We now continue with the remaining 3 theories posited by King concerning why he thinks the earliest Qiblas were misdirected. Theory 5: In Jordan and Syria they built facing "more or less" due south, which faces close to Mecca. Response: Naturally the mosques in Jordan and Syria are facing "more or less" due south, because both Petra and Mecca are south of these two countries. Yet, when you look at the Qiblas and test Mecca against Petra, all of them are much closer to Petra than Mecca, so there is no reason to say “more or less” as King says, they are specifically facing Petra. Why go with "more or less" when we already have "exact"? To underline this fact, in his 2017 book “Early Islamic Qiblas” Gibson purposely introduced 4 blue dials (or compasses) for each of the mosques he researched, with each dial representing 4 places (i.e. the mosque itself, Petra, Mecca, and Jerusalem). These showed the reader just how close or far the Qibla faced each of these 3 cities, proving just how much closer the earliest mosques were facing towards Petra, than Mecca. Why didn’t King do this in his research? Obviously, not having gone there himself, nor attempted to find their exact locations, he was satisfied with "more or less". Furthermore, all the other Mosques which are not north of these two cities (i.e. East and West) also face Petra, and not Mecca, so from every direction these mosques were succinctly facing Petra; that is, at least up to 706 AD. How does King account for them? Well, he simply doesn't, as he wasn't aware of their directions. Theory 6: In India they faced due west, and in Northern Africa they faced due east. Response: Either King hasn’t looked carefully at Gibson’s research, or he purposely chooses to disregard it. Gibson showed clearly that the one mosque in India from this time period, the Cherman Juma Mosque in Kerala (built in 629 AD) is facing directly towards Petra, not Mecca. Likewise, Gibson clearly showed that all the mosques in Northern Africa were facing due south, paralleling a line between Petra and Mecca, and not east. What’s more, King has already noted that the Cordoba mosque in Spain, which follows those in No. Africa was facing directly south, so why does he contradict himself here? Theory 7: In Yemen and in Eastern Africa, the Qiblas faced "more or less" due north. Response: Once again, either King hasn’t looked carefully at Gibson’s research, or he purposely chooses to disregard it, or since he doesn't really know himself, he's satisfied with "more or less". Naturally, the mosques in Yemen and E. Africa are facing “more or less” north, because both Petra and Mecca are north of these countries. But that misses Gibson’s point; their directions are much closer to Petra than Mecca, somethi ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXtfA8UmwlI

The accusation by Muslims is that our Bible is corrupted, and they begin by saying three things; 1) that in some undefined way the Bible is corrupted, 2) that the real Torah and Injil are not in our Bible, and 3) that Muhammad is not prophesied in the Bible. Yet, by saying these three things they are creating an internal contradiction, because the Qur’an is very clear that the previous scriptures are NOT corrupted, even though Muslims say that it is. For instance, take Surah 29:46 which states that Muslims are not to argue with Christians and Jews because they are to believe in the book which was given to us (i.e. the Bible), and the book which was given to them (i.e. the Qur’an). Surah 4:136 even says that God gave them the Bible as an authority. So, how could Allah give them a corrupted book to believe in? Or take Surahs 10:94 and 21:7 which both say to go to the ‘people of the Book’ (the ahl-kitab) if they have any questions, because they (the Jews and Christians), have been given by god the Torah and the Injil for them, the Muslims. Why would their god, Allah tell them to find their answers in a corrupted book? Or, one could refer to Surah 5:43-48, and especially verse 68, which clearly stipulate that Christians and Jews are to measure everything they believe by their own scriptures (i.e. the Bible). And, would god send Christians and Jews back to a corrupted book? It is clear from these passages that the Qur'an gives authority to the Bible. In fact, the only reference Muslims might be able to use for corruption could be Surah 2:79, which intimates that the Jews may have written something with their own hands and called it ‘the book’, but once you refer to the previous verse 78 you can see that the Qur’an is referring here to the Jewish apocryphal writings, of which the Qur’an possesses quite a few, and warns them not to trust them; intimating ironically that they shouldn't trust the Qur'an as well. This claim of corruption of the previous scriptures is counterproductive for Muslims as well, due to the fact that even though it often refers specifically to just the Taurut (the Torah) and the Injil (the Gospels), the Qur’an lists 19 Biblical prophets, all of whom the Qur’an is dependent upon for its authority, and refers to even obscure books in the Bible (i.e. the book of Jonah), suggesting that the Qur’an itself gives credibility to the entire Bible. So, when Muslims call the previous scriptures corrupt, they undermine not only the very prophetic line on which the Qur’an is dependent on, but much of the content of the Qur’an as well. Indeed, the Torah and the Injil that the Qur’an is referring to has to be the Biblical Torah and the Injil, because no other Torah and Injil has been found, anywhere. So then, wh ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPBQfi1Mu00