As-salaamulaikum, I was watching a lecture of Ahmed Deedat (rah) in which he had two Bibles based on different manuscripts. He mentioned that while one Bible was based on manuscripts 300-400 years after Christ (as), the other one was based on "most ancient" manuscripts which dated 200-300 years after Christ (as). He used this phrase, "closer to the source, the more authentic a document can be." And I will make a generalized statement here for which I am ready to be rectified, if I say something wrong. We love and respect the Sahabas (ra) so much because they were so near to the one (saw) who connected us with Allah (swt), Prophet Muhammad (saw). And this is why we hold their testimonies, regarding matters of religion, in high regards. In other words, the Sahabas (ra) were constantly in touch with he who was our source through whom we received this beautiful deen. Going to the Zaidis, and I wish I knew more about them, it is said that they disagreed with the rest of the Shias, or the rest of the Shias disagreed with them, at the position of the 5th Imam. They share the first four Imams, Ali (ra), Hassan (ra), Hussayn (ra) and Zain-ul Abideen (ra) but they claim that Zaid (ra) should have been the 5th Imam. The Ismailis differ at the 7th position. And it turns out that these two sub-sects have far more different beliefs than Ithna Asharis. I have been told that the Zaidi jurisprudence is 90% identical to Sunni jurisprudence. An imam that I know from our local masjid, while receiving his Islamic education, had books assigned, in his curriculum, which not only covered the four schools of thought, but also the Zaidi fiqh and aqeedah. I thought that was interesting and he said that they are really close to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamah! So let us apply that "closer to the source, the more authentic the document" or person notion. Historians are of the opinion that the original Shias were partisans of Ali (ra) but had no different methods of prayer etc. They were just like the mainstream Muslims but differed in matters of Caliphate. If this is true, then could it also be true that when Zaidis parted ways with Shias, they maintained most of the Shia identity, which was a lot like mainstream Islam, as is the case with Zaidis today, while for the Ithna Asharis, the mutations kept piling on taking them to where they are today with practices that cannot be justified from an Islamic standpoint? After all, the Zaidis were three generations removed from Ali (ra) before they formed their own sub-sect. Could it be true that the fact that they are 90% like Sunnis could be because of that? And that Ithna Asharis are so far removed from mainstream Islam; could that be because they kept going on and on into nonsensical beliefs and finding ways to legitimize them? Feedback is needed and will be appreciated