A Letter to the Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica on Their Unscholarly Article

[PeteWaldo]

Sent to the feedback link for the specific article (you have to create a login that requires very little bother):
http://www.britannica.com/topic/371782/feedback

Dear Editors:

In your article on Mecca:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371782/Mecca/37835/History

It states as an unqualified matter of fact that: "It was known to Ptolemy as Macoraba."
However modern scholarship in this information age, calls into question this notion, including such scholars as Dr. Rafat Amari:
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm

As well as at least one Muslim Eastern History teacher.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091231160732AAlTMZx

So while the claim is parroted throughout Islamic sites, it is controversial at best, and far from being an established matter of fact as presented in the article, and its upper sub-heading.
The next sentence in this "History" section includes:

"According to Islamic tradition, Abraham and Ishmael, his son by Hagar, built the Kaʿbah as the house of God."

There is absolutely nothing historical about that claim.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm

It is not history. Yet by including it in a section labeled "history", and intertwining actual history with counter-scriptural, unhistorical, archaeologically devoid and geographically impossible Islamic so-called "tradition" - that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD - you create the illusion of that 7th century fable as being fact.

While you prefaced the sentence with "According to Islamic tradition.....", because it is located in the "History" section, young students or people with limited capacity for critical thinking or folks that are simply predisposed to believe it, do not recognize your qualifier as a disclaimer. Instead they are led to believe that you are actually reporting it as history, specifically because it is in the "History" section. I know this for a fact because even web authors, whose writing indicates that on other matters they might otherwise possess fairly normal cognitive function, present it to me while proclaiming that Encyclopedia Britannica confirms the historical fact that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba.

While Wikipedia has the excuse that it can be vandalized by any sorely deluded soul that creates a login, if Encyclopedia Britannica has any interest in being perceived as an authoritative source of factual information, you need to separately categorize - that is, make a clear distinction between - legend and fact.

In the example of this article you could keep post-5th century AD matters of actual historical fact regarding the Kaaba in the "History" section, and then move completely unhistorical claims that regard a pre-4th century AD Mecca, or its Kaaba before it was built in the early 5th century, perhaps to a closing section labeled something like "The Kaaba According to Islamic 'Tradition'". That is, if you have an interest in tainting your encyclopedia with Islamic created history, without specifically labeling it as such.

Thanks very much for your consideration in this matter, and I'll post a link to the article along with this note in our forum, and hopefully a continuing conversation in regard to the same. Thanking you in advance for the kind favor of a reply I remain,

Sincerely,
Pete Waldo

[PeteWaldo]

The next question will regard the next sentence:

"The central point of pilgrimage in Mecca before the advent of Islam in the 7th century, the cube-shaped stone building has been destroyed and rebuilt several times."

Based on what historical or archaeological EVIDENCE do you make the claim that ".....the cube-shaped stone building has been destroyed and rebuilt several times."