Saqifa and Shura

[Fahad Sani]

 

Details and truth about such historical event is mentioned in THIS DOCUMENT with all references.

 

[Hassan-]

Way too much to read, why don't you summarize it and post the important points here.

[Fahad Sani]

My intention was just to share this document, not to discus each and everything inside. This document is itself a summary from all historical works.

I think, summary of the book in its conclusion.

Quote

CONCLUSION

-

Firstly, the Prophet (saw) passed away unexpectedly without having

appointed a successor for the position of Caliphate. We learn this through

numerous statements, some are clear and explicit while others just hint

towards this. Therefore, it is unanimously agreed upon in all history books

through many authentic and weak traditions that no leader was chosen for

this nation by name. As for `Ali bin abi Talib’s alleged appointment at

“Ghadir Khum”, we find no mention of it by `Ali or anyone else which clearly

implies that it was not understood in the context some of `Ali’s later Shia

believed.

-

Secondly, the Muhajirin were able to persuade the Ansar to drop their

demand for authority and Abu Bakr was selected as leader on the spot by

agreement of the vast majority who were present except Sa`d and Hubab.

Abu Bakr’s pledge was sudden and unplanned, it happened in a state of

emergency and could have led to dangerous consequences thus `Umar

warned people to not take that path ever again. Abu Bakr would receive a

public pledge from everybody on the next day with only select individuals

refusing such as Khalid but nobody was forced.

-

Thirdly, the stories about the house of `Ali being burned and the killing of

his wife and child are baseless sectarian fabrications and none of that took place. `Ali and Zubayr gave their pledge on Thursday but it was very late and caused certain folks to think that `Ali did not approve and accept so they began chanting his name. `Ali did not pay attention to those who

encouraged his Caliphate nor did he participate much in political life since

the event of inheritance until the death of his wife. After six months, `Ali felt

it was important to clear the air and speak honestly about what he thought

and why Banu Hashim were upset. Abu Bakr showed good will and

apologized then accepted `Ali’s apology. `Ali insisted on renewing his

allegiance to Abu Bakr in front of everybody to prevent further rumours

from spreading.

-

Fourthly, tribal affiliations affected the process in a way that tribes

competed for the position as they knew much benefit would befall their

tribesmen and families if they succeeded. People boasted about their

virtues, merits, lineage and accomplishments in Islam to claim the right of

successorship. The dispute regarding superiority with the Ansar offended

some of the leaders of Quraysh who later embraced Islam and this led to

much tension in the city. The most pious of people were those least affected by any tribal extremism which shows the great influence Islam had over their lives since they embraced it.

-

Fifthly, it should be clear to all how great are the teachings of Islam and

how loyal were the Companions of Muhammad (saw) for had it not been for

the light of Islam, these Arabs would have surely fought for honor and

power just like they did in times of ignorance. It took true divine

intervention to transform those simple desert Arabs into guided folks who

act to please the Lord Almighty even if it conflicts with their past ideologies.

The past Arabs would have never accepted to select a weak man from a

weak tribe such as Abu Bakr to rule over them but Islam has made this

possible. With the power now in the hands of righteous leaders and

enlightened individuals, the Arabs flourished and accomplished great feats

by God’s blessing.

-

Sixthly, history reveals the superiority of certain individuals, the best of

whom are Abu Bakr and `Umar. These two elders proved their detachment

from the materialistic world and their pure understanding of Islam. They did

not seek authority nor did they gather wealth, instead they deprived their

own families and never allowed those of blood relation to rule even though

they both were more than capable with the power, respect and love they

obtained throughout their lives. They had the best of teachers

and followed the best example without faltering thus setting a high standard for all those to come after them. We found it very hard to argue that anybody could reach the high status of these two selfless and pious elders after browsing the history books.

-

The seventh benefit we acquire, is that the Islamic sources contain vast

amounts of information and a large amount of detail can be collected by

diving into the hearts of the large books. The information recorded by all of

these historians may vary in minor details and the different versions will

have their differences but the overall flow of events is similar and the

outcomes are unanimous. The story we recorded above is a useful

summary, it merges most of the details into one text and the result would

be as if the reader went back to the original resources listed at the top and

went through them one by one.

 

[Hassan-]

Very weak arguments @Fahad Sani, I'm not sure how you can believe it. I will prove to you the imamat of Ali tomorrow and what happened after the Prophets death.

 

EDIT:

My intention was just to share this document, not to discus each and everything inside.

Never mind than.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Hassan Y

[Sindbad05]

3 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

 

Details and truth about such historical event is mentioned in THIS DOCUMENT with all references.

 

We know the truth, Prophet PBUHHP said on his death bed to all his companions: "March under the banner of Usama bin Zayd for the war except Ali bin Abu Talib, and whoever does not go with Usama bin Ziyad, Curse of Allah will be upon him". Verified both from Sunni and Shia sources.

[Hassan-]

5 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

We know the truth, Prophet PBUHHP said on his death bed to all his companions: "March under the banner of Usama bin Zayd for the war except Ali bin Abu Talib, and whoever does not go with Usama bin Ziyad, Curse of Allah will be upon him". Verified both from Sunni and Shia sources.

Exactly. 

Abu bakr and umar were not even suppost to be in Madina at the time of the Prophets death. The Prophet ordered them to go with Usama bin Zaid to war but abu bakr and umar refused because they didn't like the fact the Prophet put a 17 year old teenager in charge of them. They violated the Prophets command.

[Sindbad05]

1 hour ago, Hassan Y said:

Exactly. 

Abu bakr and umar were not even suppost to be in Madina at the time of the Prophets death. The Prophet ordered them to go with Usama bin Zaid to war but abu bakr and umar refused because they didn't like the fact the Prophet put a 17 year old teenager in charge of them. They violated the Prophets command.

Problem was not 17 years old boy but that Ali a.s would have been the Caliph when they would have returned from the war. They already had other plans in their mind. And Prophet PBUHHP was poisoned and was not ill due to health reasons 63 is not a very old age, 

[DigitalUmmah]

Why wasnt Imam Ali (as) present at saqifa? 

[Struggling_onn]

 

 

Why people can't Just Accept imam ali(as) after prophet(pbuh) as their leader instead of 4th Caliph !!! 

who was like Ali(as) after prophet(pbuh) ? 

Who had more knowledge than him(as) ? 

Who was braver than Ali(as) ? 

Who was more Justice than Ali(as) ? 

 

We dispute about first three but no one dispute about 4th than why not put 4th one at the place of 1st one Place ? 

it's just mind boggling... then they say there is no justice in this world !!! even today if people accept Ali(as) as their leader, the whole chaos in world will be end !!!

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Struggling_onn

[DigitalUmmah]

by the sunni argument, if anyone should be caliph it should be hazrat Usama (RA), who was literally put in charge of the entire islamic army by the prophet (s) personally, the same Prophet who then cursed anyone who did not go and join Usamas army.

surely this has more significance than abu bakr supposedly leading prayers (even though that never happened according to shia hadith)

Dont worry, I wont hold my breath for any sort of sunni reply.

 

[iraqi_shia]

11 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Firstly, the Prophet (saw) passed away unexpectedly without having

 

appointed a successor for the position of Caliphate

This is not true.

Firstly, every time the Prophet SAW left the area, he always appointed someone to be in charge of things. This is established in sunni and shia sources.

Secondly, the "farewell sermon", which is in every Muslims books, explicitly mentions the Prophet SAW saying his time is up.

So this sudden death theory, is frankly nonsense. Additionally, to imply the Prophet SAW was caught unaware and didnt appoint a leader is insulting.

Even on this forum, in a corner shop, in a small business, they have deputies and second in charge, are you telling us the Prophet SAW neglected this? Even when he knew his time was coming to an end?

Impossible to believe.

[ShiaMan14]

@Fahad Sani,

To-date, I have given you the benefit of doubt because I thought you are a genuine guy who is looking to learn and teach. However with each post, it becomes more clear who you really are.

Your primary source of information seems to be either Anti-Majoos videos and now the known anti-shia and overtly salafi site 12ershia.

Here are some facts about them:

• 12ershia site's purpose is to spread leis and misinformation about the shia.
• Hani Al-Tarabulsi owns and manages that site. He is the staunchest of salafi you are bound to meet.
• He refers to shia as kafir, mushrik, dogs, etc and these were directed directly to me when I was visiting his site

Since you are a shia, then according to him you are a kafir, a mushrik and a dog. So I have to question why would you use a site and an author that thinks you are a kafir. Its like someone using a book written by Hitler about Jews to form their opinion of jews. Might be a tad bit biased.

This leads me to believe that you are NOT A shia. In fact, you are a salafi in disguise doing what your people do best - spread fitna and discord among people.

 

You have been exposed!

[myouvial]

13 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Why wasnt Imam Ali (as) present at saqifa? 

What i understand now, Imam Ali (a.s.) put more important on preparing the Rasulullah's body for qubr (put in grave) than choosing a leader (khalifah). (This is in contradict to what is my teacher's opinion during my university class).

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Let me clear things to you in points:-

1. Prophet (pbuh) did not nominate his successor (Khalifah)

2. Hence we do not have any verse or hadith in this regard.

3. Abu Bakar was rightly made the caliph.

4. Caliphate has nothing to do with religion.

5. Caliphate is not divine institution.

6. Yet who do not accept first three caliph or have faith in them you are a "fasiq" "deviated" and "misguided"

[Fahad Sani]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

@Fahad Sani,

To-date, I have given you the benefit of doubt because I thought you are a genuine guy who is looking to learn and teach. However with each post, it becomes more clear who you really are.

Your primary source of information seems to be either Anti-Majoos videos and now the known anti-shia and overtly salafi site 12ershia.

Here are some facts about them:

• 12ershia site's purpose is to spread leis and misinformation about the shia.
• Hani Al-Tarabulsi owns and manages that site. He is the staunchest of salafi you are bound to meet.
• He refers to shia as kafir, mushrik, dogs, etc and these were directed directly to me when I was visiting his site

Since you are a shia, then according to him you are a kafir, a mushrik and a dog. So I have to question why would you use a site and an author that thinks you are a kafir. Its like someone using a book written by Hitler about Jews to form their opinion of jews. Might be a tad bit biased.

This leads me to believe that you are NOT A shia. In fact, you are a salafi in disguise doing what your people do best - spread fitna and discord among people.

 

You have been exposed!

Brother, with regard to shia sunni disputes, every site is either anti shia or anti sunni. But some of them are very academic and do not use terms like kafir, nasibi etc. Moreover, if I or someone like an article etc from a site then it does not mean that I am following or accepting their each and everything. I also get knowledge from shia websites, for e.g THIS and THIS from shiapen.com.

Content and sources are to be checked not the label. I am not salafi, nor deoband, brelvi. I identify myself as shia with manhaj of ahlul sunnah. Accepting goodness from both sides.

[ShiaMan14]

1 hour ago, Fahad Sani said:

Brother, with regard to shia sunni disputes, every site is either anti shia or anti sunni. But some of them are very academic and do not use terms like kafir, nasibi etc. Moreover, if I or someone like an article etc from a site then it does not mean that I am following or accepting their each and everything. I also get knowledge from shia websites, for e.g THIS and THIS from shiapen.com.

Content and sources are to be checked not the label. I am not salafi, nor deoband, brelvi. I identify myself as shia with manhaj of ahlul sunnah. Accepting goodness from both sides.

for whatever reason, your sources are usually from anti-majoos and 12ershia. that tells me exactly who you are.

Hani - who's book you have referenced will call you a kafir with manhaj of ahlul sunnah

[Muslim2010]

On 2/21/2017 at 10:43 AM, Fahad Sani said:

 

Details and truth about such historical event is mentioned in THIS DOCUMENT with all references.

 

The historical evidences have nothing to do with the validity of caliphate which is man made.

Can you please quote us the verse of quran mentioning that caliph can be chosen by the people with shura / consultation?

 

[ShiaMan14]

Question for @Fahad Sani - would I be a moron for accepting information about Islam from Pastor Terry Jones (the guy who wanted to hold a quran burning ceremony)?

If yes, then why are you accepting fake information about Shiaism from 12er site and specifically Hani?

I am tagging @Abul Hussain Hassani since he is known spy from that site.

Edited February 22, 2017 by shiaman14

[Panzerwaffe]

I just read the saqifa book, thanks for sharing brother

It was nice to see the mention of ubayy b kaab and Khalid b saeed atleast 

Does it mention any refs from Tareekh Yaqubi ? It's listed as source along with Waqidi but then why do Sunni scholars condemn them when they present evidence that goes against their version of events ?

Also are the views of other Sahaba that according to 12er imami withheld Bayat mentioned by name ? As it appears in non imami sources as well 

It will be nice to see a 12er rebuttal to this and esp to see how their primary sources differ 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Panzerwaffe

[ShiaMan14]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

I just read the saqifa book, thanks for sharing brother

It was nice to see the mention of ubayy b kaab and Khalid b saeed atleast 

Does it mention any refs from Tareekh Yaqubi ? It's listed as source along with Waqidi but then why do Sunni scholars condemn them when they present evidence that goes against their version of events ?

Also are the views of other Sahaba that according to 12er imami withheld Bayat mentioned by name ? As it appears in non imami sources as well 

It will be nice to see a 12er rebuttal to this and esp to see how their primary sources differ 

 

 

 

I am guessing you missed the part where I wrote that the site and the writer are known salafi, anti-shia bigots.

Have you relied on Twelver Shia history books?
Twelver Shia books have been transmitted in secretive ways among the
followers of their sect, thus they cannot be viewed as widespread or
popular. Furthermore, Shia in general and especially Twelvers suffer from
lack of resources, their sects have not been able to preserve their books and
even what survives today is mostly of questionable origins according to their
own scholars. Possibly out of all sources we gathered from, the only early
historian who was an Imami and maybe even Twelver, is al-Ya`qubi.
Logically, we chose to rely mainly on the major scholars of Hadith and
historians then utilized what they famously recorded and what became
widespread among people. These major books were relied upon by the top
leaders of all sects and were approved by nation as a whole. Quite a few
early Shia historians were quoted but we do not believe any of them to be
Twelver due to the late development of what is known today as “Twelver”
Shia. Later Imami Shia included in their books stories that are completely
opposed to everything recorded by all Muslims historians (including early
10
Shia historians). The stories they brought are exclusively narrated by
extremist Shia and are unheard of by the top historians at the time or the
scholars of Muslim sects. Therefore, all of these oddities are rejected as
biased sectarian fabrications.

Basically, what Hani the Salafi said is that he didn't take any shia source that he did not agree with.

You might as well as ask Pastor Terry Jones what he thinks of Islam.

Abu Bakr's reasoning for thinking he or Umar were the most suitable for caliphate, "we, the Muhajirin, were the first to embrace Islam whereas everyone else followed behind. We were the Messenger’s (saw) close community and we are of a central lineage among Arabs, there exists no Arabian tribe without ties of kinship to Quraysh."

If this is the criteria, then who embraced Islam before Imam Ali (as) and who was closer to the Prophet than Imam Ali (as)?

[Aabiss_Shakari]

10 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

The historical evidences have nothing to do with the validity of caliphate which is man made.

Can you please quote us the verse of quran mentioning that caliph can be chosen by the people with shura / consultation?

 

Brother they claim/admit that the Khilafah of Abubakar etc had no backing from Quran or Sunnah. Why they claim so? Because they had no choice hence play safe and save yourself from proving Khilafah from Quran and Sunnah.

 

 

And lastly keep asking Shia about proof of Imamate in Quran and Sunnah.

 

 

Obviously when you do not have strong defence, being aggressive is best tactical strategy.

[Fahad Sani]

11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Question for @Fahad Sani - would I be a moron for accepting information about Islam from Pastor Terry Jones (the guy who wanted to hold a quran burning ceremony)?

If yes, then why are you accepting fake information about Shiaism from 12er site and specifically Hani?

I am tagging @Abul Hussain Hassani since he is known spy from that site.

See the sources and content, not the label. You can also put pure water in bottle labeling bear or wine. And it will not make it haram.

[Panzerwaffe]

11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I am guessing you missed the part where I wrote that the site and the writer are known salafi, anti-shia bigots.

Have you relied on Twelver Shia history books?
Twelver Shia books have been transmitted in secretive ways among the
followers of their sect, thus they cannot be viewed as widespread or
popular. Furthermore, Shia in general and especially Twelvers suffer from
lack of resources, their sects have not been able to preserve their books and
even what survives today is mostly of questionable origins according to their
own scholars. Possibly out of all sources we gathered from, the only early
historian who was an Imami and maybe even Twelver, is al-Ya`qubi.
Logically, we chose to rely mainly on the major scholars of Hadith and
historians then utilized what they famously recorded and what became
widespread among people. These major books were relied upon by the top
leaders of all sects and were approved by nation as a whole. Quite a few
early Shia historians were quoted but we do not believe any of them to be
Twelver due to the late development of what is known today as “Twelver”
Shia. Later Imami Shia included in their books stories that are completely
opposed to everything recorded by all Muslims historians (including early
10
Shia historians). The stories they brought are exclusively narrated by
extremist Shia and are unheard of by the top historians at the time or the
scholars of Muslim sects. Therefore, all of these oddities are rejected as
biased sectarian fabrications.

Basically, what Hani the Salafi said is that he didn't take any shia source that he did not agree with.

You might as well as ask Pastor Terry Jones what he thinks of Islam.

Abu Bakr's reasoning for thinking he or Umar were the most suitable for caliphate, "we, the Muhajirin, were the first to embrace Islam whereas everyone else followed behind. We were the Messenger’s (saw) close community and we are of a central lineage among Arabs, there exists no Arabian tribe without ties of kinship to Quraysh."

If this is the criteria, then who embraced Islam before Imam Ali (as) and who was closer to the Prophet than Imam Ali (as)?

So by quoting  the early "Shi a " historians Hani is implicitly accepting the lack of orthodox Sunni sources about these events ?

Furthermore this supports conclusion that events of early Islamic history should be interpreted in light of evidence of these same historians many of which are "shia"albiet not 12ers 

Lastly the Sunni hadiith that contradict these early historians  can be no more credible than later imami 12er accounts ?

I see this as a victory of early historians who were largely pro Ali,  pro Iraqi or atleast anti ummayyad 

[ShiaMan14]

13 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

See the sources and content, not the label. You can also put pure water in bottle labeling bear or wine. And it will not make it haram.

so what you are saying is if you see 2 bottles (one says beer and the other says water) you will take the one that says beer drink it to determine if it is water or not. Really?

8 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

So by quoting  the early "Shi a " historians Hani is implicitly accepting the lack of orthodox Sunni sources about these events ?

Furthermore this supports conclusion that events of early Islamic history should be interpreted in light of evidence of these same historians many of which are "shia"albiet not 12ers 

Lastly the Sunni hadiith that contradict these early historians  can be no more credible than later imami 12er accounts ?

I see this as a victory of early historians who were largely pro Ali,  pro Iraqi or atleast anti ummayyad 

Which history are you reading? Hani has a story in mind, then he picks only those references that align with his story. Good enough for you but not for me because I know who he is and what he is.

I guess you and Fahad have no problem learning islam from Pastor Terry Jones.

I prefer to stick to credible sources. 

[Panzerwaffe]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

so what you are saying is if you see 2 bottles (one says beer and the other says water) you will take the one that says beer drink it to determine if it is water or not. Really?

Which history are you reading? Hani has a story in mind, then he picks only those references that align with his story. Good enough for you but not for me because I know who he is and what he is.

I guess you and Fahad have no problem learning islam from Pastor Terry Jones.

I prefer to stick to credible sources. 

What are you taking about ?

Ofcourse Hani is selectively quoting the sources that's what shias do too for the most part as the objective of these debates is one upmanship not real learning

Now waqidi,  Yaqubi,  baladhuri not credible sources to you ? 

[ShiaMan14]

3 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

What are you taking about ?

Ofcourse Hani is selectively quoting the sources that's what shias do too for the most part as the objective of these debates is one upmanship not real learning

Now waqidi,  Yaqubi,  baladhuri not credible sources to you ? 

Nope, all I am saying is that Hani is a known salafi shia-hater so dont mind me if I dont take his 'book' seriously.

If you want to discuss the book, then lets discuss:

Abu Bakr's reasoning for thinking he or Umar were the most suitable for caliphate, "we, the Muhajirin, were the first to embrace Islam whereas everyone else followed behind. We were the Messenger’s (saw) close community and we are of a central lineage among Arabs, there exists no Arabian tribe without ties of kinship to Quraysh."

If this is the criteria, then who embraced Islam before Imam Ali (as) and who was closer to the Prophet than Imam Ali (as)?

[Panzerwaffe]

^you are preaching to the choir

But goes back to the same argument why are you discrediting his sources 

It would  be better if you point out how he has incompletely quoted them or overlooked evidence in them contrary to this sectarian agenda 

[Muslim2010]

On 2/22/2017 at 8:19 AM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

Let me clear things to you in points:-

6. Yet who do not accept first three caliph or have faith in them you are a "fasiq" "deviated" and "misguided"

The following hadith mentioned in Bukhari about the belief of being Muslim completely negates such things:.

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7 :(book of belief)

Narrated by Ibn 'Umar

Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. 2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly. 3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity) . 4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca) 5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.

How such absurd thinking  about a muslim  being deviated or fasiq or misguided can be acceptable?

Wasalam

Edited February 24, 2017 by skyweb1987

[ShiaMan14]

20 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

^you are preaching to the choir

But goes back to the same argument why are you discrediting his sources 

It would  be better if you point out how he has incompletely quoted them or overlooked evidence in them contrary to this sectarian agenda 

Is this for me?

I am not discrediting his sources. I am discrediting him.

[Panzerwaffe]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Is this for me?

I am not discrediting his sources. I am discrediting him.

Well then we have no argument 

[ShiaMan14]

5 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Well then we have no argument 

The main I had with @Fahad Sani is that although he claims to be shia with minahj of ahle-sunnah, his references are always severely takfiri sites such as AntiMajoos and 12er site.

 

[iraqi_shia]

On 22/02/2017 at 10:27 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

I just read the saqifa book, thanks for sharing brother

It was nice to see the mention of ubayy b kaab and Khalid b saeed atleast 

Does it mention any refs from Tareekh Yaqubi ? It's listed as source along with Waqidi but then why do Sunni scholars condemn them when they present evidence that goes against their version of events ?

Also are the views of other Sahaba that according to 12er imami withheld Bayat mentioned by name ? As it appears in non imami sources as well 

It will be nice to see a 12er rebuttal to this and esp to see how their primary sources differ 

 

 

 

rebuttal to what?

His version of events are that the Prophet SAW knew he was going to die, but neglected to select a leader. It was "so obvious" that it was going to be Abu Bakr that they had to meet secretly and have a fight about it. After the fight some of the companions didnt accept Abu Bakr and didnt give their allegiance, Abu Bakr fought them.

Now despite saying the Imam is not God given, or something the prophet SAW said, it is something that is part of Islam? how can this be? where do we take our religion from?

Then instead of following the apparent sunnah of not selecting a successor, Abu Bakr names Umar in his will as the leader. What kind of Islam is this?

 

[Panzerwaffe]

12 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

 

[Panzerwaffe]

12 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

rebuttal to what?

His version of events are that the Prophet SAW knew he was going to die, but neglected to select a leader. It was "so obvious" that it was going to be Abu Bakr that they had to meet secretly and have a fight about it. After the fight some of the companions didnt accept Abu Bakr and didnt give their allegiance, Abu Bakr fought them.

Now despite saying the Imam is not God given, or something the prophet SAW said, it is something that is part of Islam? how can this be? where do we take our religion from?

Then instead of following the apparent sunnah of not selecting a successor, Abu Bakr names Umar in his will as the leader. What kind of Islam is this?

 

Well rather than comparing ideological views it's best to compare sources 

If imami Shia version of events is based on the same sources then neither side is being intelluctally honest and if there are more sources then let's share them 

[iraqi_shia]

6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Well rather than comparing ideological views it's best to compare sources 

If imami Shia version of events is based on the same sources then neither side is being intelluctally honest and if there are more sources then let's share them 

but my point is, we know that its not hard to get a few hadiths and historical accounts to go your way etc. I dont doubt that the sunni version is based on their sources. 

However this way, does it fit in with what we know and what is reasonable?