Safavid Dynasty and Shia Islam in Persia

[Azadeh307]

Salaam, 

Some people are telling me that the reason why Iranians are Shia is because the Safavid dynasty forced the sunnis to convert to Shia when they made Shia the state religion. They point out that many influential Muslims were Sunni persian prior to the forced conversion of Iran to Shia. I am second generation Iranian American, which means I don't really understand my background as well as I would like. I think the implication is if I knew my roots I would not identify as Shia and I would be Sunni or Zoroastrian.

I tried to do my research but I have some gaps which I am hoping someone can help me with. What are the alternative points of view?  I respond with Salman al-Farsi, the first Persian to convert to Islam and sahaba was Shia and he was the first governor of the Sassanid (dynasty) capital after Persia was conquered and became Muslim. However, I don't know how to respond to the Safavid dynasty point. Thanks in advance.

 

 

[Future_Banker_Insha Allah]

On 6/11/2024 at 4:06 PM, Azadeh307 said:

Salaam, 

Some people are telling me that the reason why Iranians are Shia is because the Safavid dynasty forced the sunnis to convert to Shia when they made Shia the state religion. They point out that many influential Muslims were Sunni persian prior to the forced conversion of Iran to Shia. I am second generation Iranian American, which means I don't really understand my background as well as I would like. I think the implication is if I knew my roots I would not identify as Shia and I would be Sunni or Zoroastrian.

I tried to do my research but I have some gaps which I am hoping someone can help me with. What are the alternative points of view?  I respond with Salman al-Farsi, the first Persian to convert to Islam and sahaba was Shia and he was the first governor of the Sassanid (dynasty) capital after Persia was conquered and became Muslim. However, I don't know how to respond to the Safavid dynasty point. Thanks in advance.

 

 

from what I heard the safavids did indeed do forced convsersions to some extent yes.

 

in fact i heard some of them like commited zina often, and drank alcohol

[Guest111]

is the wikishia entry about the Safavids accurate? Because it mentions measures like mandating cursing of the khulafa in sermons, having people march in the streets and loudly curse them and murdering anyone who prayed the Sunni way.

[Azadeh307]

1 hour ago, Guest111 said:

 

is the wikishia entry about the Safavids accurate? Because it mentions

 

Yes, that is basically my question since it has been brought up to me. At this point it is irrelevant to my identity as a Shia Muslim, which is supported by love for the ahul bayt, however I am curious about this topic. 

Edited June 13 by Azadeh307

[Guest111]

5 hours ago, Azadeh307 said:

Yes, that is basically my question since it has been brought up to me. At this point it is irrelevant to my identity as a Shia Muslim, which is supported by love for the ahul bayt, however I am curious about this topic. 

So I went back to the wikishia site and it cited these two sources for what I mentioned:

قاضی احمد قمی، خلاصة التواریخ، ج۱، ص: ۷۳

جنابدی، روضه الصفویه، ص۱۵۴

I looked them up and they were both written by Persians in the time of the Safavids and are meant to put them in a favourable light, with the first one actually being commissioned by Shah Ismail II. So it doesn't seem to be anti-Safavid propaganda.

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:36 PM, Azadeh307 said:

Salaam, 

Some people are telling me that the reason why Iranians are Shia is because the Safavid dynasty forced the sunnis to convert to Shia when they made Shia the state religion. They point out that many influential Muslims were Sunni persian prior to the forced conversion of Iran to Shia. I am second generation Iranian American, which means I don't really understand my background as well as I would like. I think the implication is if I knew my roots I would not identify as Shia and I would be Sunni or Zoroastrian.

I tried to do my research but I have some gaps which I am hoping someone can help me with. What are the alternative points of view?  I respond with Salman al-Farsi, the first Persian to convert to Islam and sahaba was Shia and he was the first governor of the Sassanid (dynasty) capital after Persia was conquered and became Muslim. However, I don't know how to respond to the Safavid dynasty point. Thanks in advance.

 

 

There are instances of intolerance from the Safavid rule, undeniably, but to propose that they forced an entire country to convert to some other confession at the point of the sword is simply laughable. All that happened was that the 12er sect obtained an official position, and since the vast majority of people follow the officially preached doctrines, the majority of the laity followed suit (since the officially appointed judges, the local prayer leaders, religious scholars and preachers/parsons would be aligned with that denomination, and most laymen don't really care much about theological nitty gritties). The Shi'a are a majority in Iran for the very same reason that the Sunnis are a majority in much of the Arabian peninsula, the Maghrib and the Indian Subcontinent- their sect there had an official endorsed position and was therefore preached the most widely as the default madhab. 

I find it profoundly laughable that figures like Salah al-Din Ayyubi and his descendants are lauded for wiping Shiism off from Egypt and much of the Levant (many areas in the historic Greater Syria/Bilad ash-Sham were Twelver majority, mind you, and Lebanon is one such surviving pocket) and converting the local populace to Sunnism, while in the same breath the Safavids are demonised for their zealotry and the alleged imposition of Twelver Shiism by the same demographic; we could use a little consistency here. Those who gloat about the former, have no right to complain about the latter. 

Shiism has a historical pedigree in Iran and the 'Ajam lands from much before the Safavids; Qom and Mashhad were Shi'i settlements; clans like the Ash'ari family, the Bani Nawbakht and Bani Buwayh (the Buyids) were well known Shi'i figures in Iran; even before the Safavids Twelver Shiism had once been the official madhab in Iran under the Mongol Ilkhanids, when Sultan Oljeitu Khudabandah (rh) was converted to Shiism through the efforts of Allamah al-Hilli (rh). Persians had always had a soft-corner for the 'Alawi-Fatimis (even when Iran was technically 'Sunni') , and participated in great numbers in most pro-'Alid uprisings. All that was needed was something to tip the scales, and this was done by the Safavid policy. 

Wassalam. 

 

1 hour ago, Guest111 said:

So I went back to the wikishia site and it cited these two sources for what I mentioned:

قاضی احمد قمی، خلاصة التواریخ، ج۱، ص: ۷۳

جنابدی، روضه الصفویه، ص۱۵۴

I looked them up and they were both written by Persians in the time of the Safavids and are meant to put them in a favourable light, with the first one actually being commissioned by Shah Ismail II. So it doesn't seem to be anti-Safavid propaganda.

We must bear in mind that such court chronicles were often written with the aim to project their patron kings as zealous and fanatical Shi'a (in their own imagination, a way of showing their loyalty to the madhab), so we must take such accounts with a grain of salt. The Safavids who sponsored these histories might have wanted to project themselves and their forefathers as strict Shiis but the very fact that substantial Sunni populations survive to this day in the southeastern areas of modern day Iran, while the regions as far East as Qandahar and Herat were under Safavid rule and fiat, should really prompt us to doubt if any such policy of killing everyone who prayed the Sunni way was ever implemented. 

All I mean to say is that self-projection is one thing, while ground reality is another. They couldn't have realistically forced every Sunni they came across to become Shi'a; it is simply not practically possible. 

[Guest111]

16 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

We must bear in mind that such court chronicles were often written with the aim to project their patron kings as zealous and fanatical Shi'a (in their own imagination, a way of showing their loyalty to the madhab), so we must take such accounts with a grain of salt. The Safavids who sponsored these histories might have wanted to project themselves and their forefathers as strict Shiis but the very fact that substantial Sunni populations survive to this day in the southeastern areas of modern day Iran, while the regions as far East as Qandahar and Herat were under Safavid rule and fiat, should really prompt us to doubt if any such policy of killing everyone who prayed the Sunni way was ever implemented. 

All I mean to say is that self-projection is one thing, while ground reality is another. They couldn't have realistically forced every Sunni they came across to become Shi'a; it is simply not practically possible. 

That perspective does make sense, maybe to make the rulers seem more devout and dedicated to establishing the school of thought than they actually were, but most places I search up the safavids to try to learn about them do say they were aggressive in the ways I mentioned to spread twelver shiism. What websites or sources would you recommend for the most reliable accounts about the safavids and how they actually ruled persia?

Edited June 13 by Guest111

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 hour ago, Guest111 said:

That perspective does make sense, maybe to make the rulers seem more devout and dedicated to establishing the school of thought than they actually were, but most places I search up the safavids to try to learn about them do say they were aggressive in the ways I mentioned to spread twelver shiism. What websites or sources would you recommend for the most reliable accounts about the safavids and how they actually ruled persia?

The zeal to propagate Twelver Shiism was certainly a feature of their rule, but what is being doubted here is its violent imposition upon the population (the 'conversion-by-sword' thesis), given the practical reality. The government may well have gone out of its way to favour Shiism, and there might even be odd cases of forced conversion, but it is highly doubtful if it was followed through to the last person as a matter of policy, a la the Inquisition in the Iberian peninsula. The reason to doubt this is the continued existence of a large and substantial Sunni populace in the regions formerly ruled by the Safavids, as far East as Northwest Afghanistan of today, which had been ruled by them until the rise of Nadir Shah, and their subsequent incorporation into the Abdali/Durrani kingdom. If the aforementioned policy had been implemented, then we wouldn't see that Sunni demographic there today. Of course, this narrative of forced conversion has been publicised by the anti-Shi'a forces, then by the Ottomans, and now by the Wahhabis, who seek to equate Shiism with the Safavids, and project it as a Persian ethno-nationalist heresy created in opposition to 'Arab' Sunnism (ironically for them, the Safavids were of Turkic stock and claimed Arab Sayyid descent through Musa al-Kadhim (as)). The Orientalists have also followed suit. 

You may read the book of Catherine Babayan on the dynasty, and if you know Persian (or know someone who does) , then Rasul Ja'fariyan's book on them. Unfortunately, the latter hasn't been translated yet, to the best of my knowledge. 

[Azadeh307]

5 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

You may read the book of Catherine Babayan on the dynasty, and if you know Persian (or know someone who does) , then Rasul Ja'fariyan's book on them. Unfortunately, the latter hasn't been translated yet, to the best of my knowledge. 

Thank you, your response, books recommendations, and assistance is quite helpful and thought provoking. 

[Azadeh307]

16 hours ago, Guest111 said:

s the wikishia entry about the Safavids accurate? Because it mentions measures like mandating cursing of the khulafa in sermons, having people march in the streets and loudly curse them and murdering anyone who prayed the Sunni way.

It's hard for me to imagine the wikishia entry is accurate since none of the Shia I know curse the khulafa. Also, Salman al-Farsi was a companion of the prophet, the first Persian to convert to Islam and a Shia. It was his idea to dig the trench in the battle of trench, which kept Islam from being wiped out in its early days. In other words, it is not in the Shia spirit from the beginning to have bad character. 

7 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I find it profoundly laughable that figures like Salah al-Din Ayyubi and his descendants are lauded for wiping Shiism off from Egypt and much of the Levant (many areas in the historic Greater Syria/Bilad ash-Sham were Twelver majority, mind you, and Lebanon is one such surviving pocket) and converting the local populace to Sunnism, while in the same breath the Safavids are demonised for their zealotry and the alleged imposition of Twelver Shiism by the same demographic; we could use a little consistency here.

I didn't know about this. Good to know. That's true there is an inconsistency here. 

[Azadeh307]

On 6/12/2024 at 5:56 PM, Guest111 said:

is the wikishia entry about the Safavids accurate?

For what is is worth at the time Safavids adhered more closely to a particular strain of Akbari school, whereas the predominant school in Jafaria Shia today is the Usuli school. These 2 schools differ in what they consider as valid sources of the law. 
 

Also, even Mullah Sadrah, the Shia scholar known for the School of Ishfahan and founding Transcendental Philosophy was harassed by thr Safavid dynasty. (Sharing some other things that came to my attention when I started looking into this topic.)

[Panzerwaffe]

Just think of how US post civil rights embraced the equality for all , no racism ,feminism , LGBT , DEI etc modern religion.To a person in 1960 making these things mainstream would be an anathema 

it happened without mass killings or forced conversions 

similarly kings in olden times used to change the cultural and religious views of people by infiltrating the institutions 

Edited June 18 by Panzerwaffe