This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Do I understand correctly that Luxenberg's reading is: "the first house established for the people was [bibakkata], a place holy, and a guidance to all beings", where [bibakkata] = [fenced in / segregated]? That is, is Luxenberg's reading: "the first house established for the people was fenced in/segregated, a place holy, and a guidance to all beings."

This page's content isn't very NPOV. It might very well be that the link between Mecca and Bakkah is tenous, yes. But put the arguments for and against in a separate sections, and let the user himself draw conclusions. - User:213.187.171.138

I can't think of any arguments for, other than a vague similarity in names. This is a crackpot argument used to claim the Islam is the true successor to both Jewdom and Christianity. If you want to restructure, go ahead. I don't mind an NPOV view, as long as it is made clear the link is nonexist. — Jor 14:09, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, tried and split the arguments against (and the slight argument for) in subsections. — Jor 14:09, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's really good article now. 213.187.171.138

I'd like to mention that Luxenburg's point about no attestation of M and B interchange in standard Arabic (whatever that is in the 7th century!) is debatable. I've certainly found instances where they interchange these days. For example, in Sanaa in Yemen - you can easily find examples of 'bishmish, ya gamar' meaning 'what is your name, dear' rather than standard 'ma ismuki, ya qamar'. Perhaps, Wikipaedia might like to link to the book called Sbahtu! - which is a yemeni dialect grammar book that points out this phenomenon.

Ok I'm reading this "Arguments against the identification of Baca with Bakkah

The Hebrew Baca can be translated either as "weeping" or "balsam trees" (which grow in dry places). " and I know my arabic is weak but from my understanding Bakkah in Arabic also comes from the word "weeping"... any comments? --GNU4Eva 2 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Bakkah in semitic languages means "House" like Baalbek "House of Baal"--Zakkour (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Does this mean that it talks about the Valley of Weeping in the Psalms? Obviously not, I think this page has many acceptable infos but people just dont want to accept, because in doing so they are recognizing the mention of Mecca in the bible, this is what they dont want. House, can mean it, before Abraham there were no Mosques or Churches or Synagoges, so God tells us in the Quran, that the first house of worship, is called becca. Which later came to be known as mecca, not so difficult now is it? _________________

This article looks like very much like it is trying to promote points of view:

"really a joke"

"MISSLEADING INFOS BELOW"

The above two quotes are examples.

The last version of this article, on 12 January 2004 seems like it explains enough of the issues and in a better style, apart from the rhetorical questions. I think also at the moment there is probably a lot of unnecessary detail and it looks like some sort of online argument between contributors. Maybe a revert is needed. Georgeslegloupier 13:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuran come from a generation to another with memorizing of the muslims. There is now atleast 50milion muslim all have the same Kuran completly in their memory. Its the only book which is so good memorized, so if all the copies of Kuranbooks been burned there will be no lost for the muslims to read it. Memorizing Kuran must be completly, and who have all the Kuran is called "Hafiz". The memorizing must be even with the lengh of the stops to take a breath-break while reading. So a wrong reading of a text from a a written book is imposible. Books are for an easier way to fallow reading Kuran to refresh what a muslim memorize. So the argue with "bi-bakkatah" as "tayyakahu"(whats tayyakahu?) or any other misreading is a real nonesense and nothing else than a wrong info. Christoph Luxenberg's reading is really a joke, and he is trying to mislead the reader with non-true infos and non-existing things. Bakka is not a new name of Makka islam brought. It is mentioned in arabian pre-islamic peotries as Bakka. A comment by User:85.181.37.230, moved from the article text by Zocky 02:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope at all of more sources for this?

Are "Baca" and "Bakkah" even similar in Hebrew/Arabic? They sound alike in English but are they anything like similar in Semitic languages?Grace Note 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that ar:مكة, the Arabic article on Mecca, includes Bakkah as one of the many alternative names for the city. --tyomitch 11:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 84:6 mentions the "Valley of Baca". I'd like to request the Jewish scholarly position on Jewish scripture for once for the artice. And equally important, what is the connection between the Psalm's "Valley of Beca" and "Beqaa Valley" north of Jerusalem? Usedbook 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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^talk 18:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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,^[1] which states that the "unclean" will not enter the city, and 60:16-18,^[2] which describes its prosperity, bear striking resemblance to Mecca in Muslim eyes with the fact that small birds constantly circle the Kabba and build nests in the open mosque, where people circle the House with praise and prayer constantly and the historic well in Mecca associated with Ishmael and Hagar (Hājar) referred to in the Book of Genesis^[3] is a bow shot away.

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

— Bible, Psalm 85, verse 5^[4]

Makkah is a place of Pilgrimage, thousands make it every year

— Arabic; hajj, Hebrew; mes-il-law

As they pass through the Valley of Baca,

— Bible, Psalm 84, verse 6^[5]

Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/Weeping",^[6] 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 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.

— Bible, Psalm 84, verse 6^[5]

The Zamzam Well is a spring that Islamic history states came into being at the time of Ishmael and Hagar. The spring's existence was revealed by the angel Gabriel (Jibral) after Hagar had "cried" to God for aid.^[7]

And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

— Bible, Book of Genesis 16, verse 7^[8]

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

— Bible, Psalm 84, verse 7^[9]

Arguments against the identification of Baca with Mecca

1. The passage itself pins the location of the pilgrimage to which Psalms 84 refers.^[9]

Psalms 84:7 They go from strength to strength, [every one of them] in Zion appeareth before God.

Zion, the name of the easternmost hill of ancient Jerusalem, is mentioned 153 times in the King James Version of the Bible.^[10] Jewish scriptures apply the term "Mount Zion" to the Temple Mount or the City of David, both located on this elevation. For Jews the term "Zion" became a synecdoche referring to the entire city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. Thus this passage describes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Holy Land rather than one to 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 1,200 km (750 mi) across the Arabian Desert from Mecca.

4. According to the study from Dr. Rafat Amari shows that there is no historical record penned before the 4th century, that suggests that Mecca ever existed before that time, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested in the historical record.^[11]

5. In a study conducted by Dr. Rafat Amari, there is no archaeological record that suggests that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested, in the archaeological record.^[12]

6. In another study, Dr. Rafat Amari found that no pre-4th century historical or archaeological record that suggests that the Kaaba existed before the early 5th century.^[13]

7. Pilgrimages to Zion - to Jerusalem - to the Holy Land - were conducted during the First Temple Period.^{[citation needed]}

8. Baca is a Hebrew name that dates to before 1000 BC of a valley in Palestine, and is also a Hebrew term for balsam or mulberry trees that "weep" or bleed sap when they are cut. Bakkah is a more modern language 7th century AD Quraysh Arabic dialect name that some suggest refers to Mecca.^[14][15]

9. Genesis 16 verse 7 also pins its own location in "Shur", which is located in the northern Sinai Peninsula, on the north-eastern border of Egypt.

In response to people claiming that the Kaaba in Arabia was supposedly "not known" till the "Christian era" this is demonstrably false. Article [1], just one of many examples quoting the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who wikipedia tells us was a historian that flourished during the period of 60 BCE-30 BCE "Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of 1st century BC who wrote Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world. The following lines are the English translation of Greek quoted by Gibbon from the book of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) describing the 'temple' considered to be the the holiest in the whole of Arabia.

'And a temple has been set-up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians.'"[2] [2] Translated by C H Oldfather, Diodorus Of Sicily, Volume II, William Heinemann Ltd., London & Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MCMXXXV, p. 217.

For Christians there is a much bigger issue on the fact that there is no evidence of a city in Palestine called Nazareth until after the time of Jesus PBUH. [1] Also there is no evidence of any of the cities mentioned in the "Old Testament" such as Ai in Joshua, etc. [2] Also "Rafat Amari" is not a legitimate scholar and doesn't even have a wikipedia page!Historylover4 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mecca is mentioned by the 1st century CE historian Ptolemy long before the 4th century CE, Ptolemy lived c. 90 CE- c. 168 CE, [3] "Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which is identified as Mecca (please refer to the map facing page 17 of reference [3]). G E von Grunebaum says:

Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.[4]" 4- [4] G E Von Grunebaum, Classical Islam: A History 600-1258, George Allen & Unwin Limited, 1970, p. 19.Historylover4 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. (PeterWaldo (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. All of the information I removed either relies solely only a primary source (the Bible or the Qur'an), or cites a secondary source, like Dr. Rafat Amari, who is not even discussing Bakkah or Baca, but instead is discussing Mecca and its history. He is cited to make a synthesized argument that Mecca cannot be Baca because it did not exist before the 4th century (i.e. he does not make this conclusion as he is not discussing this subject).

I am going to remove the information once again, PeterWaldo. When you decide you want to reintroduce it, please do so item by item citing reliable secondary sources that actually say what you are writing down. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to people claiming that the Kaaba in Arabia was supposedly "not known" till the "Christian era" this is demonstrably false. Article [4], just one of many examples quoting the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who wikipedia tells us was a historian that flourished during the period of 60 BCE-30 BCE "Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of 1st century BC who wrote Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world. The following lines are the English translation of Greek quoted by Gibbon from the book of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) describing the 'temple' considered to be the the holiest in the whole of Arabia.

'And a temple has been set-up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians.'"[2] [2] Translated by C H Oldfather, Diodorus Of Sicily, Volume II, William Heinemann Ltd., London & Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MCMXXXV, p. 217.

For Christians there is a much bigger issue on the fact that there is no evidence of a city in Palestine called Nazareth until after the time of Jesus PBUH. [5]Historylover4 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following passage, that was credited to an individual Mormon author, that also has the most germane verse in the passage censored out of it while including verses that are unnecessary:

How lovely is Your dwelling-place, O Lord of Hosts. I long, I yearn for the courts of the Lord; my body and soul shout for joy to the living God ... Happy are those who dwell in Your house; they forever praise You. Happy is the man who finds refuge in You, whose mind is on the [pilgrim] highways. They pass through the Valley of Baca, regarding it as a place of springs, as if the early rain had covered it with blessing ... Better one day in Your courts than a thousand [anywhere else]; I would rather stand at the threshold of God's house than dwell in the tents of the wicked[5]

Replaced it with verses from the actual passage in the most widely read and respected King James version - including the censored verse - that pins the destination of the pilgrimage referenced in Psalms 84 as being IN ZION (Jerusalem) - as do all bible versions. w/ref http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=84&v=7&t=KJV#7

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

Reverence #17 also stops short of including the very next - and only germane - verse, regarding the destination of the pilgrimage this Psalms passage refers to.

I also added the following after

“This otherwise unidentified valley has been connected to Bakkah by Islamic writers.[5]”

However the Hebrew author of the Old Testament Psalm pinned the location of the pilgrimage as being in Zion which is the easternmost hill in, and synonymous with, Jerusalem, and is referenced 153 times in the King James version of the Holy Bible. w/ref http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=zion&t=KJV

Also balanced the Islamic “external link” with a Christian “external link”PeterWaldo (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut later again removed the scriptures, and replaced it again with the article by the Mormon, that also had the most germane portion edited out, presumably by the Wikipedia propagandist that included the censored partial quote originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to remove all references to Psalms 84 from this article altogether, as it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Mecca, or it's kaaba, or the term Bakkah as understood by the followers of Islamic "tradition". It is a 1200 kilometer distance made, geographical absurdity. However if reference to Psalms 84 is to be made then a sound reference to PSALMS 84 NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED that DOES NOT edit out the location pin of of the pilgrimage referenced as being to ZION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am undoing Tiamut's edit because it cast the article back into confusion. It is important to separate "tradition" that was penned in the 7th - 9th centuries AD - that purports to report about thousands of years of prior history - from factual information and historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWaldo (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) PeterWaldo (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the distinction you are amking is artificial. and you separated islamic tradition out into its own sections inappropriately. furthermore, you added Original Research by using primary source documents to introduce arguments about e temple of solomon which none of the sources discuss in relation to Bakkah or Baca. You cannot do that. Tiamut^talk 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. You keep removing the scripture from the KJV that regards the subject of Baca as abused in this article, and reinserting in its place spin by a follower of a 19th century "prophet", that someone further edited to remove reference to ZION being the object of the pilgrimage, for the purposes of Islamic propaganda. Far from being unrelated to the temple of Solomon, THE SUBJECT of the passage from Psalms 84 that is referenced in this article, as regards the valley of BACA, IS ABOUT a pilgrimage of those from around the Holy Land to Solomon's Temple IN ZION, not some kaaba located 1200 kilometers across harsh barren desert away from ZION in the SW Arabian desert, for which there is no historical or archaeological record from before the 5th century AD. If folks are going to pretend that this passage from Psalms 84 has anything to do with Mecca - that didn't even exist until well over a millennium later - then the unedited scripture that is abused for purposes of producing the fantasy needs to remain, to bear testimony against that preposterous suggestion.

Additionally, Islamic "tradition" belongs in it's own category, because it is created fiction, that poses as thousands of years of historical record, yet was all penned in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record from before the 5th century AD.

The history of this article however, and reinsertion of edited text for purposes of propaganda, bears testament to Wikipedia being increasingly compromised by Islamist propagandists.

This article has been repeatedly vandalized with the net effect of censoring the Psalms 84 passage that it references, to exclude the actual location of the temple that the pilgrimage of the Psalms passage references, as being "IN ZION". Earlier repeated vandalism by Tiamut, with the latest repeated vandalism of Zero0000 on 28 March 2012‎ 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 referenced - should have been repaired or removed. But Zero0000 instead undid my entire undo, thereby once again censoring THE LOCATION of the pilgrimage from the Psalms 84 verses as being IN ZION, along with undoing considerable other article modification and clarification including separation of Islamic "tradition" from the factual information and history. This was a repeat of Zero0000's 4 March 2012‎ major alteration and broad brush vandalism vagely excused away with: "Back out mish-mash of original research, copyright violations and poor sources." While Tiamut is an unapologetic "Palestinian", a review of articles Zero0000 has participated in that are listed on his description page, belie his effort in self-introduction that suggest he does not have a dog in this hunt. This article is however, a testament as to what has happened to Wikipedia, as well as portending where it is headed.

We should avoid this WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as clearly biblical Psalms do not have any connection with Quranic Bakkah --Tritomex (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Tom Holland's In the Shadow of the Sword makes a claim that Bakkah and Mecca are unlikely to be the same place.

This article only gives the traditional Islamic perspective (which, obviously, needs to be included). However, I think the fact that we are not certain about Bakkah being a synonym of Mecca must be included.

Should this be a new section? Should I make this change? I can summarize Holland's argument and cite his sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windwaker (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly should. This article has insane neutrality issues and attempts to prove something that any non-islamic source would dispute. I'm not sure why so many subsections were removed as well. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright folks, I am new here, but I couldn't really let this one go by.

Tom Holland clearly has made waves with his hypothesis. However, he is obviuously also not the only one. There are also other of non Islamic revisionist scholars who agree with him, or at least are highly doubtful that Mohammad was in Mecca etc etc. (ref the Tom Holland documentary, Islam the untold story)

Now, If we are going to be editing pages and adding information, we should be fair.

For example, one header can be the "Islamic Understanding of", and the other would be Peer reviewed works on such and such.

For example, Tom and his fellow scholars who have these opinions make several points as to why they feel bekka and mecca are not the same.

1) Geography: They reference the Koran and discuss how it speaks of fertile valleys, vineyards, livestock etc. This is not congruous to what Mecca was or is today. (ie it is arid and inhospitable) 2) Relationship with Jews and Christians, who did not have a presence in Mecca. ONly in Yatrib or Medina were there supposedly 3 Jewish tribes or so. 3) Qibla locations at early mosques not pointing to Mecca.

We cant ignore that these historians are saying these things. We need to be transparent and make their points heard.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe scott333 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkah is not Mecca. Mecca never played any role in pre-islamic history nor was it a center of trade like islamic scholars claimed. Also early direction of prayers are pointing to Petra and not Mecca.

62.226.83.236 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can Baca be the same as Mecca if Mecca has no valley? Its a pure desert. Petra on the other hand has a valley.

62.226.93.15 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]