Why did the Ithna 'Asharis become the most successful Shii sect?

[abubakker]

I think the answer to this one is more geopolitical than about ideology. The Safavids of course have a major part to play in the propagation of this religion. By enforcing 12ers on Iran, they also invited any Shia scholar from outside the country to come and spread their religion. The safavids managed to construct an ulema, a system of mullahs quite similar to the christian clergy, with their centre in Qom, which made shia Islam in Iran very organised and a major part of the fabric of Iranian society.

This is quite compelling, because when the Safavids fell in the 1700s, the Afghan Nader Shah conquered Iran and tried to impose Sunni Islam onto Iran again -(he himself was born a shia but converted to Sunni Islam). But the strength of the Shia clerics in the country made it very difficult to reestablish Sunni Islam in the country again.

[Husayn]

That's all true, but most of that is after the fact.

I'm more interested in why did the Safavids choose Ithna 'Asharism over the other Shii sects.

So far, I believe the reasons are:

Ithna 'Asharism did not yet have a distinctive character. Zaydism and Ismailism did - they were Arab, and they had Arab dynasties. This meant that Ithna 'Asharism could be Persianised by the Safavids, which is what they did. They turned Ithna 'Asharism into a national Persian religion, rather than just another Shii sect. This also partly explains why it was so hard for Nader Shah to reconvert them.

The Safavids wanted to oppose the Ottomans, and the Ottomans were Ahlul Sunnah. They could have chosen any Shii sect, but they specifically chose the one that would not force them to give power to a 'Alawi, and the one that could be give a distinctive Persian character.

I will back this up with sources in the future.

[abubakker]

That's all true, but most of that is after the fact.

I'm more interested in why did the Safavids choose Ithna 'Asharism over the other Shii sects.

So far, I believe the reasons are:

Ithna 'Asharism did not yet have a distinctive character. Zaydism and Ismailism did - they were Arab, and they had Arab dynasties. This meant that Ithna 'Asharism could be Persianised by the Safavids, which is what they did. They turned Ithna 'Asharism into a national Persian religion, rather than just another Shii sect. This also partly explains why it was so hard for Nader Shah to reconvert them.

The Safavids wanted to oppose the Ottomans, and the Ottomans were Ahlul Sunnah. They could have chosen any Shii sect, but they specifically chose the one that would not force them to give power to a 'Alawi, and the one that could be give a distinctive Persian character.

I will back this up with sources in the future.

ahh my apologies, I must have misread the topic.

But didn't Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavids Empire, believe he was the Mehdi? He united the Qizilbash confederation ( tribes of oghuz turks residing in Azerbaijan at the time). He thought he was invincible until the Ottomans defeated them in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514 and thus affecting the cult of personality of his? Like you say, its wasn't about if Shia Islam was right or not, it was just an ideology which was used to organise the eastern oghuz turks against their western (ottoman) brethren. Turk rivalry if you will.


Reading up on history, most of Iran pre-safavid was non-shia except for Qom, which was founded by shias roughly around the time of Ali (ra). That could have also easily helped the spread of shiaism in Iran.

[Hani]

Dunno if this information is useful, but Isma`eel al-Safawi told people he dreamed that the Imam of the time had spoken to him and permitted him to lead the people. This was his official story as to how a non-infallible, non-divinely chosen man could rule as the Imam of a nation.

Look there's obviously a conspiracy, it's apparent, many Usoolis were not satisfied with the Akbari excuse of the sun behind the clouds, they gave great facilitation to Tahmasp and other Safawi rulers, granting them the title of "deputy of the Imam" and thus the politician became the representative of the infallible.

Neither Zaydis nor Isma`eelis were willing to do this of course. Add on top of it that a lot of Shia sects had become extinct at the time, for all the Safawis cared they could have adopted Waqifism if it were alive, no difference.

So this "Just jurist" is nothing but an excuse to assume power since things weren't going well for them without the infallible.

[Husayn]

That's all true, but most of that is after the fact.

I'm more interested in why did the Safavids choose Ithna 'Asharism over the other Shii sects.

So far, I believe the reasons are:

Ithna 'Asharism did not yet have a distinctive character. Zaydism and Ismailism did - they were Arab, and they had Arab dynasties. This meant that Ithna 'Asharism could be Persianised by the Safavids, which is what they did. They turned Ithna 'Asharism into a national Persian religion, rather than just another Shii sect. This also partly explains why it was so hard for Nader Shah to reconvert them.

The Safavids wanted to oppose the Ottomans, and the Ottomans were Ahlul Sunnah. They could have chosen any Shii sect, but they specifically chose the one that would not force them to give power to a 'Alawi, and the one that could be give a distinctive Persian character.

I will back this up with sources in the future.

ahh my apologies, I must have misread the topic.

But didn't Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavids Empire, believe he was the Mehdi? He united the Qizilbash confederation ( tribes of oghuz turks residing in Azerbaijan at the time). He thought he was invincible until the Ottomans defeated them in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514 and thus affecting the cult of personality of his? Like you say, its wasn't about if Shia Islam was right or not, it was just an ideology which was used to organise the eastern oghuz turks against their western (ottoman) brethren. Turk rivalry if you will.


Reading up on history, most of Iran pre-safavid was non-shia except for Qom, which was founded by shias roughly around the time of Ali (ra). That could have also easily helped the spread of shiaism in Iran.

From what I've read, he got so extreme that he attributed divinity to himself.

The man was clearly a lunatic, and apparently a drunkard as well.

Dunno if this information is useful, but Isma`eel al-Safawi told people he dreamed that the Imam of the time had spoken to him and permitted him to lead the people. This was his official story as to how a non-infallible, non-divinely chosen man could rule as the Imam of a nation.

Look there's obviously a conspiracy, it's apparent, many Usoolis were not satisfied with the Akbari excuse of the sun behind the clouds, they gave great facilitation to Tahmasp and other Safawi rulers, granting them the title of "deputy of the Imam" and thus the politician became the representative of the infallible.

Neither Zaydis nor Isma`eelis were willing to do this of course. Add on top of it that a lot of Shia sects had become extinct at the time, for all the Safawis cared they could have adopted Waqifism if it were alive, no difference.

So this "Just jurist" is nothing but an excuse to assume power since things weren't going well for them without the infallible.

This is definitely very interesting - what are your sources for this?

[Hani]

The dream bit, I got it from a lecture by Ahmad al-Katib on the Ghaybah and Wilayat-ul-Faqih, he also lists these Shia history books:

كتاب (تاريخ الشاه إسماعيل) وكتاب (عالم آراي صفوي) :إن إسماعيل اخذ إجازة من المهدي المنتظر في الثورة والخروج على أمراء التركمان الذين كانوا يحكمون إيران، وأنه كان مرة في رحلة صيد فدخل كهفًا وخرج وادعى أنه التقى بالمهدي وأنه حثه على إعلان الدولة الصفوية، وقد ادعى بعد ذلك أنه رأى الأمام علي في المنام

As for the title given to the Safawi politician, it was by abu al-Hasan al-Karaki (d.940AH), Lebanese Shia scholar.