Leibniz

There is alot of circumstanial evidence and countless narrations which implicate Imam Ali in the murder of Uthman. Pick Umar ibn Shabbah's Tareekh al madina and you shall find those narrations in one place. The killing of Uthman is not the topic otherwise i would have dwelled deeper into it

I have not responded to a few posts as they warrant long responses. I shall do that shortly @Abu Hadi

You are just speaking your belief. You believe that Imam Ali had knowledge of the unseen and what not and so it has become an objective reality just because you believe that. Ziyad was born out of wedlock and after having enjoyed Ali's patronage for some time , Ziyad shifted loyalities to Maviya. Muaviya had "honored" Ziyad by claiming that Ziyad infact was son of Abu Sufyan , fornication that Abu Sufyan had done long ago. Ziyad then used to refer to himself as Ziyad bin abu Sufyan https://en.wikishia.net/view/Ziyad_b._Abih

All for politics , Imam Ali teamed up with Ziyad bin Abihi as well (father of Obaydullah ibn Ziyad). Ziyad was a irreligious cruel and notorious man born out of wedlock and later joined Maviya. So its not like this that Imam Ali did not play politics , he did but Maviya outsmarted him

Imam Ali did involve in politics and he tried the best of his manoeuvres too , like Maviya but failed. Its not as if Iman Ali was straight as an arrow in politics. He did what the rest ( Maviya , Ayesha , Zubayr , Talhah) were doing ie gathering political support by any means.

It has been widely reported to Al Hassan used to refer to Muhammad bin Abi bakr as Fasiq bin abi bakr. For example in ibn Saad's Tabqaat Kabir أخبرنا : عمرو بن عاصم الكلابي قال : ، أخبرنا : أبو الأشهب قال : ، أخبرنا : الحسن قال : لما أدركوا بالعقوبة ، يعني قتلة عثمان بن عفان ، قال : أخذ الفاسق إبن أبي بكر ، قال أبو الأشهب : وكان الحسن لا يسميه بإسمه إنما كان يسميه الفاسق ، قال : فأخذ فجعل في جوف حمار ثم أحرق عليه

Read here the Zaidi view of Mahdi

Thanks for pointing me out as Wahabi. You are a wise man. Your comments regarding narrators are really enlightening. I feel more educated now. I wish one day you pick Ikhtiyar marifat rijal and tell us which of the narrators have the tawtheeq of which of the Imams and how and where is it documented. You shall do the world a service.

Whats the lie? Mention it and let me give you the references

Muslims in Uhud lost militarily , Iman Ali lost in Siffin politically.

I am just a seeker of knowledge so no offence sir. I have nothing against Imam Ali or anyone else. I merely want to see things the way they are , not the way i have been taught to see. I do not think so that a rational person can judge a historic personality by not humanizing him first. We all are humans , ambitious and emotional and we err. As far as Imam Ali rejecting Caliphate , that never happened. He desperately wanted it and during Abu Bakr and Omar era he stood no chance due to the stature of these two. He made all his efforts to become Caliph after Omar but the comitte head rejected him. He was angered and he castigated Abdur rahmna ibn awf in very strong words. After Uthman's selection , Ali famously remarked "What a betrayal and now i shall wait till that is written comes off". Ali then waited for the right opportunity and he along with other contenders Talhah and Zubayr instigated the rebellion against Uthman. Caliphate was blood soaked and alarmingly controversial after Uthman but Imam Ali did seize the opportunity despite the fact that Hassan and Ibn Abbas requested him not to. Most of Uthman's killers were the pillars of Imam Ali's Caliphate like Malik alashtar , Kinana bin bashar , Muhammad bin abi bakr , Hakeem bin Jabala etc. @Muslim2010

All what i have written are historical facts well established. You can read Tabari's history and he has narrated these events from various narrators. I would not defend Maviya on theological lines. I think even the Sunnis are shy of doing so but the fact is Maviya had a different political theory which later became the established political foundation of the Ummayad Caliphate which is that Islam does not forbid hereditary kingship and that the Caliph has largely to use Ijtihad as a medium of statecraft , keeping the blunt use of religion aside. We can call it Secularism lite. Therefor i think it would be superfluous to judge Maviya's political actions on pure religious grounds.

Though i believe that "infallibility of Imams" is a later day myth and the early Shias did not believe in it but given the erroneous nature of Imam Ali's decisions and their immediate consequences, how on earth can he be considered infallibe?

Zaidis believe that Mehdi shall be born and revealed before the end of times.

Also consider the fact that mutaqadimoon scholars of Sunnis like Al Dhahabi and Ibn Hajjar have further defrosted and expanded the hadith sciences in Sunnis by compiling biographies of narrators from early sources in voluminous books like Siyar alam unnubala and Tehdhib etc. They have simplified the stuff by collecting sayings of early muhadithoon about individual narrators in one place.