From what I know about history, I think the Sunni understanding is more correct. I’ve looked at some of the shia arguments that try to undermine Abu Bakr, Aisha, Umar and Uthman [may Allah be pleased with them], but none of them have held up to scrutiny.
The sahaba were the ones who were with the prophet when Gabriel [peace be upon him] came to sit with them and teach them about their deen [or ‘religion’]. The sahaba were there when verses were revealed to the prophet. They knew the prophet and the Qur’an better than anyone else. It’s only logical that the first caliph would be one of the sahaba; and who better than Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad’s best friend even before Muhammad’s prophetic calling?
The shias believe that after Muhammad died, the first caliph, or his rightful successor, should have been Ali, but shias believe that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman conspired to steal the caliphate away from Ali and that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman apostatized [a’udhu billah]. If these three men were going to apostatize, there would’ve been signs before Muhammad [peace be upon him] died. So was Ali a kind of double agent? did he know that these three men were kafirs, but refused to say anything or do anything about it until after the prophet died?
Bologna. It was not in Ali’s character to do that.
The shias also have differing views on the Mahdi, who is an islamic ruler that is yet to come. It’s is written in some shia literature that one of things the Mahdi will do is that he’ll bring Aisha back to life and will whip her. Whipping one of the mothers of the believers? have they lost their minds?
We could go on all day about how misguided the shia position is when it comes to who the first caliph should’ve been, what Aisha was like, Ali’s relationship with Abu Bakr, etc. They’ve tried to undercut Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman for centuries, but their theories all require you to check your brain at the door.
