Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On another thread I remarked that the struggle over who would succeed Mohammed as caliph, which created the split in Islam between Sunnis and Shias, still arouses violent passions in the Muslim world. Admittedly, current Sunni/Shia violence is based on events that have happened more recently than 1400 years ago, and is often related to geopolitics in the Middle East and South Asia.
Is it true there have been long periods in which Sunnis and Shias have gotten along, for example, in the period between the Mongols' conquest of what is now Iraq and the rise of the Ottomans? I've also read that Sunnis and Shias in India (including what is now Pakistan) mostly got along until the British came in and played different religious groups against each other. Is this true? If so, how were they able to get along considering that they had gripes against each other beginning with the split?
Also, Iran a thousand years ago was Sunni ; how did it become so overwhelmingly Shiite? And how did Shias in Lebanon wind up on the bottom of the social order (with Christians and Sunnis on top)?
Given that my questions have to do with the historical implications of the split rather than the theological differences between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam I feel this post is more appropriate for this forum rather than the religious forum. Can anyone answer these questions?
In another thread I have posted links to books from Jane Hathaway, Elizabeth Savage and Michael Brett (on the Fatimids, a Shia based empire).
Although the Sunni/Shia split is not the main focus of their texts, it is mentioned.
I don't have them currently but if memory serves me correct, the origin of the split has to do with the tribal/ethnolinguistic divisions in the Arabian peninsula.
Although Muhammad was a northern Qaysi/Qurashyi like most of the population of Mecca, he was not accepted by them at 1st and he had to flee to Medina, which as a stronghold of the Yemeni, southern tribes who spoke their own distinctive Semitic languages and dialects. The Medina/Yemenite tribes (I believe they were also called the Ansar or Companions of the Prophets) were Muhammad's initial support base.
The Shia and other sectarians such as the Ibadi seem to be strongly associated with Yemenite counter movements to the claims of the Qaysi northerners of the right to rule due to the Prophet being one of their own.
The authors I mentioned should have some clues in their bibliographies to more detailed info.
On another thread I remarked that the struggle over who would succeed Mohammed as caliph, which created the split in Islam between Sunnis and Shias, still arouses violent passions in the Muslim world. Admittedly, current Sunni/Shia violence is based on events that have happened more recently than 1400 years ago, and is often related to geopolitics in the Middle East and South Asia.
Is it true there have been long periods in which Sunnis and Shias have gotten along, for example, in the period between the Mongols' conquest of what is now Iraq and the rise of the Ottomans? I've also read that Sunnis and Shias in India (including what is now Pakistan) mostly got along until the British came in and played different religious groups against each other. Is this true? If so, how were they able to get along considering that they had gripes against each other beginning with the split?
Also, Iran a thousand years ago was Sunni ; how did it become so overwhelmingly Shiite? And how did Shias in Lebanon wind up on the bottom of the social order (with Christians and Sunnis on top)?
Given that my questions have to do with the historical implications of the split rather than the theological differences between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam I feel this post is more appropriate for this forum rather than the religious forum. Can anyone answer these questions?
I am not sure what makes you think that Iranians were ever really "Sunni" - they've had Zoroastrian religion that was destroyed by Arabs who conquered them and tried to submit them under Sunni Islam.
But since Persian culture was in essence so different from Arab culture, the practicing of different brand of Islam by Persians was apparently inevitable.
Hopefully this material might answer some of your questions.
My understanding has always been that the split was due to opposing views on Ali's place in the Islamic world circa 600's after Mohammed's death (pbuh).
I am not sure what makes you think that Iranians were ever really "Sunni" - they've had Zoroastrian religion that was destroyed by Arabs who conquered them and tried to submit them under Sunni Islam.
But since Persian culture was in essence so different from Arab culture, the practicing of different brand of Islam by Persians was apparently inevitable.
Hopefully this material might answer some of your questions.
Interesting article. However, it fails to mention that there had been Arab Shias for centuries by the time Iran became Shia and rejected Sunni Islam.
Did Shiism spread to the subcontinent via Iran? Persian ties to India dated back to early antiquity and there was mutual cultural influence between India and Persia.
Interesting article. However, it fails to mention that there had been Arab Shias for centuries by the time Iran became Shia and rejected Sunni Islam.
Did Shiism spread to the subcontinent via Iran? Persian ties to India dated back to early antiquity and there was mutual cultural influence between India and Persia.
Although Shias were among arabs as well, and the first Shia state was actually in Northern Africa, ( so no, it doesn't look like Shiism has spread from Iran to subcontinent,) Shia presence throughout history was more persistant in different parts of Iran. What really made Shia Islam a political factor however, ( versus Shia being just a branch of Islam) was most likely the Safavid Empire.
"The Safavid dynasty (Persian: سلسلۀ ایران*شاهی صفویان; Azerbaijani: صفویلر) was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran. They ruled one of the greatest Persian empires since the Muslim conquest of Persia[18][19][20][21] and established the Twelver school of Shi'a Islam[22] as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in Muslim history. The Safavids ruled from 1501 to 1722 (experiencing a brief restoration from 1729 to 1736) and at their height, they controlled all of modern Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Azerbaijan and Republic of Armenia, most of Iraq, Georgia and Afghanistan, as well as parts of Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Turkey. Safavid Iran was one of the Islamic "gunpowder empires", along with its neighbours, the Ottoman and Mughal empires."
So with other words when one of the biggest empires of those times made Shia Islam ( and continued making it) its official religion, Shia Islam became a political power. If it would have remained simply spread through different regions/countries, I don't think it would have played any significant political role.
PS. Mutual cultural influence between Iran and India - yes, that goes back in history, but really Persian Zoroastrianism was a predecessor of Christianity, which Persians were deprived of after the Arab conquest.
Although Shias were among arabs as well, and the first Shia state was actually in Northern Africa, ( so no, it doesn't look like Shiism has spread from Iran to subcontinent,) Shia presence throughout history was more persistant in different parts of Iran. What really made Shia Islam a political factor however, ( versus Shia being just a branch of Islam) was most likely the Safavid Empire.
"The Safavid dynasty (Persian: سلسلۀ ایران*شاهی صفویان; Azerbaijani: صفویلر) was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran. They ruled one of the greatest Persian empires since the Muslim conquest of Persia[18][19][20][21] and established the Twelver school of Shi'a Islam[22] as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in Muslim history. The Safavids ruled from 1501 to 1722 (experiencing a brief restoration from 1729 to 1736) and at their height, they controlled all of modern Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Azerbaijan and Republic of Armenia, most of Iraq, Georgia and Afghanistan, as well as parts of Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Turkey. Safavid Iran was one of the Islamic "gunpowder empires", along with its neighbours, the Ottoman and Mughal empires."
So with other words when one of the biggest empires of those times made Shia Islam ( and continued making it) its official religion, Shia Islam became a political power. If it would have remained simply spread through different regions/countries, I don't think it would have played any significant political role.
PS. Mutual cultural influence between Iran and India - yes, that goes back in history, but really Persian Zoroastrianism was a predecessor of Christianity, which Persians were deprived of after the Arab conquest.
The Safavid Empire spread Shiism eastward. Interesting though that India has as many Shias as Iraq. And Zoroastrianism is more common in India than anywhere else due to Zoroastrians fleeing to India when the Muslims conquered the Persian Empire and becoming known as Parsis. I'm not sure about the difference between Parsis and Iranis (another Zoroastrian group in India who usually have the last name Irani).
Does Iran still have Zoroastrians? Iranian Christians are a tiny group in Iran but overrepresented in the Iranian diaspora in the US as are Iranian Jews.
In another thread I have posted links to books from Jane Hathaway, Elizabeth Savage and Michael Brett (on the Fatimids, a Shia based empire).
Although the Sunni/Shia split is not the main focus of their texts, it is mentioned.
I don't have them currently but if memory serves me correct, the origin of the split has to do with the tribal/ethnolinguistic divisions in the Arabian peninsula.
Although Muhammad was a northern Qaysi/Qurashyi like most of the population of Mecca, he was not accepted by them at 1st and he had to flee to Medina, which as a stronghold of the Yemeni, southern tribes who spoke their own distinctive Semitic languages and dialects. The Medina/Yemenite tribes (I believe they were also called the Ansar or Companions of the Prophets) were Muhammad's initial support base.
The Shia and other sectarians such as the Ibadi seem to be strongly associated with Yemenite counter movements to the claims of the Qaysi northerners of the right to rule due to the Prophet being one of their own.
The authors I mentioned should have some clues in their bibliographies to more detailed info.
So that's what the term "Ansar" (found in the name of many violent Islamist groups) means. Thanks.
The Ibadi were Kharijites - neither Sunni nor Shia. From what I understand Kharijites believed that the man most fit to lead Islam should lead it, and being a Quryashi was not a requirement. They also believed in the right to revolt against any oppressive leader (and to assassinate said leader). They were considered the very first Islamic terrorists as they believed that they had the right to kill all non-Kharijite Muslims and were involved in a number of assassinations and revolts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
