I ask this because reading Wikipedia, it seems that all these events (the announcement of Ali's succession, the swearing of allegiance by followers to Ali, the proclaiming of Abu Bakr despite this and the events at Ali and Fatima's house) look like they are accepted by all Muslim traditions as having happened in some form.

How did Islamic tradition reconcile its reverence for both Ali and Abu Bakr?

[Rephrased this question according to helpful mod suggestions in order to be more neutral and respect the rules. I'm just trying to understand something that isn't making sense from what I've read about these events on (what I think are) neutral sources. I come from ignorance, not bias towards any interpretation.]

Edit: I have been getting short answers that make me think that I may have misunderstood the swearing of allegiance to Ali in the "event of Ghadir Khumm" as general acceptance that "Muhammad chose Ali as his successor"; I now see that this isn't necessarily right, and while some traditions interpret it that way, others see it differently. I would still love to read an answer that touches on the different interpretations of this event, but I ask that you ignore the assumption(s) I made in the title. Again, I come from ignorance, not bias.

It's such a historic line that is taught in every history class regarding the French Revolution, yet when I ask my teachers or research online, the answers always vary.

So the other day in history class, teacher was explaining that the New Deal saved the USA from the 1929 crisis. And then I asked if the facists got inspiration in that program, mainly Nazi Germany. From documentaries on YouTube I learned that the facists made huge constructions across their countries and supported agriculture and industries. Like Spain and Portugal that did not participate in the war and saw their economies grow. The only main difference I find from the New Deal is that fascism is against the state welfare. Yet,she said that "it had another purpose than creating jobs and fascism is evil" and moved on. Now I'm really confused. So, how did Nazy Germany (and the other facists) got out of the crisis?

The question is “compare ideas about the causes of the Black Death with ideas about the causes of disease at the start of the medieval period.” Aren’t they the same thing? I’m really stuck any help will be greatly appreciated.

    I recently came across a guy on YouTube called Bright Insight, who claimed that the eye of the Sahara, otherwise known as the Richat structure, was the most plausible location for the list city of Atlantis. I want to know if his theory holds any water and why no has ever talked about this. He discusses this theory over three videos on his channel. 
     Evidence he presents(probably won't remember them all or present them in the same style so feel free to watch his video on this): In Plato's dialogues the critias and the timeaus, he says how Atlantis consisted of a centre island followed by concentric circles, three of water, two of land and had mountains to the north with rivers flowing down it, and it opens up to the ocean in the south, which you can see if you look up the eye of the Sahara in the north west part of Africa in the country of Mauritania. Platos also said the exact diameter was the equivalent to 23.5 km which also is the diameter of the eye of the sahara. He mentions two maps by Herodotus who document 'Atlantos' on his maps in the northwest part of Africa with a sea to the south. Africa could have been lifted up as part of volcanic activity over the past 10 thousand years since Atlantis would have existed. Further evidence to support that there have been an ocean there includes fish carcasses having been found and a whole unfossilised whale as well as seashells and wells sorrounding the Richat having mostly salt water, however there is a fresh water spring in the centers island of the Richat which is just as Plato described it.
     I sadly don't have time to write more but these peices of evidence are very small. He mentions a lot more evidence. Watch his video here: https://youtu.be/U5kEzxOb-3c 
     So what do you historians/normal people think, could we have overlooked this site too much and really have no idea what is out there under the surface of the Richat. There is a lot of similarities to what Plato described, so could it be coincidence that there are this many similarities? Or is Plato's words to be trusted? I want to hear your opinions on the subject. And it's fine if you think that this has hints of conspiracy because it kinda does. But I think that critical discussions are an important way of learning and sharing knowledge, and I think that it's a good topic of discussion. Please try to keep an open mind as well, while remaining critical otherwise the discussion will quickly turn into a battlefield. :)

Kind regards, A curious being

Done some googling and can't find much about this.

Did Muslims call their religion Islam in Muhammad's time, or did the term come about later on at some stage?

Was there ever another name for Islam before "Islam" or was there ever another name used by Muslims for their religion in other parts of the world (besides Mohammadism, since that wasn't used by Muslims).

The usual analogy describing the First World War is to compare it to a barfight; one little guy has a crack at the big guy next to him, so his mate hits back, and so forth. Is this a useful way of looking at it, or is it misleading?

I have a simple and straight forward question, why were there no Marines used on Dday? Was it due to them all being in the pacific or was it just felt that they were not needed?

For example, if that were the case:

• 2018 AD would still be 2018 CE
• 1 AD is still 1 CE
• 1 BC becomes 0
• 2 BC becomes 1 BCE
• 3 BC becomes 2 BCE

And so on and so forth... Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, but 43 BCE. This would have no only solved the annoying mathematical problem of the lack of Year Zero in the Gregorian/Julian calendar, but also would've given the general populace more reason to change to using BCE/CE rather than just because it aligns with your political or religious (lack thereof) views.

Were families immediately being told that millions of their sons were dead?

Not looking to start a angry religious debate im just doing my bible homework and was wondering. Sorry if I asked the question wrong.

Bows seem to reload faster, are quieter, can kill in about 1 shot, can fire over walls, are more accurate (in trained hands), easier to hide with, easier to produce, and does't break/require much maintenance.

Muskets dont seem to be able to do this, and the only reason I can think of is making a loud sound that can "damage" morale.

As a Canadian, I know we have a good military record from the world wars and a lot to be proud of. I'd like to know if we were really as exceptional as we see ourselves from within Canada (at least as seen in documentaries about the wars). Thanks.

[deleted]

In addition, did the differing tribe's band together at any time to perform more difficult tasks? Thanks.

I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit to ask in, but the rules said that some homework related questions were acceptable if there was enough detail or research already done.

I'm doing research for an essay titled "Asses the view that religious divides were the main reason for the partition of India" and I'm having trouble finding any historians or books that clearly state why the partition happened.

One of the books I've been reading (The Untold Story of India's Partition) claims that the partition was engineered by the British due to the cold war. Since a united India post-independence would likely not help the British, the creation of Pakistan, which would be indebted to the British, would allow them to set up military bases to combat any possible Soviet pushes into India. Another book (The Great Partition) claims the partition was unplanned and not inevitable, blaming nationalism as one of the main causes. This is the only concrete research I have so far.

I'm currently reading The Sole Spokesman and have ordered Freedom at Midnight and Indian Summer, and am looking into Guilty Men of India's partition, Pakistan or the Partition of India and Liberty or death: India's Journey to Independence and Division.

Does anyone know anywhere I can find some more historians or books on this, and possibly any primary sources, as many of the books I have found online have vague summaries and don't say if they specifically answer why the partition happened.

Thank you in advance

[deleted]