Iran Military Forum

I have discussed a bit with someone who strongly dislikes IRI(surley because they are shia) long. But as we have discussed regarding IRI, we also tok about  the Safavid dynasty. The person I have discussed with is  a religious person. He is Persian and Sunni Muslim (!). He talks about the only reason that the Persians are Shia Muslims now is because the Safavid dynasty forced them to be. All the great people that Persians look up to when it comes to poetry and medicine, etc. was not Shia Muslims.

He gave me all this from wikipedia about the Safavid dynasty:

Shia Islam as the state religion
 
Shah Abbas I of Safavid at a banquet. Detail from a ceiling fresco; Chehel Sotoun Palace; Isfahan.
 
Shah Suleiman I and his courtiers, Isfahan, 1670. Painter is Ali Qoli Jabbador, and is kept at The St. Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies in Russia, ever since it was acquired by Tsar Nicholas II. Note the two Georgian figures with their names at the top left.

Even though Safavids were not the first Shia rulers in Iran, they played a crucial role in making Shia Islam the official religion in the whole of Iran. There were large Shia communities in some cities like Qom and Sabzevar as early as the 8th century. In the 10th and 11th centuries the Buwayhids, who were of the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia, ruled in Fars, Isfahan and Baghdad. As a result of the Mongol conquest and the relative religious tolerance of the Ilkhanids, Shia dynasties were re-established in Iran, Sarbedaran in Khorasan being the most important. The Ilkhanid ruler Öljaitü converted to Twelver Shiism in the 13th century.

Following his conquest of Iran, Ismail I made conversion mandatory for the largely Sunni population. The Sunni Ulema or clergy were either killed or exiled. Ismail I, despite his heterodox Shia beliefs (Momen, 1985), brought in Shi'a religious leaders and granted them land and money in return for loyalty. Later, during the Safavid and especially Qajar period, the Shia Ulema's power increased and they were able to exercise a role, independent of or compatible with the government. Despite the Safavid's Sufi origins, most Sufi groups were prohibited, except the Nimatullahi order.

Iran became a feudal theocracy: the Shah was held to be the divinely ordained head of state and religion. In the following centuries, this religious stance cemented both Iran's internal cohesion and national feelings and provoked attacks by its Sunni neighbors.

And a other source : Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_from_Sunnism_to_Shiism#cite_note-31

So I wonder if anyone on this forum have a clue pertaining to Shia and Sunni Islam in Iran (Persia)

Wasnt Rumi a sufi ?..

A sufi is a branch of sunni islam

I also received a shock. He is a Persian, that he is a fars  I have never believed that there are Persians, who are Sunni. I asked even the person if he has "converted" to Sunni Islam, and he said no. But there are certainly a few Persians who are Sunnis.

It's the same when I  that there are also  Somalis who are Shia .. soo

But I disagree that the Sufister  are Sunni Muslims. Sufism's not a direction that I had imagined. There are various varienter of Sufism. Some Sufi  are more related to Shia Islam, others to Sunni Islam.

unfortunately it is true that iran was forced to adopt shia islam but shah ismael. He had a strong hate for the caliphs omar and abu bakrs lineage . convert or die , imagine trying to convert afghanistan to shia islam....what a job that would be. This was the first time iran was run by velayat faghih but with a sassanid influence (shah , nowrooz celebrations , farsi as the main language and so on) and this was the reason the osmanli caliphate invaded iran , Iran had left islam they declared but were shocked when they heard the iranian cries of allaho akbar.

As for Sunni islam in Iran . I couldnt imagine a different Iran todayif it were sunni , even khomeini didnt emphasis sunni or shia , it was always islam , islam , islam.

I accept the fact that there was official pressure during the early period of the Safavid dynasty but are you really under an assumption that a Shah, sitting in a palace, was able to convert the majority of his population with a small band of forceful soldiers and they, the people, accepted because it was official (so why not?) and taught this to their children? Does a sword win a heart? If that is true, then I do not understand why a stronger Pahlavi Shah, supported by a superpower, with an intense security network, was not able to pull of the same, which should have been much-much easier as there was no mention of official religious-conversion and only of a cultural revolution of sorts. Had he not power in his hand? Had he not force? Had the White Revolution not been official? In the above situation, a Safavid population is ideal for any government-- Make something official, kill religious/political leaders, plunder their religious places/centres and they will accept even if you are few in numbers initially. Moreover, they will make sure their own offspring adapt the newer teachings. If the above is true, I know of only the Safavids who have been so successful in it. In other parts of the world it has led to revolutions and civil war.

"Convert or die." Try convert or die on religious people, even in today's day and and age. Why didn't the Sunni majority people uprise against the extreme minority Sunni killing evil Safavids and why didn't Persia descend into complete civil war? Please explain. I am dying to know given your evident scholarly abilities on the Safavids.

Lastly, as your knowledge on the Safavids surpasses even their knowledge on themselves, I would like to point to one thing which of course you can correct me on afterwards. I thought the first confrontation between the Ottomans and Safavids was on a territorial dispute, and the fact that the Safavids had no intention on being anything less than equal to the Ottomans in their own standing. What is surprising is that, the recently forced-to-convert-or-die Shi'ah of the adjoining areas had been recruited and fought against their recent former-same-sect Sunni brethren. Please enlighten us with the true turn of events.

Sunni islam is not differentiated one bit in todays iran only in the fact that majority shia areas cannot have sunni mosques , which is not a big deal.

Most of the Iranian scientists we all love were sunni muslims : ibn e sina , khawarizmi , rumi (especially) , hafez , saadi , omar khayam (disputed) . Not many shia names you can put in that list , given that most muslims in the world are sunni.

In Iran, people are free to pray in any mosque. Different mosques for different sects creates divisions within the people. Because of this, no differentiation in mosques is made as no differentiation is needed for that matter. Sunni Iranians are free to worship in any mosque unless of course they themselves feel that they musn't. In Pakistan, there are also different mosques or different sects within Sunni Muslims-- Wahhabi mosques, Berelvi mosques, Deobandi mosques, Ahl-Hadis mosques, etc... Such a level of 'mosque specialisation' is not needed in Iran.

As for the scientists and poets mentioned, none were keen on particular sect based association. They were good human beings and made sincere efforts. Calling them Sunni or Shia is irrelevant as being of either sect does not reflect on intellect. They were Muslims. They are loved for that and their work, regardless of religious association.     

Saadi, persian, again big fan of Omar

Roo sare Omar. What makes you say that?

You all have heard about the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shi 'ism_vs._Black_Shi' ism.
What I wonder is whether Ali Shariati criticize the Safavid dynasty? What kind of view, the majority Shiite Muslims,have  in terms of Safavid Dynasty? Since the Safavid arrived, thr  Shia Islam was the official state religion, but I have read where many criticize the Safavid Dynasty?

Or have I been wrong? : P

Anyone who cannot take the effort of buying a book about Iranian history should not be given this much attention. The Islamic conversion of Iran is not up for debate, it is a well documented history and the scholars of Jabal Amel are accredited and widely respected for their work during that era.

Yes Shariati, like most Iranian intelligentsia dislike the Safavid era, it is seen as corrupt, unislamic. Not because they forced Shia Islam, but because Shia Islam was treated as apolitical, void of intellectual discourse in the political arena and confined to ritualism, dogma, etc. Shia Islam then was very much the same as Sunni Islam is today, only worthy of performing rituals.

Anyone who cannot take the effort of buying a book about Iranian history should not be given this much attention. The Islamic conversion of Iran is not up for debate, it is a well documented history and the scholars of Jabal Amel are accredited and widely respected for their work during that era.

Yes Shariati, like most Iranian intelligentsia dislike the Safavid era, it is seen as corrupt, unislamic. Not because they forced Shia Islam, but because Shia Islam was treated as apolitical, void of intellectual discourse in the political arena and confined to ritualism, dogma, etc. Shia Islam then was very much the same as Sunni Islam is today, only worthy of performing rituals.

Hmm, interesting. I have read a little about it, but I was a little surprised when I saw that many famous Iranian profiles criticized Safavid Dynasti.