Shia and Sunni Empires

[Guest Anonymous]

Salam everyone,

 

I was briefly researching the history of many Islamic empires and accordingly to online, Sunni empires such as Ummayad and Ottoman did not force Sunni Islam onto their populations, but allegedly the Safavids, a Shia dynasty, did. Does anyone know the reason for this and if it is true? I understand not all Shias represent Shia Islam, especially when it comes to government and power, but why were Sunnis more tolerant and why does history say the Safavids engaged in force conversions? Is it true that many people are only Shia, especially in Iran, because of the Safavids forcing Shia Islam on everyone? I would appreciate if a brother or sister could help inform me on this.

[Haji 2003]

I am tagging @Ashvazdanghe and settling down with some popcorn.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 2/22/2025 at 9:47 AM, Guest Anonymous said:

Salam everyone,

 

I was briefly researching the history of many Islamic empires and accordingly to online, Sunni empires such as Ummayad and Ottoman did not force Sunni Islam onto their populations, but allegedly the Safavids, a Shia dynasty, did. Does anyone know the reason for this and if it is true? I understand not all Shias represent Shia Islam, especially when it comes to government and power, but why were Sunnis more tolerant and why does history say the Safavids engaged in force conversions? Is it true that many people are only Shia, especially in Iran, because of the Safavids forcing Shia Islam on everyone? I would appreciate if a brother or sister could help inform me on this.

Well, I think there is much to be discussed about this topic because I do not think that you are fair with your statements. To begin with, when Arab conquests begin, there were many people who were forced to accept Islam such as Persians were, that is why one of our Holy Imams said regarding Persians people that the way people of Persia were driven towards Islam, one day people of Persia will drive Arabs towards Islam. Similarly, many kings in the past for their own reasons prioritize religious policies because either they deemed it appropriate or it best served their interests in every nook and cranny whether it be Mongols, Mamluks, Safavids, Turks and Siljuks. So, none of the kings was flexible in their support for the religious ideology which they thought was proper or which was in their best interest. So, while they supported one group of scholars, they did not allow freedom to other group of scholars. Although few of them were so liberal that they introduced their own cult and favored the ones who adhered to their cult. 

So, as I said, every group of kings prioritized their religious policy and made arrangements to spread it no matter the region even including the Arabs.  

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 2/22/2025 at 10:17 AM, Guest Anonymous said:

Salam everyone,

 

I was briefly researching the history of many Islamic empires and accordingly to online, Sunni empires such as Ummayad and Ottoman did not force Sunni Islam onto their populations, but allegedly the Safavids, a Shia dynasty, did. Does anyone know the reason for this and if it is true? I understand not all Shias represent Shia Islam, especially when it comes to government and power, but why were Sunnis more tolerant and why does history say the Safavids engaged in force conversions? Is it true that many people are only Shia, especially in Iran, because of the Safavids forcing Shia Islam on everyone? I would appreciate if a brother or sister could help inform me on this.

Wassalam, 

That narrative is blatantly false. I suggest you research more into the persecution of the Shia under all Sunni empires- Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Ayyubids, Ottomans. I won't get into detailed descriptions because that's too much to write, but consider the fact that 10 out of the 12 Shia Imams were murdered at the behest of the contemporary powers that be, heavy restrictions were imposed on Shia religious practices, and the shrine of al-Husayn (عليه السلام) itself was razed many times, the most notable instance being that during the reign of Mutawakkil al-Abbasi (la). In fact, the location of the grave of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) itself was hidden until the reign of Haroon al-Abbasi; make of that what you will. 

This persecution continued after the fall of the Abbasid 'caliphate'; under the Seljuks, and then Saladdin mass- massacred the Shia in Egypt and Levant (fun fact: Google who founded the famous al-Azhar seminary in Cairo and what happened to it), the Ottomans perpetrated frequent pogroms of the Shia in Anatolia, Iraq and Lebanon (look up the persecution of Shiites in Anatolia, the great Karbala massacre, and Shahid al Awwal). 

The contention that Sunnis were 'tolerant' in any sense of the term is pure misinformation; the status of the Shia in Sunni-ruled kingdoms was akin to that of Jews and Muslims in Reconquista and Inquisition-era Catholic-ruled Iberia. 

The roots of Shiism in Iran pre-date Safavids. Twelver Shiism was the state religion from the reign of the Ilkhanid king Oljeitu (Muhammah Khudabandah) himself. There were Shii enclaves in Qum and Rayy and other parts of Iran since the times of the Imams (ams) themselves, and there were famous twelver shia clans like the Buyids, the Bani Nawbakht and the Ash'aris of Qum contemporaneous to the Imams or soon after their times. No doubt some kings committed excesses, but the argument that the Safavids converted an entire country at the point of the sword is neither true nor historically possible- no state ever has been able to do it, no matter how regimented or powerful. 

Edited February 24 by AbdusSibtayn

[Panzerwaffe]

Both Sunnis and Shia kings forced when they can to convert their subjects when it suited them 

but let’s be honest Sunni kings imperialism was worst than that of Europeans , their crimes and atrocities were more widespread and long lasting 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 2/23/2025 at 9:59 AM, Haji 2003 said:

settling down with some popcorn.

He'll say all the Safavids are ma'soomeen and they never forcefully converted anybody...this is an Ottoman lie...and only 5 End Times prophecies are sahih and throw the other 50,000 in the garbage...and the Jews invented the concept of Dajjal...@Ashvazdanghe...right?...did I miss anything? 

[mahmood8726]

37 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

He'll say all the Safavids are ma'soomeen and they never forcefully converted anybody...this is an Ottoman lie...and only 5 End Times prophecies are sahih and throw the other 50,000 in the garbage...and the Jews invented the concept of Dajjal...@Ashvazdanghe...right?...did I miss anything? 

What i don't understand is why people defend empires here when most of them violated basic islamic tenants. 

Having said this, I doubt there were mass forced conversions, unless it was done to non muslim ennemy soldiers or traitors in exchange for not getting the death penalty as a show of mercy, that was how a lot of forced conversions happened, which people lump together with unjust instances of forced conversions. 

[mahmood8726]

On 2/23/2025 at 10:20 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Wassalam, 

That narrative is blatantly false. I suggest you research more into the persecution of the Shia under all Sunni empires- Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Ayyubids, Ottomans. I won't get into detailed descriptions because that's too much to write, but consider the fact that 10 out of the 12 Shia Imams were murdered at the behest of the contemporary powers that be, heavy restrictions were imposed on Shia religious practices, and the shrine of al-Husayn (عليه السلام) itself was razed many times, the most notable instance being that during the reign of Mutawakkil al-Abbasi (la). In fact, the location of the grave of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) itself was hidden until the reign of Haroon al-Abbasi; make of that what you will. 

This persecution continued after the fall of the Abbasid 'caliphate'; under the Seljuks, and then Saladdin mass- massacred the Shia in Egypt and Levant (fun fact: Google who founded the famous al-Azhar seminary in Cairo and what happened to it), the Ottomans perpetrated frequent pogroms of the Shia in Anatolia, Iraq and Lebanon (look up the persecution of Shiites in Anatolia, the great Karbala massacre, and Shahid al Awwal). 

The contention that Sunnis were 'tolerant' in any sense of the term is pure misinformation; the status of the Shia in Sunni-ruled kingdoms was akin to that of Jews and Muslims in Reconquista and Inquisition-era Catholic-ruled Iberia. 

The roots of Shiism in Iran pre-date Safavids. Twelver Shiism was the state religion from the reign of the Ilkhanid king Oljeitu (Muhammah Khudabandah) himself. There were Shii enclaves in Qum and Rayy and other parts of Iran since the times of the Imams (ams) themselves, and there were famous twelver shia clans like the Buyids, the Bani Nawbakht and the Ash'aris of Qum contemporaneous to the Imams or soon after their times. No doubt some kings committed excesses, but the argument that the Safavids converted an entire country at the point of the sword is neither true nor historically possible- no state ever has been able to do it, no matter how regimented or powerful. 

The reason why my familly even lives in southern lebanon and most of south Lebanon is Shia in the mountains, is in huge part because of ottoman persecution against shias from what i understand. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

5 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

The reason why my familly even lives in southern lebanon and most of south Lebanon is Shia in the mountains, is in huge part because of ottoman persecution against shias from what i understand. 

South Lebanon, especially Jabal Amil, is Shia majority because of the tabligh of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (رضي الله عنه). He converted the local population to Shiism when he passed through the area on his way to Syria, where he was exiled by Uthman ibn Affan. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

5 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

What i don't understand is why people defend empires here when most of them violated basic islamic tenants

Nobody defends Safavids because they are believed to be holy figures (they weren't, they were just another ruling dynasty like other contemporary and near-contemporary Muslim dynasties). They have no religious significance, and have no to little theological impact on the shaping of Shii doctrine and law, all of which had in any case crystallized before their rule, independently of any state influence. 

Safavids are defended when they are made a bogeyman to attack Shiism, and make no mistake, anyone who has observed anti-Shii polemics in some detail knows that the demonization of Safavids is an oblique way to demonize Shiism (since it was the first time the Shiis tasted political power and religious freedom). 'Safavid' is used as an euphemism for 'Shia' and used interchangeably. Some inferiority complex-ridden 'house-Shia' (who are maybe not even doctrinally 12ers) hanker after Sunni recognition and acceptance, and join in this demonization as a part of their general begging tendency to appease Sunnis and win their approval, as some grotesque form of the Hegelian 'master-slave' dialectic. In their jaundiced and mistaken view of 'fairness' and 'objectivity', they don't see the real intent behind the anti-Safavid muckraking, and serve as nothing more than useful idiots for the nawasib. 

Any Shia with two functional neurons will realize that for the school of Ahl al-Bayt (ams) and their followers, the benefits that have sprung from the Safavid rule are incalculably greater than any putative harm. But maybe it is too deep a thing for these jaundiced house-Shia to grasp (because their end goal is winning the approval of Sunnis, not that of the Ahl al-Bayt, and they have no emotional or intellectual attachment to Shiism beyond some superficial aesthetic or acting out a fetish). They join the vilification campaign hook, line and sinker. 

Those who praise the Safavids for their contributions do so not because they think they were some demigods or holy personages; they do so only because they wish to give them their rightful credit where due- securing the atabat and the hawzaat in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain, providing refuge and support to the ulama, and enabling the Shia to practice their faith sans persecution for the first time in history. Apart from this, their sins and shortcomings are between them and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى); we don't apologize for those. 

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless the souls of Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasp and Shah Abbas, rahimahumullah, and may He halo their graves, and may he have mercy on them and deal with their sins and shortcomings with consideration, for their services to the school of Ahl al-Bayt, and for soothing the souls of so many mu'mineen over the centuries by giving them the freedom to proclaim أشہد انّ علی ولی الله without fear. 

[Eddie Mecca]

20 hours ago, mahmood8726 said:

i don't understand is why people defend empires

It depends on the empire in question...we evaluate each empire, state, government, administration, institution, agency, individual etc. independently and objectively (highlighting both their strengths and weaknesses)...not all empires are built the same

Edited February 26 by Eddie Mecca

[Panzerwaffe]

On 2/25/2025 at 7:35 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Nobody defends Safavids because they are believed to be holy figures (they weren't, they were just another ruling dynasty like other contemporary and near-contemporary Muslim dynasties). They have no religious significance, and have no to little theological impact on the shaping of Shii doctrine and law, all of which had in any case crystallized before their rule, independently of any state influence. 

Safavids are defended when they are made a bogeyman to attack Shiism, and make no mistake, anyone who has observed anti-Shii polemics in some detail knows that the demonization of Safavids is an oblique way to demonize Shiism (since it was the first time the Shiis tasted political power and religious freedom). 'Safavid' is used as an euphemism for 'Shia' and used interchangeably. Some inferiority complex-ridden 'house-Shia' (who are maybe not even doctrinally 12ers) hanker after Sunni recognition and acceptance, and join in this demonization as a part of their general begging tendency to appease Sunnis and win their approval, as some grotesque form of the Hegelian 'master-slave' dialectic. In their jaundiced and mistaken view of 'fairness' and 'objectivity', they don't see the real intent behind the anti-Safavid muckraking, and serve as nothing more than useful idiots for the nawasib. 

Any Shia with two functional neurons will realize that for the school of Ahl al-Bayt (ams) and their followers, the benefits that have sprung from the Safavid rule are incalculably greater than any putative harm. But maybe it is too deep a thing for these jaundiced house-Shia to grasp (because their end goal is winning the approval of Sunnis, not that of the Ahl al-Bayt, and they have no emotional or intellectual attachment to Shiism beyond some superficial aesthetic or acting out a fetish). They join the vilification campaign hook, line and sinker. 

Those who praise the Safavids for their contributions do so not because they think they were some demigods or holy personages; they do so only because they wish to give them their rightful credit where due- securing the atabat and the hawzaat in Iran, Iraq and Bahrain, providing refuge and support to the ulama, and enabling the Shia to practice their faith sans persecution for the first time in history. Apart from this, their sins and shortcomings are between them and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى); we don't apologize for those. 

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless the souls of Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasp and Shah Abbas, rahimahumullah, and may He halo their graves, and may he have mercy on them and deal with their sins and shortcomings with consideration, for their services to the school of Ahl al-Bayt, and for soothing the souls of so many mu'mineen over the centuries by giving them the freedom to proclaim أشہد انّ علی ولی الله without fear. 

Honest unadulterated opinion without political correctness! 

Edited February 28 by Panzerwaffe

[Panzerwaffe]

On 2/25/2025 at 1:57 AM, mahmood8726 said:

What i don't understand is why people defend empires here when most of them violated basic islamic tenants. 

Having said this, I doubt there were mass forced conversions, unless it was done to non muslim ennemy soldiers or traitors in exchange for not getting the death penalty as a show of mercy, that was how a lot of forced conversions happened, which people lump together with unjust instances of forced conversions. 

Non Muslim enemy soldiers?

[mahmood8726]

7 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Non Muslim enemy soldiers?

Ennemy combatants who had the death penalty, I forgot which crime. It was basically a way out of it. 

 

Obviously Muslims could not convert to Islam because they're already Muslim, so they most probably got the death penalty because "they knew better". 

[AbdusSibtayn]

7 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Honest unadulterated opinion without political correctness! 

This isn't even about being politically correct or incorrect. I don't see how a self-respecting Shii can think otherwise.

If we are to respect and commend Putin and the neo-Eastern Bloc because they helped protect the shrines in Syria, I don't see why we shouldn't extend the same courtesy to the people who defended our shrines and seminaries five centuries ago. 

Edited February 28 by AbdusSibtayn

[GEU_40]

Why did the Persian Empire suddenly become Sunnis during the time of the Caliphs? It's not like they suddenly realized overnight that Islam was the true religion and they all converted en masse. Let's not give all the credit of forced conversions to the Safavids, shall we 

 

[Panzerwaffe]

6 hours ago, GEU_40 said:

Why did the Persian Empire suddenly become Sunnis during the time of the Caliphs? It's not like they suddenly realized overnight that Islam was the true religion and they all converted en masse. Let's not give all the credit of forced conversions to the Safavids, shall we 

 

Actually, it took a long time for Persians  become Sunnis 

that's why the mid to late Omaya. Up until the start of the Abbasid’s  was full of revolt and false prophets including the enigmatic Behafarid ( this should be the name of an Iranian punk rock band) 

but I agree let’s not lay the blame on Safavids for doing something that was not unheard of for it’s time, Egypt was forcibly made Sunni after fall of Fatmids 

 

Edited March 1 by Panzerwaffe

[Guest Guest Ramadan Mubarak]

On 2/21/2025 at 10:47 PM, Guest Anonymous said:

Is it true that many people are only Shia, especially in Iran, because of the Safavids forcing Shia Islam on everyone? I would appreciate if a brother or sister could help inform me on this.

@Ashvazdanghe

Salaam, Iran did not become Shia simply by Safavid force. The first Persian to convert to Islam, Salman al-Farsi was a Shia and follower of Imam Ali AS. Salman al-Farsi was made the governor of al-Madain, the capital city of the Sasanian Empire. This was the last ancient Persian empire. Also, you may consider that during the life of Imam Reza AS, the Imam was called to Iran by the government and he had to move there from Medina. When Imam Reza AS died in Iran it led to may Shia pilgrams coming to Iran and converting residents. The reason imo why Sunnis like to say that the Safavids violently converted Persians to Shia is 1) ignorance 2) because they want to esteem some Persian scholars and poets without drawing attention to the fact that the socio-cultural context which produced scholars unfolded in a natural progression to Shia Islam. 

This being said, just because a government is Shia doesn't mean it is a great empire. The last Shah of Iran was supposedly a Shia Muslim and he was quite oppressive to many people. 

Ramadan Mubarak everyone!

[AbdusSibtayn]

11 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Actually, it took a long time for Persians  become Sunnis 

that's why the mid to late Omaya. Up until the start of the Abbasid’s  was full of revolt and false prophets including the enigmatic Behafarid ( this should be the name of an Iranian punk rock band) 

but I agree let’s not lay the blame on Safavids for doing something that was not unheard of for it’s time, Egypt was forcibly made Sunni after fall of Fatmids 

 

They were actually Sunnis from quite early (see how almost all the Sihah Sittah compilers are Persians) but Sunnism became noticeably state enforced only from the Seljuk period and thereafter. 

Although let's admit that pro- Alid currents were also present from fairly early, which sort of primed them for Shiism. 

There was also an extremist semi-Zoroastrian anti-Arab racist shu'ubi cult which sought to 'Persianize' the Ahl al-Kisa. I don't know what their name was. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2025 at 6:25 AM, Guest Guest Ramadan Mubarak said:

Ramadan Mubarak everyone!

Salam yeah I'm totally agree with you & thanks a million for your explanation also Ramadan Mubarak for you & everyone! also happy Nowruz !

[Eddie Mecca]

On 2/23/2025 at 10:20 PM, AbdusSibtayn said:

That narrative is blatantly false. I suggest you research more into the persecution of the Shia under all Sunni empires- Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Ayyubids, Ottomans. I won't get into detailed descriptions because that's too much to write, but consider the fact that 10 out of the 12 Shia Imams were murdered at the behest of the contemporary powers that be, heavy restrictions were imposed on Shia religious practices,

Instead of always thinking in terms of Sunni v. Shi'i, we can think in terms of strongman v. strongman — strongman a removing strongman b from ascending to the throne by way of poisoning or assassination — there are no examples in our history where ten of thousands of Sunni citizens engaged in fist fights, stabbings, shootings etc. with tens of thousands of Shi'i citizens and this continued generation after generation for a millennia and a half — never happened — it's more like J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI targeting black nationalist movements during the 60s — you had a militant movement with a charismatic leader — the movement was disciplined, organized, energetic, carried a potent message and attracted crowds like a magnet — the movement was deemed a threat by the establishment and had to be removed — the ignorant masses were brainwashed by the state apparatus (now it's Fox News...back then it was the state sponsored Friday khutbah) and made to fall into place 

Edited March 16 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

On 3/1/2025 at 8:37 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

pro- Alid currents were also present from fairly early, which sort of primed them for Shiism.

Also, the particular brand of Sunnism practiced before the coerced conversion campaign of Ismail I, was similar to that of neighboring Turkey — Ahlul Bayt (a) were held in extremely high regard in both countries — they viewed them as role models and sources of spiritual guidance and inspiration — this helped the conversion process tremendously — this is what I read from an Orientalist scholar about 6 months ago

[Ashvazdanghe]

Shi’a And The Despotic Rulers

Muhammad Jawad Mughniyya

The Ottoman Empire

In the 16th century, most Arab countries were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Salim, the 9^th sultan of the Ottoman Empire, annexed Hijaz and Egypt, and thereafter Sultan Sulaiman Qanuni conquered the remaining Arab cities. During this period, three big Islamic states were established:

1. The Ottoman State, being Constantinople as the capital.

2. The Safavid State, with Tabriz as the capital.

3. The Mamluk kingdom, whose capital was Cairo.

Quote

It is written in the first part of Ayan ash-Shi’a: Sultan Salim killed forty to seventy thousand persons in Anaz ul-on account of their being Shi’a. Ibn Sabbagh Maliki writes in Fusul ul-Muhimma:

 

The atrocities of the Ottomans were not limited to the Arab cities and to the Shi’as. They ousted Shi’as from all small and large government departments. They restrained the Shi’as from performing their special religious duties and did not allow them to perform their religious acts in Syria and the localities in which their number was small. These hardships continued for four hundred years (1516 -1918 A.D.)

Quote

During the Ottoman period the great Shi’a scholar, Muhammad Ibn Makki was martyred. He is more famous as the 'Second Martyr'. His books are still taught in the religious universities of Najaf and Qom.2 Jazzar, the Governor of Akka (near Jebel Amil) repeated the evils of Hajjaj.

https://al-islam.org/ms/shia-and-despotic-rulers-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya/ottoman-empire

Ottoman Empire treatment of Shia Muslims Safavid Empire treatment of Shia Muslims?

https://feeddi.com/ottoman-empire-treatment-of-shia-muslims-safavid-empire-treatment-of-shia-muslims

Ottoman persecution of Alevis

Quote

The Ottoman persecution of Alevis is best known in connection with the Ottoman sultan Selim I's reign (1512–1520) and his war against the Safavids in 1514. But there are examples that indicate that there already existed problems with Alevi groups in the Ottoman Empire since the 14th century, The Alevis were generally persecuted for sympathizing in the negative role of Safavids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_persecution_of_Alevis

Massacre of the Telal

Massacre of the Telal occurred in 1517 when Ottoman Turks fully took control of Syria at the end of the Ottoman-Mamluk war.^[1] The massacre began when the Ottoman Sultan Selim I summoned some Sunnite religious leaders and obtained from them a fatwa to fight "infidel" Alawis. The ensuing massacre resulted in the deaths of 9,400 Shiite men assembled in Aleppo.^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Telal

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

related threads 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235087917-syrian-civil-war-is-reignited/?page=24#comment-3447716

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235043812-ottoman-empire-genocide/

Edited March 16 by Ashvazdanghe

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ashvazdanghe, you're not being fair and honest — you're only showing one side of the picture — you're purposely neglecting fifty percent of the story

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

you're not being fair and honest — you're only showing one side of the picture — you're purposely neglecting fifty percent of the story

Salam lol, everyone knows about anti Shia rhetoric against Safavids which also promotion of neo Ottomanism is available for everyone so there is no need to reapet it in similar fashion of a parrot  but on the other hand although accepting o shortcoming of Safavids I have mentioned the truth about it & atrocities of blood thirsty Ottomans against Shia muslim which you have accused me of not being fair only showing one side of the picture ; while you have whitewashed bloodthirsty Ottomans by ignoring all of their crimes & portraying it it as in ideal leadership by neglecting all historical facts about it & showing it as the innocent tyranny.

Edited March 17 by Ashvazdanghe