I give up fighting Islamophobia

[Augustus]

Firstly Greek historian Diodorus Siculus was a non-muslim and this answers the first part of your question.
Secondly he mentions Mecca and the Kaaba as ""And a temple as been set up there,which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians"".

Does he mention Mecca, the Kaaba or the location? If so what is the quote.

Almost every mention I can find about this that equates it specifically with Mecca is from various Islamic sites and says almost exactly the same thing. From my experience, 9 times out of 10 this means they are copied from the same source who has added information to suit their agenda and simply repeated as fact without anyone actually checking it.

Does the original say anything other than there is a sacred temple somewhere in Arabia? If not why should I believe it is Mecca? If you can show me the original quote, then I might change my mind, if not it is inconclusive at best.

*edit: this source claims it is in South Jordan http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1184/1/1184.pdf *

Finally do you know what is the meaning of Macoraba. Maco in arabic means house and raba means lord.
Macoraba simply means House of the God.Prophet Ibraham(PBBUH) built this house and called it the House of Allah.The Arabs pre-Islam called it the House of Allah and to this day we all call it "The House of allah".

Remember, you are trying to prove that Mecca was the undisputed centre of the Arab world where almost all Arabs went on regular pilgrimage. Ptolemy was not the first or the only person to write about Arabia. Even if we accept that Macoroba is Mecca, which is not certain, why did none of the others notice it? Why could Siculus find it 1stC BC, but the Romans couldn't find it during the next 7 centuries to even record its existence, except for a vague reference from Ptolemy?

Look at all the historical references to other places from that time, yet why would the undisputed centre of the Arab world, where tens of thousands of the Romans close allies visited every year, which was a major trade centre, which had the most famous, most Holy shrine in the region, not have been noticed, not once but many, many times? The Roman army would have had plenty of Arabs in it, never mind their tribal allies, but not even a rumour of the Holiest site in Arabia was recorded for hundreds of years after Ptolemy.

It should have dozens, if not hundreds of references if what you say is true. Even if we assume that all of your claims are correct (which is a pretty big leap), does 3 mentions in 800 years really make sense to you given the amazing importance of one of the most ancient and holy places on the planet?

Given their love of relics and holy things, if there was a site, right on the doorstep of the Romans, don't you think they would have at least looked at the place, if not captured it and stolen the sacred stone?

Your entire argument rests on 2 or three very vague references to a place that might or might not be Mecca, again, do you seriously believe that constitutes a significant body of evidence for such an important place?

*edit: Ptolemy identified Macoraba as being further East than Yathrib, whereas Mecca is further West. Your explanation? Also plenty of scholars doubt that your Arabic translation is likely to be a correct identification of a town called Mecca*

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I'm throwing in the towel. I've been fighting Islamophobia since 2001 and I am about to give up. It's a steamroller that can't be stopped and it will plunge this world into a war in which even the moderates on both sides will slaughter one another. Have fun with that!

There are certain ideals that a lot of Liberals see as universal truths but are objective fallacies. One of which is that somehow Abrahamic religions are inherently peaceful and fight should be given against those who wish to eradicate Islam because they are grouping the "extremists" with the "peaceful". I am not saying that is your position for your fight against Islamophobia, just a prevalent position I see.

Here's the fallacy. Abrahamic religions are inherently malicious and not peaceful. The people who you call "extremists" are really just devout. The people who don't try to kill infidels don't do so because they are moderates, they don't do so because they aren't very Muslim. Same goes for Christians and Jews. Jews who don't stone unruly children don't do so not because they aren't literalists, they don't do so because they aren't very devout. There are a lot of people in Western countries who claim to be Christian that accept gays, accept abortion because they claim to be a liberal Christian or a enlightened Christian. The reality is that they really aren't that Christian.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that most "Christian" (Western) countries are really more secular and most Christians there in are not that devout ( or observant). Most Muslim countries ARE devout and observant and because of which most westerners perceive their ways as brutal and extreme.

The Western world has made strides by becoming less religious and more secular. If you want to fight, the real fight would be against those who want to allow Muslims to immigrate to Western countries. Allowing a religiously devout demographic into a society that has made progress by becoming secular is like mopping a floor wearing muddy shoes. Its that reason why I call Liberals "Regressives". We are taking steps backwards accepting religions and further steps by fighting those who don't accept religions.

What's even more ironic is that even the most "moderate" (less devout ) Muslims who don't engage in violence and speaks against terrorism still holds ideals of typical gender roles, against gay marriage, against abortion. All the things Liberals champion. <sigh lol>

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

I've thought about giving up fighting Islamophobia, but to be frank most of that is due to my experiences with some Muslims as of late. One of those things where my personal problems with individuals is colouring my view of things they hold dear.

However, here are some good ways to notice Islamophoiba and just generally someone being an absolute, drooling retard;

Any mention of "Eurabia" (If at all possible, stab these people in the throat)
"Birthrates!"
"Mohammed was a pedophile!"(when not applying that definition to 80% of men from his era)

If someone is a "drooling retard" for concerning themselves over the proliferation of another demographic then you must have quantifiable and objective evidence that Muslim Arabs immigrating and proliferating into Europe is a positive thing.

Please gives us examples of a White society that improves*** and doesn't decline with the influx of Arab immigrants?

*** We are talking government entitlements going down, crime going down, educational systems improving, housing prices improving ect.

I ask this because if ( you are going to show me otherwise) Islamophobes concern themselves over a objectively negative phenomenon, in this case "Muslim birthrates", then that makes the people who fight against them

absolute, drooling retard;

 

[Nietzsche]

If someone is a "drooling retard" for concerning themselves over the proliferation of another demographic then you must have quantifiable and objective evidence that Muslim Arabs immigrating and proliferating into Europe is a positive thing.

Please gives us examples of a White society that improves*** and doesn't decline with the influx of Arab immigrants?

*** We are talking government entitlements going down, crime going down, educational systems improving, housing prices improving ect.

I ask this because if ( you are going to show me otherwise) Islamophobes concern themselves over a objectively negative phenomenon, in this case "Muslim birthrates", then that makes the people who fight against them

Right. No, I'm not. Anyone who uses words like "White Society" and associates the birthrates of other people with the words "negative phenomenon" is clearly a Stormfront reject. I don't have the time or the patience to fix you, sorry.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Right. No, I'm not. Anyone who uses words like "White Society" and associates the birthrates of other people with the words "negative phenomenon" is clearly a Stormfront reject. I don't have the time or the patience to fix you, sorry.

He doesn't have an answer ! LOL.

 

[Nietzsche]

He doesn't have an answer ! LOL.

No, I just don't have the patience to argue with a latter-day Hitler-Youth. So sieg heil, 88 and all that, whatever else you & other vermin say during your circle-jerk meetings.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

No, I just don't have the patience to argue with a latter-day Hitler-Youth. So sieg heil, 88 and all that, whatever else you & other vermin say during your circle-jerk meetings.

The only thing you do have is the intellectual deficiency you accuse others of possessing. This is evident by your ad hominem attacks and inability to answer a simple question.

There is a consistently in your Liberal camp to assert what they want reality to be even if its objectively untrue. It's delusion by indoctrination. "Duhhhhh my professor said immigration into Europe is a good thing...duhhhhhh". When anyone with a functioning brain can see that Muslim immigration into Europe is a dismal failure.

You can tap dance all you want for your reasons not to answer a simple question. The real reason is you're wrong and have no facts to substantiate your deluded beliefs.

You have given us a window into the credulous and factually deficient nature of the liberal mind.