Shias believe in Imamath after the Messenger (pbuh), now imagine if they had its and buts about certain Imams down the line, how would this be and sound???
hahahaha you dont have to imagine kiddo. It happens everytime imam dies. Shia differed about who would be the next imam down the line for as long as its history. Who is the next imam??? Why him??? Why not that one?? What is this? Im confused. Aaaarrrgggh!!!!
HAHAHAHA?
Imagine kiddo??? Aaaarrrgggh??? The Shias have differed and still differ but they are absolutely and completely clear and clean about that difference. They do not have double standards, two faced element and a hypocritical stance over it. They don't say "it doesn't matter who you join and follow, we are all fine and the same".
The Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah believe in Khilafath after the Messenger (pbuh) and they believe it through consensus of and by the Ummah. Now when questioned that why did Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) go against this by naming and appointing his successor and why did Hazrath Umar (ra) take even a different approach by naming and appointing a six man committee, then we have the it's and buts falling in to place. This is double standards!
The Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah believe that "Ulul Amre" means "Hakim e Waqth" leader of the time. They also believe that one must obey and should not go against (challenge/rebel) the Ulul Amre even if he is corrupt and or a sinner. The only way you can go against the Ulul Amre is if they try to alter/change the Shariath.
Now we have Ameer Muavia (ra) and Hazrath Aisha ( ra), being a companion and or wife has its own place but they not only went against the Ulul Amre of the time but one battled him and the other went to war with him. Here again we have double standards rather than looking at out basic belief and being honest.
On the other hand we have Hazrath Muhammad bin Abu Bakar (ra) being accused of fitna against the third Khalif (ra). Although this fitna was at a miner level and loss, where has his sister went against the fourth Khalif and the consequences were disastrous and severe. But we don't accuse her of fitna. Double standards again.
Dear audience/viewers here you have it. What keeps me from the Ahle Sunnah is not their belief and faith, not their principals or policies but their double standards, two faced element and hypocritical stance. What is so difficult to understand here??? What is there to be surprised about here??? What does this have to do with research?