I often see hardcore #Sunni accounts condemning the #Shia, for the latter "denigrate the #sahaba," the Prophet's companions.

They can't realize that this is because the Shia have a different version of the history of early Islam.

And the Sunni history is just another version.

Personally, I would not condemn any of the early figures in Islam - but I would not sacralize them either.

#Ali and #Aisha went to war over power. The all glorious sahaba killed each other for power. Obviously this was a very human history, whose full truth we may never know.

Whether you are #Sunni or #Shii, the immediate post-Prophetic Islam isn't too rosy.

It includes coercive wars (on "ridda"), nepotism, tribalism, assassination, and lots of intra-Muslim bloodshed.

So, to say that Islam brought a "perfect political system" isn't convincing.

The truth is that Islam didn't bring any "system." So early Muslims acted within the limits of the tribal & violent world into which they were born.

Had been been born in a liberal democracy, with institutions for peaceful management of conflict & power, things could be better.

Regarding the personalities of that era, I do think #Ali does stand out as exceptionally humble & pro-peace. He tried to end the bloodshed, rather than make use of it.

So, the Shia may have a point here.

But the theology built on "partisanship" of Ali is a different matter.

Finally, the main point is how the history early Islam was tainted by conflicts over power, tribalism, and disputes that could not be resolved peacefully.

So today we should see, as I once explained in this piece:

"How Politics Has Poisoned Islam" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/how-politics-haspoisoned-islam.html

And what is needed today? Better caliphates and Islamic regimes?

No, I rather argue:

"Muslims need liberal secularism to be able to practice their religion as they see fit. They also need it to save religion from serving as handmaiden to unholy wars of domination."