After reading about early Islam, it seems evident to me that the Shiite version of history is the objectively correct one. There is pretty much no denying that Ali was the chosen successor and the Quraysh just suppressed it. It's rather astonishing that Sunni Islam is as dominant as it is and Sunnis defend the early caliphs so much given how obvious it is that Umar prevented Muhammad from writing his will and most likely assaulted his daughter leading to her death.

I've never understood what difference there is between sunni and shia theologically. Like do they believe god has a different aspect or describe him differently? Or is it just "shias wipe their ass with the left hand sunnis with the right" kind of autistic semitic legalism?

>>17813216 (OP)
The reason Sunni Islam is dominant has two facets:
1. Sunnism was endorsed by the First two Caliphates and was the religion Steppe nomads converted to.

2. Shia didn't take this fact very well and are generally absolutely insane from a Muslim standpoint.

If he was then Allah would've willed it but he didn't so either it wasn't meant to be or Allah doesn't exist.

>>17813216 (OP)
>After reading about early Islam, it seems evident to me that the Shiite version of history is the objectively correct one.

>>17813229
It started with a mere politicall dispute, then later each branch developed a different theology (in the case of shias multiple ones, given there were multiple Splinter shia sects)

>>17813236
>are generally absolutely insane from a Muslim standpoint.
Wait so not being a headchopper is the insane position for you? Lmao.

>>17813236
>The reason Sunni Islam is dominant
Africans, Pajeets, and Sea monkeys accounts for over a billion of the muh 2 billion figure

It is more like there multiple Sunni, Shia and Kharjite groups. What we see as similiarities in these traditions now is more of a self-selection effect starting in the later medieval era. Pic related

Aqidahs and other systems of theology, besides the instuitionalization of madhabs occured over time. A lot of this occured through various forms of state governance with the development of dominance of the Quraish tribe being the main factor. However, even there was huge differences at the local levels and even at the level of caliphates when we look at arcehology. Preorthodox Islam, before development of categories like Sunni and Shia is very different from anything we have know. Pic related. A lot of reinterpretation into what we have know itself was a product of states.

>>17813236
>Shia [...] are generally absolutely insane from a Muslim standpoint.
Could you elaborate on this?

>>17813229
I'm not well-versed but from my understanding it seems that, for Shiites, the imams (that are the successors) have the authority over religious interpretations and everyone has to follow while Sunnis are free to follow whatever their local religious scholars says should be an OK religious interpretation based on whose hadith collection they like the most. Hadiths are just accounts of usually the prophet and companions that Muslims use to help follow the example of the prophet. The majority of them are not historically reliable, but most Muslims pretend otherwise.

The Quran is the same for all Muslims. The only differences arise in which hadiths they choose to believe are credible, how they interpret those hadiths, how they view the succession of imams/caliphate, who do they think is a valid successor, and how they see the status of the infallibility of such successors. Quranists disregard everything that is not the Quran.
Within both Sunnis and Shiites there are disagreements on how they interpret the nature of God described in the Quran. For example, disagreements on whether the mention of God doing physical human-like things on Earth like "giving out a hand" is meant to be literal or figurative and whether this contradicts the "oneness" of God.

There are some Shiite splinter groups that are so far off they don't consider themselves the same religion anymore, and this post doesn't apply to those.

>>17813258
Not the same anon but it breaks down by aqidah, but Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, typically classify Shia aqidah in general like the Twelvers as heretical with specific regards to Imamate and some views on the Companions.
However, they disagree most more strongly about the attributes of Allah.

In Ashari and Maituridi, they belive Allah possesses attributes (ṣifāt) such as knowledge, power, and will, but these are neither identical to His essence nor separate from it. They themselves disagree about how that functions and hold each other to be wrong but still within the frame of Islam for the most part minus some issues with what that means about some people becoming saints. Both view mainstream Shi'a theology, particularly the Twelver Shi'a belief in ta'wil (allegorical interpretation) of divine attributes
to be more than heretical and to be innovation or bi'dah and damn worthy. Basically, they are making Allah not Allah. Shia in general in turn believe that both by clamining what they do about the attribtues render the 99 attributes of Allah to be 99 gods at worst.

The Athari school, emphasizing strict textualism, tends to be more severe, often viewing Shia beliefs

The Athari school is much more aggressive aganist Shia. They hold that Shia challenge the integrity of the Sahaba, in a way that makes all of Islam false. Salafis hold that too but also hold that the veneration of the Imams makes them polytheists. In general in terms of Allah, the Athari hold that only their view of Allah is correct and others are actually all false and bidah. However, they hold Shia are worshiping creation. This is because they hold that in affirming all divine attributes exactly as stated in the Qur’an and Sunnah, without interpretation (ta’wil), negation (taʿṭīl), or anthropomorphism (tashbīh) is necessary. Shia go aganist all that. They like Maiturdi are guility of philosophizing. Salafi hold that too. However, they find venerating shrines, and venerating Ali and Husayn to be even worse than that of the Maiturdi practices of intercession.

Salafi due to transmission also hold that Shia were founded in a Jewish conspiracy by Abdallāh b. Sābaʾ however basically they hold everything is wrong with Shia. bn ʿAbd al‑Wahhāb’s major wrote Risāla fī al‑Radd ʿalā al‑Rāfidah aganist them which acts like an architectonic about Shia and a general view is that they are not Muslim and worse than polytheists because polythesits don't pretend otherwise be Muslim.

I forgot to mention that all the Sunni traditions hold that Shia is not theological determinists enough. They are theological voluntarists, determinists who believe Allah actively wills everything they are differ on one thing. Shia hold that the Imamate is partly justified on rational-moral grounds that are divinly willed by Allah.Sunni argue that is violates the theological voluntarism because Allah's will is no longer arbitary and is constrained by reason. Shia argue that is not the case because Allah appointed the Immate in the first place and the reasons they give. Sunni then argue that means they are equivalent of God or not rational.

>>17813229
I’m not making any theological claims, I’m aware that most of Shia Islam was developed far after the original civil wars. I’m only saying on a purely historical level the Shia claim of succession and the Quraysh hijacking of the caliphates seem completely correct, and Sunni excuses for them are quite ridiculous.

>>17813274
>>17813283
>>17813286
>>17813295
Chatgpt, condense this into half a paragraph.

>>17813216 (OP)
>fuck islam
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=dar+al+islam
http://www.google.com/search?q=dar+al+harb