Early Qibla?

[Peaceful]

Dan Gibson made this statement:

"There was confusion during the following 100 years until the Abbasids firmly established the qibla in the present Mecca direction. This contradicts the Qur'an which tells us that the qibla changed during Muhammad's lifetime. How did those verses get into the Qu'ran? Were they inserted by later writers? I then examined hundreds of old Qur'anic manuscripts to search for these verses, and they are missing in all of the Qur'ans written during the first 100 years of Islam. This clearly indicates to me that the Qur'an was re-compiled by the Abbasids, and verses were added to substantiate their decision to move the Black rock to Mecca in Saudi Arabia."

Can you refute these claims, as he is a renown researcher I just passed by while reading? Jazakullah

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Peaceful,

May peace be with you. 

With respect, it would take me time resource which I sadly I do not possess to critique what I humbly feel are Dan Gibson's selective use of sources and the interpolations he draws from them. For example making use of later secondary sources or selective archaeology to impress upon the clear narratives of an earlier historical document such as the Quran is not only an unwarranted enterprise, it is also intellectually dishonest.

As I mentioned in another post: [1]

Without any comprehensive scholarly support detailing what manuscripts were studied, what exact verses are alluded to, what the author classifies as '1st century' MSSs and a detailed scrutiny, I find this a wild, unjustified claim with an inferred conclusion which is non sequitur. One would need to see clear evidence of complete copies of the Quran with the verses alluded to clearly removed as if they were never part of the recitation. Please can you also share with me archaeological evidence which clearly challenges the Qibla verses of the Quran as it is recited today.

It is therefore with respect that I share in candour that I have no inclination to embark upon such a task nor do I find that it warrants my best use of time.

Suffice to say, that I have yet to find cogent proof of the oft claim from certain areas of scholarship that insinuates that today's Qibla is incorrect or that Makkah was not the original location for the Masjid al-Haram.

Fortunately and with utmost humility, I have been in this field long enough to know how sources are utilised, oft disguised in scholarly gloss and carefully selected to reach a particular conclusion.

The earliest source of evidence for me is the Quran. From the Quran I have shared  my perspectives on related matters and where I have concluded:
 

• Makkah is the Original Location for the Masjid al-Haram [2]
• The Masjid al-Haram is the final Qibla for believers [3]

I have also exhausted my perspectives in a related post [4]. Others have shared their perspectives as well. Therefore, may I request with humility that you accept my post the last on this particular matter.

With respect,

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

REFERENCES:

[1] THE LOST INJEEL
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=640.msg2459#new
[2] IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm
[3] THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm
[4] Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=136.0