The assertion that the Shi’a attribute the “quality of mistake” to Allah is a garbled and half-understood attempt to make the sort of accusations made against intellectual strands in Islamic thought and theology made centuries ago – it actually revolves around the controversy concerning the eternity (or otherwise) of the Qur’an – and, in particular, the Shi’a claim that the Qur’an as collated by ‘Ali was discarded in favour of one collated by those surrounding his competitor, ‘Uthman. The discoveries of otherwise collated Qur’an examples in Sana’a of course suggest that bthe Shi’a might have some sort of point. Whatever the case, the actual position is not that the Qur’an as it stands is mistaken, nor that it differs radically from ‘Ali’s Qur’an, nor – especially – that it contains mistakes made by Allah. Of course, if you believe the Qur’an is uncreated (as the Wahhabi insist), then any differences between Qur’an copies would be tantamount to God changing His mind… well, perhaps He did. He has been known too before: this need not imply He was previously mistaken, incidentally.

The Shi’a tenet of Imamate is *not* denial of the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, as the last poster falsely claims. The Shi’a Imams are not regarded as subsequent prophets by Shi’a – consequently the Shi’a cannot be accused of breaching the Quranic injunction that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, the final prophet. Shi’a Imams are regarded as being the sole legitimate leaders of the Muslim community *after* the death of the Prophet – this is, quite clearly, a distinct issue (although just as contentious).

There is considerable criticism amongst Shi’a for the conduct of a number of the original followers of the Prophet subsequent to his death. In particular, Aisha’s encouragement and support for rebellion against ‘Ali, her treatment of Fatima. As vitally, there is open rejection of the appalling conduct of the early Ummayid caliphate – something that eventually led to not only the attempted liquidation of the Ahl ul-Bayt as descended through Fatima and ‘Ali, but also to the revival of pre-Islamic blood feuds between members of the early Muslim community.

It is heartening to learn that the Shi’a should not be killed by bombings – especially from one so witless as to, nonetheless, council hatred against “heretics and deviants”. The fact the the author of this piece of medievalist intolerance cannot make the connection between sectarian “hatred” and terrorism is a measure of his witlessness, however; and calls into question the degree to which he really objects to the murder of those with whom he disagrees.

This should read: Sunni Islamism’s hatred of Shi’a…

Islamism is also a Shi’a phenomenon; and something that non-Khomeinist Twelvers, Ismai’ili and other Shi’a have been struggling against – usually quite forgotten – for years.