Articles about the Safavids

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

A good colleague of mine is a historical student. Some time back, he penned a couple articles. 1 about the Safavid Dynasty, and 2 about the Fatimites and the detailed history of the sunnis with them.

This is about the Safavid Dynasty, and it's quite the read.
https://khateebaldimashqi.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/a-short-history-foundation-of-the-safavid-state/

I hope Brothers, Hussayn, Hani, Farid, and Ibn Hussein in particular read this. It's really detailed. And Like I said, try to read the 2-part Fatimite piece as it is interesting as well.

[Rationalist]

Its not like the Ottomans were angels. The fact that they made the wives of the Persian ruler into slaves is disgusting regardless of who Shah Ismail was. Sadly, we live in a time where victory is based on how one is able to get away with wickedness or subdue the opponent with evil methods.

[Husayn]

Good read.

Its not like the Ottomans were angels. The fact that they made the wives of the Persian ruler into slaves is disgusting regardless of who Shah Ismail was. Sadly, we live in a time where victory is based on how one is able to get away with wickedness or subdue the opponent with evil methods.

The Ottomans certainly were not angels - but we should praise Allah (swt) for them. Were it not for them, the Europeans would have conquered Islamic lands from the West and the Safavids would have conquered (more) Islamic lands from the East.

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

Its not like the Ottomans were angels. The fact that they made the wives of the Persian ruler into slaves is disgusting regardless of who Shah Ismail was. Sadly, we live in a time where victory is based on how one is able to get away with wickedness or subdue the opponent with evil methods.

Why is that? Taking the wives of disbelievers is allowed in Islam. Didn't the prophet saws take the daughter of Huyyay Ibn Akhtab(la)?

[Rationalist]

The Ottomans certainly were not angels - but we should praise Allah (swt) for them. Were it not for them, the Europeans would have conquered Islamic lands from the West and the Safavids would have conquered (more) Islamic lands from the East.

I hate that type of so called justification. If Ottomans didn't play dirty other Kuffar would have done it. This is not Sunnah brothers.

[Rationalist]

Its not like the Ottomans were angels. The fact that they made the wives of the Persian ruler into slaves is disgusting regardless of who Shah Ismail was. Sadly, we live in a time where victory is based on how one is able to get away with wickedness or subdue the opponent with evil methods.

Why is that? Taking the wives of disbelievers is allowed in Islam. Didn't the prophet saws take the daughter of Huyyay Ibn Akhtab(la)?

I don't think the Ottoman's had an offical fatwa that Safavid Iran was non-Muslim. Also, I have been told these Ottoman rulers were so unislamic that they never got married. All they did is fight wars and made collections of slave women.
I was in UAE recently, and there is an Ottoman museum there. In that museum it covered the history of Ottoman's and their slaves. I was disgusted how these rulers had a lustful life.

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

Its not like the Ottomans were angels. The fact that they made the wives of the Persian ruler into slaves is disgusting regardless of who Shah Ismail was. Sadly, we live in a time where victory is based on how one is able to get away with wickedness or subdue the opponent with evil methods.

Why is that? Taking the wives of disbelievers is allowed in Islam. Didn't the prophet saws take the daughter of Huyyay Ibn Akhtab(la)?

I don't think the Ottoman's had an offical fatwa that Safavid Iran was non-Muslim. Also, I have been told these Ottoman rulers were so unislamic that they never got married. All they did is fight wars and made collections of slave women.
I was in UAE recently, and there is an Ottoman museum there. In that museum it covered the history of Ottoman's and their slaves. I was disgusted how these rulers had a lustful life.

It's pretty obvious most Shias today aren't Muslims, the Safavids had hererooethodox beliefs that would be considered heretical by today's standards. Besides, it's allowed in Islam. Surah al nafl

[Rationalist]

It's pretty obvious most Shias today aren't Muslims, the Safavids had hererooethodox beliefs that would be considered heretical by today's standards. Besides, it's allowed in Islam. Surah al nafl

I haven't found any fatwas from the Ottoman empire muftis who said they were kaffirs. Next 12er Shias are mostly blind muqalids, so to call them kaffirs has no basis.

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

It's pretty obvious most Shias today aren't Muslims, the Safavids had hererooethodox beliefs that would be considered heretical by today's standards. Besides, it's allowed in Islam. Surah al nafl

I haven't found any fatwas from the Ottoman empire muftis who said they were kaffirs. Next 12er Shias are mostly blind muqalids, so to call them kaffirs has no basis.

Even if, their heresy was enough for them to have military action taken against them. And the awaam should be declared apostates because the Qur'an has reached them. 5 ayah in, "Ya Ali my dad" is refuted