“...the qibla reorientation from around Jerusalem to the Hijazi Mecca was a byproduct of the reforms by Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705)..” would ignore 2:144 — unless we have reasons to argue that Abd al-Malik has inserted this (and possibly other verses) to Quran. Do we have such reasons?
No, it's definitely nothing to do with Abd al-Malik. I think the Qur'an is genuinely Late Antique and has remained quite stable. It's precisely that fact which allows us to use it as a source, but to do that you have to strip away the interpretative Tradition, and this is a classic case.
Because of the Tradition, it's taken granted reading that that "al-Masjid al-Haram" means the mosque in Saudi Mecca, but when the Qur'an speaks of "the Sacred/Inviolable Place of Prostration" it doesn't specify its geography - and more to the point, when it does describe elements of its geography and topography and demography (both Muhammad's community and the "mushrikun", who are clearly monotheists), it gives a portrait of a Levantine agricultural setting, not the Hijazi Mecca.
In other words, the story being told is basically the reverse of what the Tradition says: we don't know where the other location implied by 2:144 was, but when the Qur'an refers to turning back to al-Masjid al-Haram - or the Sacred House (al-Bayt al-Haram), the other phrase used for the original ka'ba shrine - it's talking about a location south of Jerusalem.
At the 30,000-foot level, surprisingly little. Even by the Tradition, Shi'ism is a political claim about Ali's right to rule. The soundtrack to that, as it were, the exact theological claims, are somewhat less important than the structural set-up.
A lot of the intrigue (to simplify massively) is the extent to which final-form Shi'ism represents a resurfacing of Zoroastrianism, with ideas like the holy bloodline. The forging of the Tradition is in no small part the revenge of the conquered peoples, Mesopotamian Jews and Persian Zoroastrians specifically. It's possible to see a sort of division where the Jewish element is emphasised in the mainstream/Sunni version - in the form and content of the Sunna and the Holy Law - and there's a heavier tread from the Zoroastrian converts in the minority faction.
The really CRAZY revisionists map the original manning “Bayt” in “Ahlu Albayt” (household of the prophet according to Islam) to Bayt Almaqdis, which they also think was originally the “Sacred Mosque” referred to in the Quran, rather than the Grand Mosque of Mecca, but that’s a whole other rabbithole. There are some interesting observations and food for thought in that rabbithole though (the identity of the Sacred Mosque, not the Shiaaism as Temple defenders part).
For mainstream revisionists though, not much as Kyle Orton said. It was political opposition to the Umayyads and Abbasids and its doctrine probably shifted over time to maintain a minimum level of coherence with historical concepts that mainstream “Sunnism” has come to embrace. Since doctrines weren’t fully set in stone, the Shiites (or proto-Shiites) were affected by the grand history of early Islam that was being spread across the caliphate, and embraced the historical record of it while reinterpreting it.
“...the qibla reorientation from around Jerusalem to the Hijazi Mecca was a byproduct of the reforms by Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705)..” would ignore 2:144 — unless we have reasons to argue that Abd al-Malik has inserted this (and possibly other verses) to Quran. Do we have such reasons?
No, it's definitely nothing to do with Abd al-Malik. I think the Qur'an is genuinely Late Antique and has remained quite stable. It's precisely that fact which allows us to use it as a source, but to do that you have to strip away the interpretative Tradition, and this is a classic case.
Because of the Tradition, it's taken granted reading that that "al-Masjid al-Haram" means the mosque in Saudi Mecca, but when the Qur'an speaks of "the Sacred/Inviolable Place of Prostration" it doesn't specify its geography - and more to the point, when it does describe elements of its geography and topography and demography (both Muhammad's community and the "mushrikun", who are clearly monotheists), it gives a portrait of a Levantine agricultural setting, not the Hijazi Mecca.
In other words, the story being told is basically the reverse of what the Tradition says: we don't know where the other location implied by 2:144 was, but when the Qur'an refers to turning back to al-Masjid al-Haram - or the Sacred House (al-Bayt al-Haram), the other phrase used for the original ka'ba shrine - it's talking about a location south of Jerusalem.
How does revisionist history of Islam affect our understanding of the genesis of Shi'ism?
At the 30,000-foot level, surprisingly little. Even by the Tradition, Shi'ism is a political claim about Ali's right to rule. The soundtrack to that, as it were, the exact theological claims, are somewhat less important than the structural set-up.
A lot of the intrigue (to simplify massively) is the extent to which final-form Shi'ism represents a resurfacing of Zoroastrianism, with ideas like the holy bloodline. The forging of the Tradition is in no small part the revenge of the conquered peoples, Mesopotamian Jews and Persian Zoroastrians specifically. It's possible to see a sort of division where the Jewish element is emphasised in the mainstream/Sunni version - in the form and content of the Sunna and the Holy Law - and there's a heavier tread from the Zoroastrian converts in the minority faction.
The really CRAZY revisionists map the original manning “Bayt” in “Ahlu Albayt” (household of the prophet according to Islam) to Bayt Almaqdis, which they also think was originally the “Sacred Mosque” referred to in the Quran, rather than the Grand Mosque of Mecca, but that’s a whole other rabbithole. There are some interesting observations and food for thought in that rabbithole though (the identity of the Sacred Mosque, not the Shiaaism as Temple defenders part).
For mainstream revisionists though, not much as Kyle Orton said. It was political opposition to the Umayyads and Abbasids and its doctrine probably shifted over time to maintain a minimum level of coherence with historical concepts that mainstream “Sunnism” has come to embrace. Since doctrines weren’t fully set in stone, the Shiites (or proto-Shiites) were affected by the grand history of early Islam that was being spread across the caliphate, and embraced the historical record of it while reinterpreting it.