We are living in the age of the victory of the lie, perhaps in large measure (besides being prophesied) because folks don't bother taking the time to correct sources that masquerade as being authoritative, even though they parrot Islamic "tradition" that was all created in 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. As if that counter-scriptural geographically impossible, unsupportable anti-history, could provide a substitute for actual ancient historical and archaeological record. As if it could stand-in for 4500 years of absent pre-4th century historical and archaeological record of Mecca.
Now I would imagine that most of the authors of sources like pop-Encyclopedias, and spurious school textbooks intended to bend malleable minds, must be well aware they are parroting created fiction since the more honest ones will usually couch articles that suggest any pre-4th century AD Mecca with prefaces like "According to Islamic tradition....." or "According to legend.....". However even those articles that qualify the fiction with that caveat are without excuse, because they deceive people that have limited capacity for critical thought into believing that Mecca has a history that dates before the 4th century, by mixing Islamic fiction in with matters of historical fact.
While Wikipedia has the excuse that it
can be vandalized by any sorely deluded Muslim that creates a login, other sources that masquerade as being authoritative, actually mix Islam's counter-scriptural, geographically impossible anti-history into articles that parade around as being factual, rather than segregating the fables of Islamic so-called "tradition" or "legend" into separate articles.
In other words they are either duped into being, or are willing participants in, advancing the dissimulation/taqiyyah of Muhammad's followers. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims write the articles without oversight - without some non-Muslims fact-checking for the actual historical and archaeological record of Mecca. How can
any Muslim that believes absolutely unsupportable Islamic "tradition" even be considered to be a research "scholar"?
The reason that fantasy is not separated from fact is Satan's victory, in this age of the victory of the lie. What else can explain this, what should otherwise be considered comical buffoonery?
If they had any interest at all in being considered to be credible sources, why wouldn't they have two separate articles? One article for "Mecca" that contains factual information, and another article titled something more like "Mecca According to Islamic Tradition"? The answer is likely that they are willing to sacrifice any desire to be considered a credible source, on the alter of political correctness, to avoid making Muhammad's followers angry. Perhaps making some of Muhammad's followers right there among them mad.
Having just finished a long chat with a Muslim that has been fooled into believing that Mecca has a pre-4th century AD history, by posting links to such parroted Encyclopedic fiction,
I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to call out the authors of these websites that create an illusion of fiction being fact. Those that perpetrate this evil, counter-scriptural, unhistorical, geographically impossible lie, against unwary innocents.
If we don't do it now, then we are the only ones that can be blamed, for the perpetuation of the lie as being perhaps the only information in our children's future as it is in Islamic slave states that even impose the death penalty for open and honest discussion about Muhammad as he is revealed through Islam's own books.A few years back I came across a brief article in a website that promoted itself as history, in which just a couple of lines parroted Islamic "tradition". I wrote the website creator a very kind note that informed him that he could search the internet as he may, only to discover that he was presenting something that was absolutely unhistorical fiction as historical fact, that cannot be supported through any actual historical or archaeological record. He responded with a very grateful reply, and removed the false information from his website accordingly. There is nothing in his reference to Mecca today, that would even hint at any history prior to the 4th century AD.
I started a thread on the Encyclopedia Britannica's article in August of 2012.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3355.0When I clicked on the link in the OP of the thread yesterday, I found the fable regarding Abraham and Ishamel in Mecca is still in the second paragraph. This article was "Written by Sir John Bagot Glubb"
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371782/Mecca/37835/HistoryWhen I clicked on the link that this sorely deluded Muslim sent me, I couldn't find any trace of the Abraham and Ishmael Islamic mythology, perhaps because it was for "Mecca" rather than the history thereof. This article was "Written by Assʿad Sulaiman Abdo."
However both articles are simply titled "Mecca".
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371782/MeccaBoth articles contain the unhistorical sub-title: "Alternate titles: Bakkah; Macoraba; Makkah"as if it were a fact, further demonstrating the lack of scholarship of Encyclopedia Britannica. Any association is flatly considered to be false, even by a Muslim Eastern History teacher, quoted in this forum. Several other sources such as Dr. Rafat Amari also refute the claim based on some very sound evidence.
Since Britannica already has two articles on Mecca, why on earth didn't they segregate the facts about Mecca into one article, and the Islamic fiction about Mecca into the other article?
