Claudius Ptolemy, a Greek writer and geographer from Alexandria, in Egypt wrote "A Guide to Geography" between 141 AD - 147 AD. In it he gave co-ordinates for a place called 'Macoraba' as 73% 20' 22%, which placed Macoraba south-east of what used to be called Yathrib, or Medina today. It is this city that many historians in the West, particularly in Europe, believed was the city of Mecca. The problem is that Mecca today is south-west of Medina, and not south east, so it is positioned in the wrong place. Nonetheless, European scholars since the time of the French historian, Samuel Bochart, in 1651 AD, have claimed that Macoraba was indeed Mecca. Others supported Bochart; Johann Heinrich Zedler in 1739 included this supposed reference to Mecca by Ptolemy in his German Encyclopedia. In 1799 Konrad Mannert, the Prussian historian suggested that the word Macoraba could mean a temple. In 1846 the German scholar Albert Forbiger referenced Macoraba as Mecca in his encyclopedia which canonized the idea for most Europeans ever since. In 1890 Eduard Gasser suggested that the word Macoraba was a southern Arabian word for 'Mihrab', which then meant a place of worship, and since then most Western Scholars believe Macoraba is Mecca. But there are problems, according to Ian D. Morris, who has done the best and most thorough research on this theory in modern times. To begin with Ptolemy's map places Macoraba in the wrong place, southeast of Yathrib, when it should be southwest. Furthermore, etymologically, Macoraba has many problems. As Morris noted, "It is telling that after 350 years of experimentation we have a handful of incompatible etymologies, none of which quite fits. It is also telling that five very different interpretations have resorted to languages that flourished outside ancient Mecca: Aramaic from Sprenger, Hebrew from Bochart and Dozy, and Old South Arabian from Glaser and Ali. Why, then, is there still a consensus that Macoraba is Mecca?" He goes on to say, "the idea was first noted in the seventeenth century; in the eighteenth century it found its way into encyclopaedias; and in the nineteenth, it was fairly common knowledge among Orientalists. Konrad Mannert helped to popularise the idea, but it was probably Albert Forbiger’s entry in Pauly’s Encyclopaedia that assured its place in the canon of Orientalist thought." He then concludes, "It is not impossible that Mecca is Macoraba, but right now, given the state of the field, there is no rigorous way to bridge the two names. It is easier to conclude that they are different places. Patricia Crone seems to be vindicated, and hopefully this blog post will be a second small step toward overturning the consensus." So, what did Patricia Crone say in her best seller, 'Meccan Trade and the Ri ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HddpTLwGPzU

We've always known that the Qur'an was not created completely in a period of 22 years as Muslims have always stated. But we never had any physical proof of a changing Qur'an, or of a evolving text, until recently, when the Sana'a Palimpsest was discovered in 1975. This Palimpsest has proven finally that the Qur'an did evolve between the 7th and the 8th centuries. Uniquely, this manuscript has two layers of writing, one, the lower text, probably written towards the end of the 7th century, and then washed off and re-written over top (the upper text) in the beginning of the 8th century. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics, August 18, 2018 (17,239) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfhfa8T2VR0

It's obvious that Muslims haven't thought through the problems they have with a scripture and their prayers which require that all muslims read and pray in Arabic, suggesting their god Allah can only understand and communicate in that one language; unlike the God of the Bible whose scripture can be read in any language, and who receives prayer by everyone in their own heart language. It's also clear that Muslims are not sure why they have to clean themselves before they pray, thinking that purifies themselves, without understanding that impurity comes from within, as Asher points out so clearly in this video © Pfander Centre for Apologetics, 2017 ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g296-AeRk74

Rev. James Kaddis, a well known Egyptian background pastor from Calvary Chapel in California had Jay come on his show to have an hour discussion on the many historical problems facing the origins of Islam. See James Kaddis' YouTube Channel at: https://www.youtube.com/@pastorjameskaddis Watch the lively discussion between the two of them, which was far ranging and covered 10 major questions concerning the historicity of Islam's origins which James threw at Jay, including: 1) Why should we even engage with Muslims Apologetically and Polemically, and what kind of Polemics is the best to use with them? 2) Isn't the kind of Polemics which Jay uses (i.e. Historical Polemics) the most difficult for others to understand and use for themselves? 3) Why can't we trust the Islamic Traditions (i.e. the Sira, Hadith, Tafsir and Tahrikh), and shouldn't we go after their content rather than their historicity? 4) What is the real problem with the city of Mecca, and why does Jay believe that we need to start with this city in our debates concerning the historicity of Islam? 5) Why does Jay almost never attack the character of Muhammad and the irrelevancy of the Qur'an any more, since this is the classical Polemic which has been used for centuries? 6) If neither Muhammad, Mecca, or the Qur'an are historical, than can't Muslims say the same thing about Jesus, Jerusalem and the Gospels as a rebuttal? 7) Why does Jay say that the Biblical manuscripts are better than the Qur'anic manuscripts, and does he have proof to support his claims? 8) So, why is the problem of the Qira'ats and the Ahruf Qur'ans (i.e. the 30 different Qur'ans which Jay and Hatun held up in 2016) so devastating for Muslim scholars today? 9) Doesn't the Qur'an have a higher respect for the prophets, and isn't the image of Jesus in the Qur'an a better representation of Jesus than in the Bible? 10) Why does Jay think that Historical Polemics against Islam, if it is so effective, nonetheless, should only be used by Christians, and not by other people, such as Atheists, or Humanists? © Pfander Centre for Apologetics & Polemics - US, Feb.11, 2024 (102,660) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzeoCWkWBWA