Valley of Baca - Mecca? ( Bakkah Makkah ) Islamization & anti-Zionism Wikipedia

[Peter]

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 anti-Israeli, pro-"Palestinian", anti-Zionist Zero0000 repeatedly censor the scripture cited in the article, to advance what even they must surely recognize is a lie.

More
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm#islamization_wikipedia


More in depth video version
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1313.0

The name "Makkah", is mentioned in Quran surah 48:24, and again in 33:50 (but in parantheses), and is somehow even suggested to be one in the same with the name "Bakkah", that is found in Surah 3:96. Even if Mohammed had used two names for Mecca, Islam's holiest city - it's most important geographical location since Adam - would then only be mentioned three times in the Quran. Compare this with the name Jerusalem, which is mentioned 814 times in 767 verses, in the Word or God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=jerusalem&t=KJV

Some Muslims suggest that there is at least a scriptural record of Mecca mentioned in the Old Testament. This is attempted by removing the following verse from context and trying to suggest a similarity between the Hebrew name "Baca" of 1,000 BC, and the 7th century AD Yemeni/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.

But the most obvious difficulty with this claim 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 God's Word because it is the name of the easternmost hill of ancient Jerusalem.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=zion&t=KJV&sf=5
Thus we see this passage describing a journey to ZION - to Jerusalem - to the Holy Land. Baca simply being a stop along the way.

Baca is the word for weeping and also for balsam trees.

As usual, when so many Bible-ignorant Muslims parrot the same ridiculous nonsense in unison, you will generally find their famous Greek sophist styled entertainer and deceiving antichrist liar Ahmed Deedat, behind the foolishness.

[Peter]

Muslims have even infected Wikipedia with this nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah

I added the bolded below (in normal font on the article) but it was erased by Islamist frauds to continue to dupe their poor deceived minions.

Here is the older version that includes my notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bakkah&oldid=372421595

Bakkah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bakkah (Arabic: ????) is a place mentioned in surah 3:96 of the Qur'an. It is said to be the site of the first mosque, and therefore it is identified by some Muslims with the city of Mecca. Others also identify it with the Biblical "valley of Baca" from Psalm 84 (Hebrew: ???).

Contents
[edit] Bakkah and Mecca
Surah 3:96-97 Behold, the first Temple ever set up for mankind was indeed the one at Bakkah: rich in blessing, and a [source of] guidance unto all the worlds., Full of clear messages. [It is] the place whereon Abraham once stood; and whoever enters it finds peace. Hence, pilgrimage unto the Temple is a duty owed to God by all people who are able to undertake it. And as for those who deny the truth - verily, God does not stand in need of anything in all the worlds.
[edit] Arguments for the identification of Bakkah with Mecca

Bakkah is thought to be an older name for Mecca, as it is described as the location of the first mosque, which Islam teaches to be the Kaaba, and a home to Abraham, who, according to the Qur'an, built the Kabba with his son Ishmael. Many translations simply render Bakkah as Mecca, and the passage is cryptic if they are not the same city.

However, the name Bacca or Bakka is known by all Arabs as another name for Makka, it is not known or used anywhere else.

There is, however, no archaeological or historical evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before immigrants from Yemen built it in the early 4th century AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca
[edit] Baca and Bakkah

Psalm 84:5-7 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools. They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.

Zion is mentioned 153 times in scripture because it is the name of the easternmost hill of ancient Jerusalem. Link to verses. Thus we see this passage describing a journey to ZION - to Jerusalem. Baca simply being a stop along the way. The temple in Jerusalem to which this pilgrimage refers is about 1200 kilometers away from where Mecca was eventually built in the 4th century AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple
[edit] Arguments for the identification of Baca with Bakkah or Mecca

The names "Bakkah" are almost identical. If Bakkah is Mecca, then in accordance with Muslim beliefs that Mecca is God's select city. Also, in the Biblical Book of Isaiah, several passages provide descriptions of Zion, several of which, notably Isaiah 35:8-10, which states that the will not enter the city, and 60:16-18, which describes its prosperity, bear striking resemblance to Mecca in Muslim eyes. Jews and Christians, who do not equate holiness with Islam, do not agree with this interpretation.? Blessed art they that dwell in Your house; they will still be praising thee Selah. Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; In whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well.? [Psalm 84:4?6]

The name "Baca" is a Hebrew word, while "Bakkah" is an Arabic word. The Baca referenced in scripture is 1200 kilometers away from where Mecca was eventually built in the 4th century AD.
"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: In it are signs manifest; (for example) the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith Allah stands not in need of any of his creatures. (The Noble Quran, 3:96-97)"

The Baca referenced in scripture is 1200 kilometers away from where Mecca was eventually built in the 4th century AD.
[edit] These verses seems to refer to a journey, from place to place until they reach Zion

“Blessed are those whose strength is in you,“
“who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.“

Makkah is a place of Pilgrimage, thousands make it every year-- Ar. hajj, Heb. mes-il-law"

Thousands go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land every year as well. To ZION.
 â€œAs they pass through the Valley of Baca,“

Some Bible versions say “Valley of Tears/ Weeping”, this would make more sense since Ishmael and Hagar cried (baka’) to God for aid in the wilderness after Abraham left them in a deserted area. In Hebrew ‘tears’ is Baka’ and in Arabic Baka’ means to cry.

Another worthy note to look into is that many places named in the Bible are not necessarily found/ match or proven historically.

“they make it a place of springs;“
“the autumn rains also cover it with pools.“
The great well Zamzam it’s actually a spring that sprang at the time of Ishmael and Hagar by an Angel after Hagar had ‘cried’ to God for aid.
However this is 7th century Islamic tradition that is not supported by scripture, history, archaeology or Geography.

“The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert;

it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.—Genesis 16:7“

There is no historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Abraham, Hagar or Ishmael were ever in the place where Mecca was built around the 4th century AD, 1200 kilometers from where Abraham lived and was eventually buried. The geographical evidence alone, refutes this suggestion. Further, the trade route along the Red Sea over which they would have had to make the journey, was not established until almost 1,000 years after Abraham. Prior to that trade from Yemen to the fertile crescent was by ship.

“They go from strength to strength,“
“till each appears before God in Zion.“

They have gone from place to place until they appear to God in Zion…after a long travel in the desert.
[edit] References
   

[Peter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah
Arguments for the identification of Baca with Bakkah or Mecca

The names "Baca" and "Bakkah" are almost identical. If Bakkah is Mecca, then in accordance with Muslim beliefs that Mecca is God's select city. Also, in the Biblical Book of Isaiah, several passages provide descriptions of Zion, several of which, notably Isaiah 35:8-10, which states that the "unclean" will not enter the city, and 60:16-18, which describes its prosperity, bear striking resemblance to Mecca in Muslim eyes. Jews and Christians, who do not equate holiness with Islam, do not agree with this interpretation.

The author of this article is apparently unaware, that Zion is approximately 1200 kilometers from where Mecca was eventually built, rendering this whole article to be nonsense. I tried to help but my well footnoted additions were erased.

?Blessed art they that dwell in Your house; they will still be praising thee Selah. Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; In whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well.? [Psalm 84:4?6]

"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: In it are signs manifest; (for example) the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith Allah stands not in need of any of his creatures. (The Noble Quran, 3:96-97)"


The author of this article is apparently unaware, that Zion is approximately 1200 kilometers from where Mecca was eventually built, rendering this whole article to be nonsense. I tried to help but my  well footnoted additions were erased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bakkah&oldid=372421595

[Peter]

Some Muslims claim "ah, ha, it must be Mecca because Muslims still go on pilgrimage there". But most don't even realize that the rituals they engage in were stolen straight from the pagans, by Mohammed. Indeed pagans and Muslims performed Hajj shoulder to shoulder until Mohammed kicked the pagans out of their own ritual.
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj_umrah.htm#tawaf

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 26, Number 689:
    Narrated Abu Huraira:
    In the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Allahs Apostle made Abu Bakr the leader of the pilgrims, the latter (Abu Bakr) sent me in the company of a group of people to make a public announcement: 'No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year, and no naked person is allowed to perform Tawaf of the Kaba.'

As Psalms 84.7 indicates, pilgrimages to the  temple God had His people build on the temple mount in ZION - in the Holy Land - were going on 1500 years before Mohammed.

Indeed many go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land unto this day.
Simply Google - pilgrimage to holy land

[Peter]

Arguments against the identification of Bakkah with Mecca

1. The verse that immediately follows, the proof-texted verse that provides the basis of this article's presumption, pins the location of the pilgrimage to which Psalms 84 refers.

Psalms 84:7 They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] IN ZION appeareth before God.
 
ZION is mentioned 153 times in Scripture because it is the name of the easternmost hill of ancient Jerusalem. It is a name of Jerusalem. Thus this passage describes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Holy Land. ZION is not Mecca.

2. There is no historical or archaeological record of the Jews to whom this passage refers, going on pilgrimage to any temple, other than the one they themselves built in Jerusalem.

3. Zion - that is Jerusalem - lies 1200 kilometers across harsh Arabian desert, from Mecca.

4. There is no historical record penned before the 4th century AD, that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested in the historical record.

5. There is no archaeological record that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested, in the archaeological record.

6. There is no pre-fourth century historical or archaeological record that suggests that the Kaaba existed before the early 5th century AD.

7. Pilgrimages to ZION - to Jerusalem - were conducted 1300 years before Mecca was established and still are today.

8. Baca is a Hebrew name that dates to before 1,000 B.C. of a valley in Palestine, and is also a Hebrew term for balsam trees that "weep" or bleed sap when they are cut. Bakkah is a more modern language 7th century A.D. Quraish '''Arabic''' dialect name that some suggest refers to Mecca.

9. The absence of supporting material, along with fact that arguments against the identification of Bakkah with Mecca keep being removed from this article rather than being challenged, attests to the veracity of the unsupportable speculation engaged in by it's author.


Psalms 84:7 - Online King James Version
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=84&v=7&t=KJV#7

Studies by Classical Writers Show That Mecca Could not Have Been Built Before the 4th Century A.D. - Dr. Rafat Amari
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm

The History and Archaeology of Arabia Show that Mecca did not Exist Before the Advent of Christianity. - Dr. Rafat Amari
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm

The True Story of the Construction of the Temple of Mecca - Dr. Rafat Amari
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm

pilgrimage to holy land
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=pilgrimage+holy+land&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m2&aql=&oq=pilgrimage+holy+land&gs_rfai=&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

baca balsam mulberry trees
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=baca+balsam+mulberry+trees&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=baca+balsam+mulberry+trees&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b

[Peter]

=== Arguments against the identification of Baca with Mecca ===

1. The verse that immediately follows, the proof-texted verse that provides the basis of this article's presumption, pins the location of the pilgrimage to which Psalms 84 refers.

[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=84&v=7&t=KJV#7 Psalms 84:7] They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] IN ZION appeareth before God.[3]
 
ZION is mentioned [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=zion&t=KJV 153 times] in Scripture because it is the name of the [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=zion+jerusalem&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m9&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d easternmost hill] of ancient Jerusalem. It is a name of Jerusalem. Thus this passage describes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Holy Land. ZION is not Mecca.

2. There is no historical or archaeological record of the Jews to whom this passage refers, going on pilgrimage to any temple, other than the one [[Temple_in_Jerusalem|they themselves built]] in Jerusalem.[4]

3. Zion - that is Jerusalem - lies 1200 kilometers across harsh desert from Mecca.

4. There is [http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm no historical record] penned before the 4th century AD, that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD,[5] while other [[Ancient_Towns_in_Saudi_Arabia|ancient Arabian towns]] are well attested in the historical record.[6]

5. There is [http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm no archaeological record] that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century AD, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested, in the archaeological record.[7]

6. There is no pre-fourth century historical or archaeological record that suggests that the Kaaba existed [http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm before the early 5th century AD].[8]

7. Pilgrimages to ZION - to Jerusalem - [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=pilgrimage+holy+land&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m2&aql=&oq=pilgrimage+holy+land&gs_rfai=&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d to the Holy Land] - were conducted 1300 years before Mecca was established and still are today.

8. Baca is a '''Hebrew''' name that dates to before 1,000 B.C. of a valley in Palestine, and is also a '''Hebrew''' term for [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=baca+balsam+mulberry+trees&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=baca+balsam+mulberry+trees&gs_rfai=&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d balsam or mulberry trees] that "weep" or bleed sap when they are cut. Bakkah is a more modern language 7th century A.D. Quraish '''Arabic''' dialect name that some suggest refers to Mecca.

____________________

*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=84&v=7&t=KJV#7 Psalms 84:7] - Online King James Version
*[[Temple_in_Jerusalem]]
*[http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm Studies by Classical Writers Show That Mecca Could not Have Been Built Before the 4th Century A.D.] - Dr. Rafat Amari
*[[Ancient_Towns_in_Saudi_Arabia|Ancient Towns in Saudi Arabia]]
*[http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm The History and Archaeology of Arabia Show that Mecca did not Exist Before the Advent of Christianity.] - Dr. Rafat Amari
*[http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm The True Story of the Construction of the Temple of Mecca] - Dr. Rafat Amari

_____________________

Above 2 sections posted on 8-15-2010 at 9.10 AM Eastern time,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah#Arguments_against_the_identification_of_Baca_with_Mecca
at this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah
"history" link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bakkah&oldid=379041185

I did not post #9, but will include it the next time the article is erased.

If you visit the link and find the above additions to the article have been erased please feel free to copy and paste the first part above at the end of the Wikipedia article.
Copy and paste the references in the second part after the other references in the "Sources" section.
Let's try and help these poor folks overcome, their famous Greek sophist styled entertainer Ahmed Deedat's, nonsense.

[Phill]

I have found an interesting article on this subject of Makka. Beleive it or not I think a Muslim wrote it (an opened minded one at that). He has done some research into the word Makka. I have copied it below:

"According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.

Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 48:24. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 48:24.

Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".

Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are: sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.

Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

Here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)":

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "maka(t)" un-translated I didn't. As one can see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 48:24.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, and the lack of any evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Maka(t), the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "maka(t)" is not the name of "pre-quranic" town but is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran".

As for it being mentioned (Mecca) in Sura 33:50 it has clearly been added. I did a Google search on Sura 33:50 and the first few hits didn’t even mention Mecca just, “who have emigrated with you”.
So what do we have here ??....Well we now have the word Maka rendered as MK or MKK which means “Destruction or Wearing down” we can safely exlude the word Maka as meaning Mecca from Sura 48:24. We can also exlude Mecca from Surah 33:50 as it has been inserted in some translation and not others.

In the end it seems that Mecca has been exluded form the Koran altogether.

[Peter]

In the end it seems that Mecca has been exluded form the Koran altogether.

That is interesting when Jerusalem, is mentioned 814 times in 767 verses, in the Word or God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=jerusalem&t=KJV

And Zion, the name of the easternmost hill of ancient Jerusalem, is mentioned 153 times in God's Word.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=zion&t=KJV&sf=5

I was happy to see that the addition to the Wikipedia article remains after 2 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah#Arguments_against_the_identification_of_Baca_with_Mecca

[Peter]

Content removed last month by a "Palestinian"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tiamut
with the following spurious claim

"The subsections below were in the article but I removed them because they are primary sourced OR. 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. Tiamuttalk 18:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)"

To which I replied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bakkah#Censorship

== Censorship ==

As a reason to remove the majority of this Wikipedia article Tiamut said:
"The subsections below were in the article but I removed them because they are primary sourced OR. 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. Tiamut 18:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)"

If people are allowed to remove giant sections of Wikipedia articles under spurious pretenses, without listing individual specifics, Wikipedia will be left as little more than a propaganda machine for folks who wish to censor content simply because they don't like it.

In this case, an article with a concept that suggests it is occurs in scripture, cannot then ban footnote references to the scripture it claims as support for being "primary sources", simply because that scripture happens to invalidate the notion that the Baca in scripture is a reference to Mecca located 1200 kilometers away.

If Tiamut had visited just one of the links he removed to '''Dr. Rafat Amari's articles''', and had scrolled to the bottom, he would have found '''82 footnotes''' to secondary sources in the "The History and Archaeology of Arabia Show That Mecca Did Not Exist Before the Advent of Christianity" article, as well similar extensive footnoting in the article "Studies by Classical Writers Show That Mecca Could Not Have Been Built Before the 4th Century".

After offering the first unsupported reason, Tiamut then went on to suggest that he should remove content because, in his personal opinion, "But its not clearly written anyway...", again without specifics. Is this the way the Wikipedia community wants articles edited? Large chunks of Wikipedia articles removed simply because someone personally doesn't care for the way something is written? Why not allow removal articles entirely, any time a person personally doesn't understand the subject? Tiamut's changes exhibit, more than anything, thoughtless and reckless disregard for the work of others.

Tiamut, please '''list your specifics''' for each item you desire to remove, and then enter it in the discussion section, meanwhile please restore the article sections you so inconsiderately removed. ([[User:PeterWaldo|PeterWaldo]] ([[User talk:PeterWaldo|talk]]) 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PeterWaldo|PeterWaldo]] ([[User talk:PeterWaldo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PeterWaldo|contribs]]) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

[Peter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jlmkG0HhE0

I posted

Psalms 84:6 [Who] passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.84:7 They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] IN ZION appeareth before God.
Mecca is 1200 kilometers away from Zion.
watch?v=eLsniG47IO8
brotherpete. com/baca_mecca. htm

It's pending approval. What do you suppose the odds are of it being posted?
____________________

It posted on this channel. This one's a real corker. They cut off the verse reading after "...strength to strength till each..." They cut it off right there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBO_q9KOpHM

How long you figure the post will last? Posted:

Psalms 84:6 [Who] passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.84:7 They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] IN ZION appeareth before God.

Mecca is 1200 kilometers away from Zion.

watch?v=eLsniG47IO8

brotherpete. com/baca_mecca. htm
PeteWaldo 11 minutes ago
____________________________

[Peter]

http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm#islamization_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 anti-Israeli, pro-"Palestinian", anti-Zionist Zero0000 repeatedly censor the scripture cited in the article, to advance what even they must surely recognize is a lie.

More
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm#islamization_wikipedia

[PeteWaldo]

As I was including a link to a web page, to show a new forum member how Islam's liars have duped their adoring bible-ignorant geography-challenged minions into believing outright lies, I revisited the Wikipedia subject page of that web page.
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm

Wikipedia continues to be an unapologetic propaganda machine for Islam's liars engaging in dissimulation/taqiyyah. The germane portion of Psalms 84, which pins the location of the pilgrimage that the liars want to fool geography-ignorant people into believing was to Mecca, continues to be censored out. Let alone its continuing to masquerade Islam's counter-scriptural, unhistorical, geographically impossible so-called "tradition", as history. As of this writing the scripture has been switched to the KJV, but stops the passage short of verse 7, of course because it reads:

7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

So Muslims have to ask themselves, if Muhammad's people aren't following Satan, the father of lies, through his messenger Muhammad, then why do they have to lie through the omission of dissimulation and repeatedly censor the truth out of that scripture to fool their fellow Muslims?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah#Valley_of_Baca

I challenge any member here to create a log in to Wikipedia, and add verse 7 onto that passage, and see just how long it lasts before Satan's liars and taqiyyah purveyors remove it again.