>>17614705
>You can use techniques of historical analysis to reach a conclusion.
We have no contemporaneous accounts of how the succession to Muhammad went down. All we have are sectarian narratives written generations later. And we have no idea how reliable they are. They seem mostly motivated by a need to justify political and sectarian positions after the Second Fitna.
>Even the sunni sources that are considered the most authentic
There are no Sunni sources because 'Sunnism' didn't exist until the Abbasid period at the earliest. Sunni hadith were transmitted from multiple different sectarians including Shia scholars.
All a Sunni hadith saying that proves is that a later Sunni transmitter was trying to turn a Shia hadith back against them. It can't be used to prove anything about what was actually happening when Ali was alive.

Video volume

Video muted

Loop video

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

So Shia Muslims are correct right? Ali was clearly poised to take the throne and the usurpers used violence like umar attacking Fatima and causing…