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.

There is no limit to skepticism and one can always raise questions about non empirical things. Apparently it seems like a circular argument as you mentioned but deep down its not so circular. Hadith critics in Sunnis like Bukhari who has a three volume compilation (Tareekh al kabir , Tareekh ausat , Tareekh Sagheer) on biographies of narrators have a firm standing and validation of personal character with in the Sunni discourse of that era. Same goes for Darqutni , Yahya ibn Ma'een , Ibn al Jawzi etc. Secondly , in most casez the early Muhadithoon have agreed on the stature of a certain narrator despite their geographic differences adding objectivity to the siyar and Rijal discourse. As far as Shia Siyar wa Rijal , I am not well versed in it but after going through a few basic books like Rijal Kashi and Rijal Najashi, the science is not as evolved as in the Sunnis. The quantity and quality of information given about the Rijal in these books is by far too low when compared with Sunni compilations.

One can not ignore the fact while going through history that Imam Ali made some very catastrophic decisions during his short political career. He was encountered by none other than Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Imam Hassan for such decisions. Right after the murder of Uthman , Ali is seen as a power hungry man with very little political acumen who is haphazardly acting around till his death. He first tried to dethrone Maviya by asking Abdullah Ibn Abbas to go to Damascus and take over governorship from Maviya. Ibn Abbas was taken aback by this proposal. Perplexed and shocked he asked if Ali was serious about it and warned Imam Ali of the political consequences but Ali refused to listen. Imam Ali appointed Muhammad bin Abu Bakr as governor of Egypt in those precarious hours when Egypt was vital for Ali's Caliphate. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (Imam Hassan used to call him Fasiq bin Abu Bakr) was himself a power hungry young lad and had no experience to handle a state like Egypt which was eyed upon by Maviya. Egypt fell with in a matter of days after Muhammad reached there just to get himself killed. Imam Ali could not keep his ranks assembled during Siffain and one portion of his xie hard supporters left him on the matter of Tehkeem. This group which later came to be known as Khawarij , not only diluted the military strength of Imam Ali but one Kharijite eventually killed Imam Ali as well. Imam Ali had lost popular support in his bastion Kufa by his last days. His last sermons in Kufa are filled with his self castigatings and condemnations of the people of Kufa. Tabari has recorded a shocking event in which Imam Ali announces Jihad from the pulpit in Kufa and went out to Nukhela waiting for Kufans to arrive. He waited there for a whole day and literally no one came out to join him. These are just a few short examples of Imam Ali's political decisions. One can quote dozens of more such examples from his political career. Maviya on the other hand emerged victorious due to his unparalleled political wisdom and immaculate decision making capability.

Shiasm is a heterogeneous mix of bad history and theology. A large part of Shia belief system relies on conspiracy theories. Its no wonder why the basic tenants of Shia Islam are missing from Quran. Shias have taken the politic conflict of rulership between Ali and the rest to another level. Secondly , Shia Islam is just an antithesis of Sunni Islam and has no legs of its own to stand on. I have listened to various Sunni sermons/lectures focusing on other aspects of religion without the mention of Shiaism but i have not heard any Shia sermon devoid of rants regarding Sunnism.

Secondly , the "cursing" has become an integral part of the emotionalism i was referring to. You can't live without it being a Shia. Shiasm is just the antithesis of Sunnism and has no legs of its own to stand on.

In terms of personal affiliation with religion , Shiasm might have some content but in terms of a social and political ideology there is a void. So much so that the very modern doctrine of "Willayat Faqih" utterly alien to classical Shiasm , has now become the dominant political doctrine of Usooli twelvers. The most mentioned "Path of ahlul bayt" is a vague and hollow emotional bandwagon which signifies nothing of a coherent and serious nature. As far as conversions , Shiasm can never attract masses like Sunnism for obvious reason. The basic tenants of Shiasm are feeble and stochastic , this chaotic structure is fogged and made palatable by the emotionalism of Karbala , Ashura , Fadak , the broken rib etc but once the dust settles down , one finds himself chasing his shadow.

As Einstein said "God does not play dice". You are making God and his words sound like the vague language of Latino hip-hop which only the intoxicated hippies can understand. None of the verses are about about any Wilayah or ahlul bayt at all.

I feel you pasted the wrong verses , none of them talks about Ahlul Bayt , Wilayah of Ali etc

As far as "Wilayah of Abu bakr" , I do not believe it was announced by God rather it was the result of social act post the demise of the Prophet. Abu Bakr became the Caliph in the literal and practical sense. Further , if anyone feels that Abu Bakr usurped it etc , he is free to believe so based on historical accounts and i am sure God would not throw someone to hell for that

Where else in Quran? Quran is utterly blank about the Shia narrative. Its only through alot of dis-intellectual gymnastics that you can stretch twist fold the verses of make an unsuccessful case. I do not care a thing about what Sunni scholars say as i am not an orthodox Sunni. As far as problem , it is more than obvious. How on earth can someone give alms while doing Ruku'? And more importantly , why on earth would God use such a vague and whimsical situation to announce the Wilayah of Ali. If God intended so , there would have been explicit verses in Quran about it.

Where in Quran? No sane person can believe that the verses of Quran dealing with the wives of the Prophet would be infact telling us about the so called Itrat of ahlul bayt. You need a huge leap of faith and imagination to extrapolate that. The book of God has just become a toy in the hands of sectarianists who would twist the verses as their sectarian agenda fits into. Do you believe someone can be given charity while doing Ruku'? Do you think that God , as per 12ver version , would tell us about something as important as the Wilayah of Ali in such a whimsical way?