the stem which denotes weeping; the tree is called "weeper" from some habit of the trickling of its gum or of the moisture on it; the valley of weeping is not a geographical locality, but a picturesque expression for the experiences of those whose strength is in Yahweh, and who through His grace find their sorrows changed into blessings." - Willis J. Beecher
All this searching for Islam, Mecca and Mohammed in the Bible foolishness, is readily recognized as nothing more than a futile exercise, once one learns that there is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD, or it's Kaaba before the early 5th century when Asa’d Abu Karb built it for Arabian Star Family worship. The Quraish pagan's black stone idol is still housed in the kaaba and is venerated and prostrated toward five times a day by Muslims unto today.
Let alone the geographical absurdity that Abraham, Hagar or Ishmael ever had anything whatsoever to do with Mecca since they were never within 1,000 kilometers of where Mecca was eventually built in the 4th century AD. As so often is the case, when so many Bible-ignorant Muslims parrot the same nonsense in unison, you will generally find the fingerprints of their famous Greek sophist styled entertainer and deceiving antichrist liar Ahmed Deedat, behind the foolishness.
ISLAMIZATION OF WIKIPEDIA
Few subjects demonstrate the Islamization and anti-Zionism of Wikipedia more than the struggle over the content of this article. Self-described "Palestinian" Tiamut and pro-"Palestinian" anti-Zionist Zero0000 repeatedly censor the scripture cited in the article, to advance what even they must surely recognize is a lie.
While Tiamut is unapologetically a "Palestinian" grinding his axe, on a visit to Zero0000's home page we find his suggestion: "I do not have a personal connection, either by family, descent, or religion, with the people and places I write about in Wikipedia.", in a childishly transparent effort to suggest he would have no reason for bias. Yet a review of the articles he lists on his page, reveal that his Wikipedia efforts are consistently anti-Zionist and pro-"Palestinian", and belie his self-portrayal regarding bias. His latest broad-brush vandalism of the article on 28 March 2012 was done under the cloak of "Undid revision 484237448 by PeterWaldo I don't know the details of this dispute, but I know you can't write 'It is absurdly claimed' in a Wikipedia article under any circumstances."
Nobody would argue that the work - of whoever authored the poorly written and irrelevant paragraph he cited - should have been repaired or removed. But Zero0000 instead undid my entire undo, that once again undid the censorship of the location of the pilgrimage of Psalms 84 as being TO ZION, along with considerable other article modification and clarification. This was a repeat of Zero0000's 4 March 2012 major alteration and broad brush vandalism vaguely excused away with: "Back out mish-mash of original research, copyright violations and poor sources."
This article is a testament as to what has happened to Wikipedia, as well as portending where it is headed.
At this link is an earlier version of the article that was little more than false Islamic propaganda - as so many articles in Wikipedia are - that listed "Arguments for the identification of..." with no arguments against.
Here's a revision that included "Arguments against..."
Here's the reverted version in which Tiamut destroyed the content - not item by item - but totally destroyed the article with spurious, vague and phony excuses such as "Some of it might be saved if secondary sources can be found. But its not clearly written anyway and should probably be redone from scratch." Also complaining "...they are primary sourced OR." As if an article that is about a bible verse is not allowed to use the Bible as a source! Reverting the article to the bogus Psalms verse quoted from a book written by a Mormon, that Tiamut or someone censored out - removed - "in Zion", which is the actual location of the pilgrimage to THE temple in THE Holy Land.
Another revision including the arguments for and against again.
Censored out again by the Islamist Tiamut with the censored bible verse in it.
Reverted accepting some of Tiamut's changes like removing BOTH arguments for and against, but segregating into separate categories Islamic fictional tradition, scripture, Islamic writers etc.
Reverted back to pure Islamic propaganda and lies by Taimut.
Latest attempt at truth. How can anyone compete with "Palestinians" most of whom live off of western welfare and have nothing better to do all day than sit around propagandizing Wikipedia articles and obscuring truth?
Here's the current version that was reverted all the way back to the original lie, with scripture quoted from a Mormon's book and even then having the portion of the passage censor out "in Zion".
Here's the article after changes made such as segregating 7th century Islamic so-called "tradition" from the factual portions of the article and adding an uncensored version of scripture with the "in Zion" intact.
Isn't it absolutely unimaginable, that someone actually believe they are serving God by repeatedly censoring the truth out of a Bible verse, to advance what they know is a lie.