Author Topic: Encyclopedia Britannica - "Facts Matter" - Or Do They?  (Read 2930 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Encyclopedia Britannica - "Facts Matter" - Or Do They?
« on: August 27, 2012, 12:46:36 PM »

In the title of Encyclopedia Britannica they suggest that "Facts Matter", but when we read their article on the history of Mecca, we find that facts don't matter near as much as propagating Islamic fables. In fact they parrot Islamic so-called "tradition", that was all created and put to the pen 7th to 10th centuries AD, that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history, yet without reference to any actual historical record from before the 5th century AD.

Check this quote from the folks that preposterously suggest that facts matter to them:

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

Do they cite cartoon characters to suggest that hitting someone over the head with a hammer doesn't hurt? They are doing nothing short of indoctrinating our kids, and anyone else who reads that unsupportable tripe, into the antichrist religion of Islam.

The FACT that MATTERS is that any pre-Muhammad Islamic so-called "tradition", regarding a history of Mecca from before the 4th century AD, demonstrates itself to be unsupportable fiction, whether investigated through scripture, history, archaeology or geography, as evidenced by THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS presented throughout the related forum section.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3869
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Encyclopedia Britannica - "Facts Matter" - Or Do They?
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2014, 03:28:32 PM »
I was given a link to this article by a Muslim yesterday, as if it could stand in for a 4500 year pre-4th century historical and archaeological record of Mecca.

Top left of the page on the "Mecca" article reads: "Alternate titles: Bakkah; Macoraba; Makkah"

Which offers a good indication as to how carefully the article was researched by including "Macoraba" as an alternate name for Mecca.

Even more absurd is any Baca (Bakkah) = Mecca connection, those sorely deluded folks try to make:

The poor Muslim that presented that link to me, perhaps never even read it, because there are no claims regarding any pre-4th century Mecca that I could find, on a quick scan of the page, as there are on the Mecca history page that he may have intended to link to.