What if the Safavids Did Not Convert the Iranians from Sunni to Shiite?

Don't take it badly, but I'm afraid your religious affiliation and a complete reliance on traditional Sunni literature has colored your post and resultedin a significant number of untrue statements.

Ismail was not born Shia: his family were Sufi (to be precise Shafi'i Sufi) and Haydar his father was the Shaykh of the Safavyya Sufi order and a direct descendant of its founder, Safi-ad-Din Ardabili. Haydar was killed in battle in 1488, and in 1494 his elder brother Ali Mirza Safavi was assassinated. Ismail was spirited away to Gilan,where he stayed hidden for 5 years (and according to Safavi propaganda was taught by renowned scholars and ulemas). He then returned to Azerbaijan in 1499, supported by Qizilbash Turcoman tribes.
Now the Qizilbash were Shia, and this would explain why Ismail claimed un his return to be the mahdi, i.e. the "hidden imam" of the Twelvers tradition.

The contradiction between his father being the head of a Sufi order and at the same time supporting a Shia tribal confederation is only apparent: IMHO politics trumped religion, and the support of these belligerent tribes was certainly motive enough to explain his ties with the Qizilbashi.

Incidentally, Azerbaijan was majority Sunni at the time, and most of the ulemas were coming from the Ottoman empire. The same is true for most of Iran: Shia were majority only in Southern Mesopotamia, and adiacent border regions in Khuzestan and Kurdistan. The Qizilbashi alliance was a relatively a new comer, having been started in the 14th century.

IMHO Ismail conversion to Shia was due to his formative years in the Shia stronghold in Gilan, aswell as by his hate for Sunni whom he held responsible for the death of his father and brother. Shia beliefs dovetailed pretty well with Sufi mysticism, and presented him with a nice piece of strong propaganda. Later on, he found convenient and necessary to further promote the Shia message, since it gave Persia a separate and distinct identity from his main enemies (the Ottomans and the Turcomans of Central Asia). For similar reasons, he also promoted the image of a separate Persian identity (although the religious message was always dominant, and easier to use for his attempt to penetrate in eastern Anatolia).

At present, the distribution of religious affiliation in Iran is a bit muddy: Christians, Jews, Chaldeans and Zoroastrians number less than 1% of the population, but the 99%+ of Muslim Iranians is a bit more difficult to break down. There is a significant likelihood that Sunnis are somewhere between 10 and 12% of Iranian population (mostly concentrated in Larestan and Kurdistan, and apparently their numbers are growing); Yarsanis and Baha'i may number together around 2-3%; Sufis are claimed to be 3-5%, but it's quite impossible to say if it is true, or even if they should constitute a separate group). There has certainly been a strong increase of un-religiousness: obviously the census does not consider agnostics or atheists (as well as the do not consider Baha'i or Yarsanis) but I would be really surprised if their numbers would be less than 5% (personal assessment, on the basis of my visits to Iran). IMHO Iran today is amuch more variegated and multi-faceted society than it is portrayed by the regime (or even believed in the west).

I said " I believe", when referring to Azerbaijan. I was unaware that it was majority Sunni at this point. Further, while I might be off on saying "100 % Shi'i" are any of the groups you mentioned in power? Do they have really any say? Thus in practice it is quite easy to say That Iran is extraordinarily Shi'i, it is like saying oh wait, Oman isn't completely Ibadhi, it actually has some silly 2% Shi'i populace in Masqat...


I of course am not an expert on the Safavids and am in fact learning more about Iran in general. My main area of knowledge is the the Caliphates and social problems during that time.

I knew Is'mail was Sufi at birth, but being a Sufi does not automatically mean no to Shi'i. But I understand your point.

Also other than Is'mail and my lack of knowledge on Azerbaijan (which I need to study more) where else did I slip up? Are you saying that contemporary accounts are universally false or that I don't look into Shi'i sources? I don't think you are calling into question the list of rebellions I put forward or my charecterization of the Safavids as what they were in comparison to previous Shi'i entities whether state or rebels.
 
The impressive list of Shia insurrections you've posted earlier has not much (if anything) to do with the OP: the discussion was about Ismail, and Safavid adoption of Shia creed as "state religion" for Persia. You may have realized that I completely ignored the first half of your post.

The last three paragraphs were factually incorrect, and I explained why. If - as you say - you were not familiar with Iran and the Safavids, you should have checked your facts before posting.

Same thing for religious demographics in present Iran: you said that Shia were almost the totality of the 99%+ Muslim population. According to the data I retrieved from different sources and to my personal experience in Iran, the Shia are more likely to be around 80% of the Iranian population. Don't you think it makes a difference? At least it demonstrates that 500 years of undisputed Shia religious dominance in Iran were not enough to convert the totality of Sunnis, same as even a longer period of Sunni dominance in the rest of the Middle East were not able to eradicate Shi'ism. The fact that Sunni are not politically powerful in Iran and are still marginalized does not matter.
Shia and other non-Sunni beliefs were marginalized (and often persecuted) under the Ottoman rule, but they survived and in some cases even thrived.

The main issue - however - is that to my view the Safavid shift to Shia was politically rather than religiously motivated: IOTL Ismail made use of religious trappings to legitimize his rule and to give a separate identity to Persia (Shia clerics went and created a spurious genealogy that "proves" Ismail was a direct descendant of Ali), but he also tapped an already existing reservoir of political discontent and used it for his scopes. I'm reasonably convinced that if Ismail had failed this discontent would have surfaced again in a couple of generations at worst.There was no way for the Ottomans to control Persia for a long time, and this is not because of the Sunni/Shia split.
 
The impressive list of Shia insurrections you've posted earlier has not much (if anything) to do with the OP: the discussion was about Ismail, and Safavid adoption of Shia creed as "state religion" for Persia. You may have realized that I completely ignored the first half of your post.

The last three paragraphs were factually incorrect, and I explained why. If - as you say - you were not familiar with Iran and the Safavids, you should have checked your facts before posting.

Same thing for religious demographics in present Iran: you said that Shia were almost the totality of the 99%+ Muslim population. According to the data I retrieved from different sources and to my personal experience in Iran, the Shia are more likely to be around 80% of the Iranian population. Don't you think it makes a difference? At least it demonstrates that 500 years of undisputed Shia religious dominance in Iran were not enough to convert the totality of Sunnis, same as even a longer period of Sunni dominance in the rest of the Middle East were not able to eradicate Shi'ism. The fact that Sunni are not politically powerful in Iran and are still marginalized does not matter.
Shia and other non-Sunni beliefs were marginalized (and often persecuted) under the Ottoman rule, but they survived and in some cases even thrived.

The main issue - however - is that to my view the Safavid shift to Shia was politically rather than religiously motivated: IOTL Ismail made use of religious trappings to legitimize his rule and to give a separate identity to Persia (Shia clerics went and created a spurious genealogy that "proves" Ismail was a direct descendant of Ali), but he also tapped an already existing reservoir of political discontent and used it for his scopes. I'm reasonably convinced that if Ismail had failed this discontent would have surfaced again in a couple of generations at worst.There was no way for the Ottomans to control Persia for a long time, and this is not because of the Sunni/Shia split.



Hmm ok then...

It was factually incorrect that Alawi and Druze where in the Levant?

It was factually incorrect that Karbala, Najaf, Kufa, Ahvaz, etc where Shi'i strongholds?

It was factually incorrect that Gilan, Mazandran, Qom, Zanjan, etc where Shi'i areas of Iran and the rest was predominantly Sunni?

It was factually incorrect that Bahrain was Shi'i?

It was factually incorrect that the Safavids were the first truly dominant Shi'i regime to come out of Taqiyyah and openly proclaim itself and unlike the Fatimids antagonized the Sunni populace both in its territory and outside.

Further, no country (of size at least) is 100% any religion. I am sure no one looked to the number and gave and said "oh that is the exact number" they would've thought "hmm, Iran is extremely Shi'i dominated", perhaps without Safavid rule, the Sunni would have been a much stronger force politically in Iran.. Further and again, Saudi Arabia has a large Shi'i minority in the eastern province, that does not mean they have any political clout in the Kingdom whatsoever and that doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is some multi religious nation and bastion of Shi'i Islam.

As well I'm glad you found the list impressive, it's meaning was simply to dispel myths of Shi'i conflict only coming from the Safavid-Ottoman rivalry.


Also I do not appreciate the tone of your post, I don't see you telling everyone who has not read shah Is'mail's biography to check facts before they post, like really.
 
You sound very defensive and upset. Why?
There is no shame in making a honest mistake or three: everyone does, in particular when we write something without checking facts. Even when talking of things which are very familiar.

It looks like there is not a lot of good in continuing the discussion. It's a pity because I'm personally quite interested in Iran in particular and its history.
 
You sound very defensive and upset. Why?
There is no shame in making a honest mistake or three: everyone does, in particular when we write something without checking facts. Even when talking of things which are very familiar.

It looks like there is not a lot of good in continuing the discussion. It's a pity because I'm personally quite interested in Iran in particular and its history.

Don't take it badly, but I'm afraid your religious affiliation and a complete reliance on traditional Sunni literature has colored your post and resultedin a significant number of untrue statements.
I hope you will continue posting your thoughts. ;)

Here's my advice to avoid future confrontation. You shouldn't have started out the first post the way you did. It was pretty insulting, that's all. Also maybe you shouldn't have made your reply so definitive and declaring "untrue". Your posts also probably have small inaccuracies we are unaware at the present moment.
 
I hope you will continue posting your thoughts. ;)

Here's my advice to avoid future confrontation. You shouldn't have started out the first post the way you did. It was pretty insulting, that's all. Also maybe you shouldn't have made your reply so definitive and declaring "untrue". Your posts also probably have small inaccuracies we are unaware at the present moment.

Just to wade in here (I've been reading the thread, even though I'll admit Safavid Persia isn't exactly my strong point), I don't actually think that LordKalvan was being particularly insulting.

Sure, questioning whether John7755 is biased or not may seem a little direct, and I can see how it could be perceived as so, I don't think it is. Many of us have seen John7755's posts on other subjects regarding the Middle East and variants of Islamic ideology/theology/jurisprudence. Whilst he is obviously knowledgable and well-read on the subject, it is also pretty clear that he has some strong beliefs on these subjects himself. Which is, of course, absolutely fine and he's entitled to them, but that also doesn't mean he's above criticism. John7755's response to the criticism put forward by LordKalvan looked to me pretty dismissive of the mere concept that John7755 might be mistaken on some fronts. In my opinion, that isn't really the way to approach these things. Also, in his list of Shi'ite uprisings, there was a pretty easy-to-infer predilection towards condemning the Shi'a.
 
I hope you will continue posting your thoughts. ;)

Here's my advice to avoid future confrontation. You shouldn't have started out the first post the way you did. It was pretty insulting, that's all. Also maybe you shouldn't have made your reply so definitive and declaring "untrue". Your posts also probably have small inaccuracies we are unaware at the present moment.

Maybe you missed the very beginning of John's first post in this thread:

This is essentially false... Let me list some evidence to you on how the Jihad upon Shi'i was prescribed for Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah far before the Safavids and the conflict far before the rise of Shah Is'mail or Shah Abbas.

Ibn Hazm "Shi'i are not even Mu'min (believers)" - al-Milal wa al-Nahl

Ibn Khaldoun "The Shi'i are the source of all deviancy in the history of Islam" -Muqadama

.

I did find his first sentence pretty dismissive of another poster, and the fact that he upheld the obligation of Jihad against a different Islamic belief quite disturbing.

What is your opinion?

It seems to me that John is certainly knowledgeable in terms of Sunni Islam, but at the same time his views are very orthodox and his knowledge of Iran somehow less than accurate.
The point however is that someone who starts his post saying "This is essentially false" should not be so ready to take offense when the shoe is on the other foot.

If my posts contain inaccuracies and someone points them out, I'm not certainly going to take offense. Why should I? I'd rather thank you for teaching me something I didn't know.
 

Your missing my point. If you want avoid confrontation don't try to play another poster. You didn't need to direct your post at John, you could have just posted it. You entered into a debate by quoting him and pointing out his mistakes. Then you both felt bad and wanted to leave. I don't care what either you or John posted. I want you both to continue posting so I can absorb information. You sounded like you were bailing on the thread so I wanted to pull you back in.

EDIT: This threads been derailed too far we should just stop posting. It will only get worse from here on out.;)
 
Last edited:
Your missing my point. If you want avoid confrontation don't try to play another poster. You didn't need to direct your post at John, you could have just posted it. You entered into a debate by quoting him and pointing out his mistakes. Then you both felt bad and wanted to leave. I don't care what either you or John posted. I want you both to continue posting so I can absorb information. You sounded like you were bailing on the thread so I wanted to pull you back in.

EDIT: This threads been derailed too far we should just stop posting. It will only get worse from here on out.;)

Why should I have wanted to avoid confrontation?
I directed my post at John because I felt it was the proper way to go. Twice I posted and twice he evaded. It was quite evident that the discussion was already over.

If your interest were that the thread could move on, maybe you should have worded your post differently.
 
Really? Maybe because you derailed a thread that isn't yours? Like I said at this point you should both leave and let others comment. Please don't respond to this post, I don't want to derail this thread even further.;)

Really? you look very big on unsolicited advice, in particular since you have posted nothing else in this thread
 
Maybe you missed the very beginning of John's first post in this thread:



I did find his first sentence pretty dismissive of another poster, and the fact that he upheld the obligation of Jihad against a different Islamic belief quite disturbing.

What is your opinion?

It seems to me that John is certainly knowledgeable in terms of Sunni Islam, but at the same time his views are very orthodox and his knowledge of Iran somehow less than accurate.
The point however is that someone who starts his post saying "This is essentially false" should not be so ready to take offense when the shoe is on the other foot.

If my posts contain inaccuracies and someone points them out, I'm not certainly going to take offense. Why should I? I'd rather thank you for teaching me something I didn't know.


Is it not known that Jihad was proclaimed against the Shi'i entities of the past? Let no one take me out of context on this, I relay what the Ulema say in regards to these issues both past and present. Surely history isn't disturbing and nor is reality.

And perhaps I was a little accusatory in my first post, forgive me.

To answer some of the other posts against me, I did not post the list of Shi'i insurrections to condemn, no, but I wanted to dispel some notions and speak the reality of social order in Islam before the Ottomans. If I came off as harsh to the Shi'i that was not my intent.

And I was a little too defensive, but I took slight offense, perhaps I was wrong in doing so.

Either ways, let us have a more amiable relation and continue discussing the possibilities in what this thread entails. :)
 
Is it not known that Jihad was proclaimed against the Shi'i entities of the past? Let no one take me out of context on this, I relay what the Ulema say in regards to these issues both past and present. Surely history isn't disturbing and nor is reality.

And perhaps I was a little accusatory in my first post, forgive me.

To answer some of the other posts against me, I did not post the list of Shi'i insurrections to condemn, no, but I wanted to dispel some notions and speak the reality of social order in Islam before the Ottomans. If I came off as harsh to the Shi'i that was not my intent.

And I was a little too defensive, but I took slight offense, perhaps I was wrong in doing so.

Either ways, let us have a more amiable relation and continue discussing the possibilities in what this thread entails. :)

I admit I may have have been a bit too quick to interpret your post.
Let's put all of that away, and try to continue the discussions on the Safavids.

There is no doubt that the split between Sunni and Shia (or if you prefer between the four orthodox schools and the Shia one) has been there since the 7th century, and I am quite skeptic on the possibility of ending it by accepting the Shia faith as part of the ummah. This does not mean that there must be always war to the hilt between Sunni and Shia for a purely religious reason.

On the other hand geo-politics will certainly pit whoever controls the Iranian plateau against who controls the western Middle East.

As I posted earlier
The main issue - however - is that to my view the Safavid shift to Shia was politically rather than religiously motivated: IOTL Ismail made use of religious trappings to legitimize his rule and to give a separate identity to Persia (Shia clerics went and created a spurious genealogy that "proves" Ismail was a direct descendant of Ali), but he also tapped an already existing reservoir of political discontent and used it for his scopes. I'm reasonably convinced that if Ismail had failed this discontent would have surfaced again in a couple of generations at worst.There was no way for the Ottomans to control Persia for a long time, and this is not because of the Sunni/Shia split.
 
I admit I may have have been a bit too quick to interpret your post.
Let's put all of that away, and try to continue the discussions on the Safavids.

There is no doubt that the split between Sunni and Shia (or if you prefer between the four orthodox schools and the Shia one) has been there since the 7th century, and I am quite skeptic on the possibility of ending it by accepting the Shia faith as part of the ummah. This does not mean that there must be always war to the hilt between Sunni and Shia for a purely religious reason.

On the other hand geo-politics will certainly pit whoever controls the Iranian plateau against who controls the western Middle East.

As I posted earlier



Of course, Ahl Sunnah has never waged war against the Shi'i entities without evidence of them being Taghoot (transgressors) or clear cut Kufr Akbar. The Fatimids for example where known to be highly deviant (according to Ahl Sunnah) by the Abbasid, but there was one no power among them to launch an effective campaign against the Fatimids and for the most part they were not Taghoot in their rulership (they continued in the use of Sharia).

The wars against the Fatimids by the Abbasids new patron the Saljuks was two fold:

1. The Fatimids found themselves refusing to assist the Ummah against the Byzantines and opted for further agreements with Byzantium, and thus was given the same treatment in ruling as the Banu Nadir and Qurayaza where given for complacency at war time.

And the more important

2. The rise of a rival Iranian entity thus making a major bid for power between the Byzantines, Fatimids and the Saljuks. And in the same, the Safavids will be to the Mamluks and the Ottomans regardless of religious difference. The Shi'i issue only intensified the conflict and legitimized Ottoman incursions.


The Safavid Shi'i would be more accepted as a peer (albeit deviant) if they adopted Zayydi Shi'ism. However, this would require a pod in the 800s I feel to achieve.
 
Therefore it looks like that the winning strategy for the Safavids was to force Sunni on their territory to accept Shia, and promote an Iranian identity as opposed to a religious identity.Which is what they did.
 
Top