Today suicide attack in Russia related to Saudi Prince Bandar’s alleged threats?

[al-Hasani]

Safavids are being viewed in the Sunni Arab culture as "intolerable evil". Needless to say that the reason is their massive conversion of Iranians to Shiasim -- or may be to en extreme version of it as Ali Shariti have thoroughly explained in his books.

Obviously, the conversion has caused a tremendous and ever lasting pain on the Sunni "campaign".

To this day, the word "Safavid" is being used as a slur when being mad at a Shia
whether an Iranian shia or Arab shia.

Because of the Safavids attack on Iraq and the massacres on Sunnis within Iran and outside of it. Some of the Safavid rulers were the "Al-Qaeda" of the Middle Ages in terms of their sectarianism and actual crimes. But other than that then I am sure they focused on literature, art, architecture etc. like any other dynasty forgetting most of the population. Same thing everywhere else back then.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From a nationalist point of view, if you are an Iranian, that does not care about religion and mostly only about your country, then they were obviously not bad.

One can ask themselves though whether those forced and violent conversions from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam have benefited Iran or will do it on the long run.

I would say no.

 

[rmi5]

Safavids are being viewed in the Sunni Arab culture as "intolerable evil". Needless to say that the reason is their massive conversion of Iranians to Shiasim -- or may be to en extreme version of it as Ali Shariti have thoroughly explained in his books.

Obviously, the conversion has caused a tremendous and ever lasting pain on the Sunni "campaign".

To this day, the word "Safavid" is being used as a slur when being mad at a Shia
whether an Iranian shia or Arab shia.

Ali Shariati was an un-informed low brain person, some un-informed youth who didn't know anything about Islam, Iran, and modernity were following this idiot. he is one of, or the main source of making up BS about safavids.
Almost, ALL of muslim rulers were behaving the same as far as other sects was concerned. Sunni rulers were killing shias, like Qaznavids, and Shias were killing Sunnis, as some of the early days of Safavids. So, I don't see any difference. The only difference is that you are sunni, and naturally more focused on one side, more than the another one. in the long term, what they did was beneficial, since they ended those endless shia-sunni conflicts in Iran, at least

 

[al-Hasani]

If you are serious, you need to ask Shah Ismail I where he bought his turban.
Anyway, in cold regions, like in Azerbaijan, they were using this kind of big turbans as we saw in old paintings, probably for keeping the head and neck warm. I have seen that traditional hats of caucasus and turkey are also very big I guess that's the reason.

LOL. It looks like some of the turbans some Arab rulers wore/wear although not AS big. But looks very cool haha.

Yes, I have seen those hats. I have also seen them in Central Asia or hats that look similar. I like the Caucasus traditional clothing be it Georgian, Chechen etc. Very nice.

 

[rmi5]

Because of the Safavids attack on Iraq and the massacres on Sunnis within Iran and outside of it. Some of the Safavid rulers were the "Al-Qaeda" of the Middle Ages in terms of their sectarianism and actual crimes. But other than that then I am sure they focused on literature, art, architecture etc. like any other dynasty forgetting most of the population. Same thing everywhere else back then.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From a nationalist point of view, if you are an Iranian, that does not care about religion and mostly only about your country, then they were obviously not bad.

One can ask themselves though whether those forced and violent conversions from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam have benefited Iran or will do it on the long run.

I would say no.

Actually, as far as I know South Iraq was almost shia even before Safavids. south lebanon, some parts of anatolia, and Qom, Kashan, and some cities of Khurasan were shia as well. I think @Full Moon has a correct point when he mentioned the brainless Ali Shariati. he was the main source of BS about Safavids in his time.

 

[Resurrection5782]

We should send terrorist arabia to hell.

 

[KingMamba]

You should be the least to bring history, anyway, Speaking of it:

Medieval 2 total war is the game.

Egypt vs Timurids, which btw in the game Egypt is the Fatimids (shia) and the Timurids are sunni lol. So they just showed shias winning.

Safavids are being viewed in the Sunni Arab culture as "intolerable evil". Needless to say that the reason is their massive conversion of Iranians to Shiasim -- or may be to en extreme version of it as Ali Shariti have thoroughly explained in his books.

Obviously, the conversion has caused a tremendous and ever lasting pain on the Sunni "campaign".

To this day, the word "Safavid" is being used as an insult when being mad at a Shia
whether an Iranian shia or an Arab shia.

Are you a shia?

 

[al-Hasani]

Actually, as far as I know South Iraq was almost shia even before Safavids. south lebanon, some parts of anatolia, and Qom, Kashan, and some cities of Khurasan were shia as well. I think @Full Moon has a correct point when he mentioned the brainless Ali Shariati. he was the main source of BS about Safavids in his time.

But the reason for the contempt for the Safavids in the Sunni Muslim world is that they forcibly converted nearly all of Iran to Shia Islam in a systematic way that was uncalled for and not known back then. Sure you had Sunni-Shia conflicts but nothing like this where 1 country, as big as Iran, suddenly in a matter of a few decades became majority Shia. I mean the former dynasties/rulers could not have been as effective in this.

Well, Southern Iraq was 50/50. For instance Basra, just 100-200 years ago was majority Sunni. Many Arab tribes in Southern Iraq converted to Shia Islam recently. There is a Iraqi user who is a Shia who told that his own family/tribe converted to Shia Islam 3-4 generations ago. I don't really know about the demographics of various regions of Iran back then but if you look at the Wikipedia link and about Northern Iran (Tabriz etc.) then you will see what is written as an Iranian Azeri.

I do not know who Ali Shariati is but you have a point that other rulers had similar tendencies but I would claim that they were not as wide scaled as the Safavids.

I just think that the Safavids converted to Shia Islam to set them apart from the Ottoman Empire which were their main rivals. But that is just my opinion.

Reasons for Ismail’s conversion policy

More than most Muslim dynasties the Safavids worked for conversion to their branch of Islam and for ideological conformity. The reasons for this conversion policy included:

• One of the main reasons why Ismail and his followers pursued such a severe conversion policy was to give Iran and the Safavid lands as distinct and unique an identity as was possible compared to its two neighboring Sunni Turkish military and political enemies, the Ottoman Empire and, for a time, the Central Asian Uzbeks — to the west and north-east respectively.[9][10][11]
• The Safavids were engaged in a lengthy struggle with the Ottomans — including numerous wars between the two dynasties — and this struggle continuously motivated the Safavids to create a more cohesive Iranian identity to counter the Ottoman threat and possibility of a fifth-column within Iran among its Sunni subjects.[12]
• The conversion was part of the process of building a territory that would be loyal to the state and its institutions, thus enabling the state and its institutions to propagate their rule throughout the whole territory.[13]

Methods of converting Iran
Ismail consolidated his rule over the country and launched a thorough and at times brutal campaign to convert the majority Sunni population to Twelver Shiism and thus transform the religious landscape of Iran.[14] His methods of converting Iran included:

• Imposing Shiism as the state and mandatory religion for the whole nation and much forcible conversions of Iranian Sufi Sunnis to Shiism.[15][16][17]
• He reintroduced the Sadr (Arabic, leader) – an office that was responsible for supervising religious institutions and endowments. With a view to transforming Iran into a Shiite state, the Sadr was also assigned the task of disseminating Twelver doctrine.[18]
• He destroyed Sunni mosques. This was even noted by Tomé Pires, the Portuguese ambassador to China who visited Iran in 1511–12, who when referring to Ismail noted: "He (i.e. Ismail) reforms our churches, destroys the houses of all Moors who follow (the Sunnah of) Muhammad…"[19]
• He enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Sunni Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) as usurpers, from all mosques, disbanded Sunni Tariqahs and seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and religious art and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars.[20][21][22]
• He shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and mosques of Sunnis. This caused the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (who initially congratulated Ismail on his victories) to advise and ask the young monarch (in a “fatherly” manner) to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Ismail was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultan's warning, and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword.[23][24]
• He persecuted, imprisoned and executed stubbornly resistant Sunnis.[25][26]
• With the establishment of Safavid rule, there was a very raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on 26 Dhu al-Hijjah (or alternatively, 9 Rabi' al-awwal) celebrating themurder of Caliph Umar. The highlight of the day was making an effigy of Umar to be cursed, insulted, and finally burned. However, as relations between Iran and Sunni countries improved, the holiday was no longer observed (at least officially).[27]
• In 1501 Ismail invited all the Shia living outside Iran to come to Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority.[28]

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Full Moon]

Medieval 2 total war is the game.

Egypt vs Timurids, which btw in the game Egypt is the Fatimids (shia) and the Timurids are sunni lol. So they just showed shias winning.



Are you a shia?

Nope. I am Sunni.

 

[rmi5]

But the reason for the contempt for the Safavids in the Sunni Muslim world is that they forcibly converted nearly all of Iran to Shia Islam in a systematic way that was uncalled for and not known back then. Sure you had Sunni-Shia conflicts but nothing like this where 1 country, as big as Iran, suddenly in a matter of a few decades became majority Shia. I mean the former dynasties/rulers could not have been as effective in this.

Well, Southern Iraq was 50/50. For instance Basra, just 100-200 years ago was majority Sunni. Many Arab tribes in Southern Iraq converted to Shia Islam recently. There is a Iraqi user who is a Shia who told that his own family/tribe converted to Shia Islam 3-4 generations ago. I don't really know about the demographics of various regions of Iran back then but if you look at the Wikipedia link and about Northern Iran (Tabriz etc.) then you will see what is written as an Iranian Azeri.

I do not know who Ali Shariati is but you have a point that other rulers had similar tendencies but I would claim that they were not as wide scaled as the Safavids.

I just think that the Safavids converted to Shia Islam to set them apart from the Ottoman Empire which were their main rivals. But that is just my opinion.

the Shia-Sunni demography of Iran was very diverse at those times. one city was Shia, while the neighboring cities were Sunni and vice versa. Even, Some of them were Hanafi, some of them were Shafi'i. even there was many problems between Hanafis and Shafi'is.
Tabriz was one-third Shia, two-third sunni in the early Safavid times. As far as Oghuz turkic regions are concerned, I think, I have read it somewhere and not totally sure about it, the majority was sunni in azerbaijan, and it was shia in anatolia in early safavid times. but now it is reversed now.
this diverse religion demography was always a source of trouble. even some shias were ganging with foreigners to defeat sunnis and vice versa. I think you may be aware of mongol invasion and how a shia minister, helped mongols to defeat sunni caliph. That's just one example of what was going on at those times. many different similar cases has happened. That's not the only one.
That's why I like Safavids, since they finished all of this non sense fights, and united all of the people under one flag, and one sect of religion. choosing shia was wise, since they could use it as a religious weapon in uniting people against Ottomans and uzbeks, I would say specially uzbeks, in their wars.
But I agree that they were very efficient in converting people.

 

[al-Hasani]

Sounds like the ME today.

 

[rmi5]

Sounds like the ME today.

Exactly right.

 

[al-Hasani]

Exactly right.

Even sounds like some areas of KSA when it comes to diversity of sects. I mean for instance Najran province which more or less have every damn sect Shia (Zaydi, Ismaili, Twelver) Sunni (Hanbali, Shaf'i, Hanafi, Maliki) etc.

LOL

 

[vostok]

90% of all your land is not even original Russian land. In fact the areas of what is now Moscow, Saint Petersburg etc. were inhabited by Finno-Ugric peoples. The "Russians" who were just Slavic back then came from what is now Ukraine.

You can still see the traces of that when you look at Russians from Northern Russia. Many of them look Mongoloid or have Mongoloid traces.

Just look at Putin, Jeltsin etc.

Everything east of the Ural Mountains only became Russia 350 years ago or so under Peter the Great.

The Caucasus 250-150 years ago. All of them are not Russians. Have their own languages, culture, religion, customs, looks everything. Totally different from any other area in Russia. Impossible to brainwash them into losing their identity.

Which union are you talking about? None of the people want to be part of Russia. Not even the people of Ukraine and in Belarus if they had a choice. What are you left with then? Kazakhstan? LOL. Nobody else.

Interesting tales tell Americans to you. Ukrainians, Russian, Belarus - is Russian people. And we all want to be united.
USSR - that is minimum future border of Russia.
Eurasian Union now cosistis of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.
USSR in 1922 also formed only 4 republic.
Eurasian Union is a superpower of the 21st century. Who will be the other superpower - China or the U.S., it remains to be seen.

 

[al-Hasani]

Interesting tales tell Americans to you. Ukrainians, Russian, Belarus - is Russian people. And we all want to be united.
USSR - that is minimum future border of Russia.
Eurasian Union now cosistis of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.
USSR in 1922 also formed only 4 republic.
Eurasian Union is a superpower of the 21st century. Who will be the other superpower - China or the U.S., it remains to be seen.

Belarussians are not Russian people nor are Ukrainians. At most they are Slavic people but they are heavily mixed with Lithuanians who are not Slavic people - especially Belorussians. Ukraine is also fairly mixed.

Who are we? Is that why the Ukrainians were calling for bigger ties to Europe and the West because they feel they belong/or want to belong to the West and not Russia?

LOL. Armenia? Really? That tiny state that is starving and where people are moving out from in great numbers? What can they give you?

Belarus really? What can they give you?

Who says that Kazakhstan even wants to have a union with you? Union does not equal one state.

USA is already the sole superpower. China is second. Russia is a distant 3.

Bolshevism, communism etc. are dead ideologies. Not even Cuba or Vietnam are real communistic states.

What I wrote is not "American propaganda" but history. Russian sources say the same. Open a history book.

 

[vostok]

Belarussians are not Russian people nor are Ukrainians. At most they are Slavic people but they are heavily mixed with Lithuanians who are not Slavic people - especially Belorussians. Ukraine is also fairly mixed.

Who are we? Is that why the Ukrainians were calling for bigger ties to Europe and the West because they feel they belong/or want to belong to the West and not Russia?

LOL. Armenia? Really? That tiny state that is starving and where people are moving out from in great numbers? What can they give you?

Belarus really? What can they give you?

Who says that Kazakhstan even wants to have a union with you? Union does not equal one state.

USA is already the sole superpower. China is second. Russia is a distant 3.

Bolshevism, communism etc. are dead ideologies. Not even Cuba or Vietnam are real communistic states.

What I wrote is not "American propaganda" but history. Russian sources say the same. Open a history book.

Belarus - White Russia , Ukraine - Little Russia , Russia - Great Russia . So it was more than a thousand years until 1917. We are one Russian people .
Eurasian Union - union of fraternal republics. We are not the same as West, we do not think only about money and profits, but also on more important things - the brotherhood , mutual aid , God.
Believe me, they buried Russia many times. British for 400 years trying to bury us , but we do not scary . We have experienced even worse times . Russia has always reborn.
Half of Europe is 7-10 years will appeal to Russia for help. All healthy Christian forces that remain in the West - will recognize Russia , not America the leader of the white race.