Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:56:34.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sunni Survival in Safavid Iran: Anti-Sunni Activities during the Reign of Tahmasp I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rosemary Stanfield Johnson
Rosemary Stanfield Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of History, New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has traditionally been taught that Iran, a Sunni polity for many centuries, was converted to Twelver Shi'ism virtually overnight when the armies backing the Safavid house took power in 907/1501. In recent years scholars have begun to question the manner and rapidity of the process of conversion, what it meant to be “Shi'i” or “Sunni” in sixteenth-century Iran, and what, if anything, can be said about Safavid Sunnism.

It has been noted that Sunnism in Iran was phased out only gradually. For example, there are references in the Persian chronicles to persecution of Sunnis as late as 1017/1608. Some sources suggest that Sunni influence persisted at the court of Shah Tahmasp and name prominent Sunnis during his reign. As late as the second decade of the eighteenth century, the conqueror of Isfahan, Mahmud Afghan, attempted to alter the balance of population in the city by relocating 5,000 Sunni families from Hamadan.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1-4: Religion and Society in Islamic Iran during the Pre-Modern Era , 1994 , pp. 123 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Arjomand, Said, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam (Chicago, 1984), 119—21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. See the primary source consulted for this paper, Sharifi, Mirza Makhdum, al-Nawāqiḍ li-bunyān al-rawāfiḍ (British Museum, Or. 7991)Google Scholar, f. 172b. See also Burḥan al-futūḥ (British Museum Library, Or. 1884), ff. 193b-194a.

3. Gilanentz, Petros de Sarkis, The Chronicle of Petros de Sarkis Gilanentz, tr. Minasian, Caro Owen (Lisbon: 1959), 35Google Scholar.

4. Scarcia-Amoretti, Bianca, “Una polemica religiosa tra ulama’ di Mashad a ulama’ uzbechi nell anno 977/1588–89,” Annali Institute) (Universitare) Orientale di Napoli (1964): 647–71Google Scholar; Eberhard, Elke, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16 Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften (Freiburg: Schwarz, 1970)Google Scholar; Allouche, Adel, The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict, 906–962/1500–1555 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1983)Google Scholar; Walsh, John, “The Revolt of Alqas Mirza,” Weiner Zeitschrift für die Kunde den Morgenländes 68 (1976): 61–78Google Scholar; Dickson, Martin, “Shah Tahmasb and the Uzbeks (the Duel for Khurasan with ‘Ubayd Khan), 930–946/1524–1540” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1958), 192–3Google Scholar; Scarcia-Amoretti, B., “Religion in the Timurid and Safavid Periods,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, 6 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 6:610–55Google Scholar.

5. Golsorkhi's, Shohreh “Ismail II and Mirza Makhdum Sharifi: An Interlude in Safavid History” in International Journal of Middle East Studies 26 (1994): 477–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar reflects a growing interest in this topic.

6. Other late-sixteenth-century polemicists against the Safavids are studied by Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik.

7. Al-Nawāqiḍ, ff. 94b, 118b.

8. Iskandar Big Munshi gives the most comprehensive account of Isma'il's policies in his Tārīkh-i ‘ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsi, ed. I. Afshar, 2 vols. (Tehran, 1971), 213–18. Another source is Natanzi, Afushtah, Nuqawāt al-āthār (Tehran, 1971), 38–42Google Scholar. See also the Shi'i biographical dictionaries of Mirza ‘Abdallah al-Isbahani, Riyāḍ al-‘ulamā’ wa ḥiyāḍ al fuḍalā', ed. A. Husayni, 6 vols. (Qum, 1980), 2:73 and Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari, Rawḍāt al-jannāt fī aḥwāl al-‘ulamā’ wa al-sādāt, 8 vols. (Tehran, 1971), 2:322–3.

9. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 118b.

10. The manuscript consulted here is British Museum Or. 7991.

11. Modern scholarship on ‘Ali al-Karaki includes Arjomand, Shadow of God; W. Madelung, “Shi'i Discussion on the Legality of the Kharāj” in R. Peters, ed., Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the Union Européennes des Arabisants et Islamisants (Leiden, 1981); Tabataba'i, H. Modarressi, Kharāj in Islamic Law (London, 1983), 47–59Google Scholar; idem, An Introduction to Shi'i Law (London, 1984), 50–51. N. Calder's unpublished doctoral dissertation, “The Structure of Authority in Imami Shi'i Jurisprudence” (1980), was unavailable to me.

12. For a discussion of the dating of the transfer of the Safavid capital from Tabriz to Qazvin see Mazzaoui, Michel, “From Tabriz to Qazvin to Isfahan: Three Phases of Safavid History,” in Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, supp. Ill, I.XIX (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1977), 514–19Google Scholar.

13. Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din. Ẓafarnāma, ed.Ilahdad, Maulawi Muhammad, 2 vols. (Calcutta, 1887–88), 1:337Google Scholar. According to Yazdi, Qahqaha was located between Abivard and Qalat in Khurasan.

14. Mustawfi, Hamd Allah. Nuzhat al-qulūb, ed. and trans. LeStrange, G., 2 vols. (London: 1915–19), 2:63Google Scholar. According to Mustawfi, writing in the fourteenth century, Qazvin was “free of heresy and mostly true to the Sunni path,” with a population “extremely bigoted” on the side of Sunnism, predominantly of the Shafi'i school, but including Hanafis and Shi'is.

15. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 129a.

16. Ibid., f. 125b.

17. Hasan Big, Aḥsan al-tawārīkh, trans, and ed. Seddon, C. N. as A Chronicle of the Early Safawis Being the Ahsanu't-tawarikh of Hasan Rumlu, 2 vols. (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1931–34), 1:385Google Scholar; Munshi, ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:178Google Scholar. Hayrati has also been cited in various Western sources, including Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902–24), 4:170–71Google Scholar; Rypka, Jan. History of Iranian Literature (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1968), 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arjomand, Shadow of God, 166Google Scholar. According to Hasan Big, Hayrati died in 961/1553–54 (Aḥsan al-tawārīkh 1:385). See also “Ḥamāsa sarā'ī dar Īrān,” in Nashrīya-yi dānishkada-yi adabīyāt-i Tabrīz 3, no. 8 (1329 Sh./1950): 39, cited in Rypka, Iranian Literature, 298Google Scholar. According to Husayn Nakhjavani, Hayrati died in 970/1562–63.

18. Tahmasp had insisted that all poets in search of patronage must write religious poetry. See Munshi, ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:178Google Scholar.

19. Mirza Sharaf was the maternal grandfather of Sharifi and son of the two-time vizier of Tahmasp, Qadi Jahan. Hasan Big noted that when Tahmasp withdrew from worldly life, Mirza Sharaf s presence at court became infrequent and he lacked interest in attending on Tahmasp, (Aḥsan al-tawārīkh, 178, 416Google Scholar).

20. Tun (Khurasan), according to Nakhjavani. See Rypka, Iranian Literature, 298Google Scholar.

21. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 125b. See also Rypka, Iranian Literature, 298Google Scholar. According to Nakhjavani, he had been assured of protection by Tahmasp, which saved him from the consequences of his libelous writings. His religious odes included the Kitāb-i mu'jizāt and a number of panegyrics.

22. Ibid., f. 125b.

23. Al-Nawāqiḍ, ff. 128a-b. Hayrati is referring to the annual ritual desecration of ‘Umar in effigy by the people of Kashan, a practice in which ‘Umar's assassin, Abu Lu'lu', was celebrated as a defender of the religion and which, therefore, identified the inhabitants as Shi'i. According to Sharifi, Abu Lu'lu’ fled to Kashan after the deed and became so influential among the local population that a shrine was erected in his honor when he died. Abu Lu'lu’ was nicknamed “Baba Shuja’ al-Din,” and the annual celebration of his victim's death (26 Dhu'l-Hijja) was observed at his tomb outside the city of Kashan. In this celebration, an effigy of the caliph was filled about the waist with bunches of grapes, hoisted, and shaken to the beat of kettledrums and other instruments while the faithful cursed and vilified him. Finally, someone ran the effigy through at the waist with a sword and the party drank the dripping grape juice, proclaiming “We are thirsty for the blood of ‘Umar.”

24. The poem was reproduced in full by Big, Hasan (Aḥsan al-tawārīkh 1:185Google Scholar) and has been translated by Browne, (Literary History, 4:170–71Google Scholar): “The time has come when the pivotless sphere, like the earth, should rest under thy shadow, O Shadow of God! O King! It is a period of nine months that this helpless one hath remained in Qazwin ruined, weary, wounded and wretched. I found the practices of the Sunnis in humble and noble alike. I saw the signs of schism in small and great. Poor and rich with washed feet at the Tombs; hands clasped in the mosques to right and to left. In the time of a King like thee to clasp the hands in prayer is an underhand action, O King of lofty lineage… .”

25. See Brockelman, C. Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1943–49)Google Scholar, Supplementbanden, 3 vols. (Leiden, 1937–42), 1:399. Raf'i died in 623/1226.

26. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 129a. Iṭlāqāt al-dīwānīya are requisitions from the dīwān; mutawajjihāt are taxes levied in addition to the original assessment. See Lambton, Ann, Landlord and Peasant in Persia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 430Google Scholar, 435. See also Ibrahim al-Bahrani, Yusuf b. Ahmad b., Lu'lu'āt al-baḥrayn fī al-ijāzāt wa tarājim rijāl al-ḥadīth, ed. Sadiq, S. M. (Najaf, 1386/1966), 153Google Scholar. Bahrani recounts that ‘AH al-Karaki ordered that dissenting members of the ulama be taxed “in order that they not lead others astray.”

27. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 129b.

28. Ibid., f. 107b.

29. See Munshi, ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsi 1:150Google Scholar. The preacher mentioned was Astarabadi the khaṭīb. He is probably the same person as Mir Sayyid ‘AH, who also served as muḥtasib al-mamālik. Later, during the reign of Isma'il II, the Astarabadi sayyids were particularly singled out for persecution (Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:215).

30. I.e., “the Ten who [according to Sunnis] are blessed with paradise.” These, with some variation, are Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf, Sa'd b. Zayd and Abu ‘Ubayda b. al-Jarrah. Since ‘AH is one of the blessed, the repudiation would have excluded him. When, in a politically charged incident, Sharifi was called on to vilify these individuals, it was to repudiate nine of the ten (al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 107b).

31. Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Maliki. Sharifi asserts that “from the dawn of Islam to the present, Shi'is were weak and debased, but did not put into effect, until the present, the cursing of the Companions in the assemblies, gatherings and mosques” (al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 152a).

32. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 105b. Holding the Friday prayer and congregational meeting during the Occultation was a prominent issue among Twelver Shi'is during this period. In a Sunni state, ruling on the suspension of the Friday prayer may have served the Twelver ideological position against the Sunnis. After the Safavid revolution, suspension of such an important Muslim gathering was viewed by some Shi'i leaders as detrimental to the propagation of faith and Shi'ification of Muslim institutions. Who should lead the prayer during the Occultation was the principal theological and juridical question. The deputy of the Imam was the obvious answer, but with the passing of the four special deputies (the last of whom died in 329/939) who was left to serve as deputy? The likely candidate was the mujtahid. Hence, the problem of the Friday prayer was largely a matter of mujtahid authority. In rulings for or against conducting the Friday prayer and congregational meeting, a mujtahid was, in effect, stating his position on the limits of mujtahid authority. Some mujtahids held that the mujtahid's power should be limited and, therefore, that the Friday prayer should be suspended during the Occultation. Others believed that the Friday prayer should be conducted, but with a mujtahid present. In the latter case the question arose of whether the mujtahid was to be considered the deputy of the Imam. Various opinions circulated, and, during the years of the hegemony of the three al-Karakis, ‘Ali, ‘Abd al-'Al and Sayyid Husayn, between the years of 913–14/1508 and 1001/1593–94 (the year Sayyid Husayn died), the matter of the Friday prayer appears to have been unsettled.

33. Al-Nawāqiḍ, ff. 125a, 152a; Hasan, Big, Aḥsan al-tawārīkh, 61Google Scholar; Munshi, . ‘Ālamārā-yi ‘Abbāsi 1:155–7Google Scholar. The individual credited with bringing about the revival of the Friday prayer is Baha’ al-Din ‘Amili. For a chronology of ‘Amili's career see Devin, Stewart, “A Biographical Note on Baha’ al-Din al-'Amili (d. 1030/1621),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 3, no. 3 (1991): 563–71Google Scholar.

34. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 105b.

35. In India, the sectarian meaning of the term tabarra’ continued into modern times. In one example, a disavowal statement appeared on an animal: “A white-haired goat belonging to a Sunni was got hold of by some Shias and the Tabarra was stamped on its back. The tail of the goat was twisted in a manner causing pain to the goat which ran about the town. Finally it was caught by the police and taken to the thana (police station) where it was found that the writing on the goat's back could not be easily removed. It appears that the Sunni owner refused to take the ‘polluted’ goat back” (Hollister, J. N., The Shi'a of India [New Delhi, 1979], 5Google Scholar).

36. Al-Nawāqiḍ, ff. 105b-106a.

37. The repudiation of Jami the poet (d. 898/1492) and the desecration of his grave by order of Tahmasp allegedly brought Qadi Jahan to the defense of the poet's reputation. Qadi Jahan produced verses by Jami praising ‘Ali and the shah reinstated the poet to a position of dignity. See Dickson, “Shah Tahmasb and the Uzbeks,” 190. Declaring one's love for ‘Ali was the perfect antidote to the charge of heresy against Twelver Shi'ism in this period; otherwise one could be considered a nāsīb, a hater of ‘Ali. To be charged as a nāṣib could threaten one's life (al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 92b).

38. Ibid., f. 106a.

39. Ibid., f. 107b. See Lane, E. W., Arabic-English Lexicon, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, repr. of 1863 ed.)Google Scholar. One meaning is “dragging a train of camels.”

40. Perhaps further research will reveal whether it was Isma'il I or Tahmasp who created the tabarra’ corps. It would seem that it was Isma'il I, who instituted the practice of the ritual curse.

41. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 107a. In the above passage, a charge of attending the Friday prayer implies the continued existence of this ritual, despite Tahmasp's prohibition. Sharifi does not explain whether the Sunnis continued to hold the Friday prayer illegally, but this passage would suggest that they did.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Munshi, ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:148–9Google Scholar.

45. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 100a.

46. See Afdal's biography in Munshi, ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:155. Afdal was qāḍī al-mu'askar under Tahmasp jointly with Mir ‘Ala al-Mulk Mar'ashi and was also appointed mudarris at court. He was the one Shi'i scholar permitted to come and go freely during the reign of Tahmasp's successor, Isma'il II. He died in 991/1583–84. See also Shushtari, Qadi Nur Allah Majālis al-mu'minīn, ed. Kitabchi, S. A., 2 vols. (Tehran, 1986), 2:53Google Scholar.

47. Al-Nawāqiḍ, f. 107a.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., f. 100b.

50. For a discussion of partisan conflict in Iranian society, see Mirjafari, Hossein, “The Haydari-Ni'mati Conflicts in Iran,” Iranian Studies 12 (1979): 135–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51. ‘Ālam-ārā-yi ‘Abbāsī 1:148–9.