What's new

The Iranians have built two mosques in China, one of which is a prince of Persia.

chinasun

FULL MEMBER
Feb 24, 2021
166
-20
257
Country
China
Location
United States
1,In the Samanid Empire, there was a handsome Prince of Persia called Nasr。He came to Xinjiang and was appointed chief executive of Atushi region to build a mosque, which is also the first mosque in Xinjiang, China.
main-qimg-1ab22c56dd04ba883694a2ee36a2f6fc.png

Artux Great Mosque in Artux, Kyzilsu, Xinjiang, China. 39°42'51.3"N 76°10'13.5"E, Please use Baidu Map for Street View. Or you can travel here and see by yourself.
main-qimg-cdff3777d317700fb2d37c99f18092fd.png

Inside the Artux Great Mosque. 1200 years have passed. Did the mosque get torn down? Of course not.
 
Last edited:

chinasun

FULL MEMBER
Feb 24, 2021
166
-20
257
Country
China
Location
United States

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,439
-7
4,050
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
The Samanid Empire was at the peak of Iranian influence in the world where persian langauge and art was flourishing in the wider world from Al-andalus to the east. The Safavids kinda reserved all that 1000 years later when they came to power.

Iran was influential back then in the world but they became isolationists with the safavids and also went from traditionally Sunni to Shia overnight during the Safavid era..

Even the Taj Mahal which is one of the wonders in the world was build by Persian engineers... Alot of people assume the Iranians were Shia but they were always sunni until just recently during the Safavids they changed for political reasons to disassiaciate themselves from their traiditional allies the ottomans they felt wronged at one point by the ottomans which lead to them excommunicating everyone and just changing denomination it is like someone going from catholic to orthodox overnight it was a significiant underrated moment in islamic history tho Iran lost alot of influence due to this decision Persian langauge was the prime langauge used in comparison to today's english but after these political fallouts the ottomans changed langauge to Turkish and so did the others in India, Arabia, Levent, Maghreb, Central Asia, Europe, And Iberia they stopped using Persian as the common currency language and to different languages..

Even if you read Pakistani history you will see that many of their ancient poems were in Persian langauge but all that stopped but during the Samanid was the peak of Persian influence and started to break-out there into worldwide trend
 
Last edited:

redtom

FULL MEMBER
Aug 2, 2020
1,014
-1
1,770
Country
China
Location
United States
You are talking about xinjiang in the real world. Not Xinjiang in western media news. How can you use the real world to refute western news? :cheesy:
 

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,439
-7
4,050
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
Safavide is not first Iranian shia dynasty
There was really none before them except a small group of assassins that were outlawed from levent found refuge in a mountain in Iran but these were really not Shia but Ismails and didn't stay there for long but they were not an empire but just limited to a mountain top. There was technically nobody before Safavids if you wanna mention a house as an empire it will be to far fatched but there was technically none..
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,256
2
2,577
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
There was really none before them except a small group of assassins that were outlawed from levent found refuge in a mountain in Iran but these were really not Shia but Ismails and didn't stay there for long but they were not an empire but just limited to a mountain top. There was technically nobody before Safavids if you wanna mention a house as an empire it will be to far fatched but there was technically none
There were important Shia dynasties in Iran long before the Safavids.

Such as the Alavid princes of the Caspian region from the 9th to the 14th century AD. They were unrelated to the Nisari Ismailis, and were followers of the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam. Some northern Yemenis can actually trace their origns to the Deylamites of northern Iran.

Even more significantly, the Buyid dynasty, which ruled over large parts of Iran and Iraq from 934 to 1062, were Twelver Shia Muslims.

Also, the notion that neighboring empires abandoned Persian as their lingua franca during the Safavid period is incorrect. In the Indian subcontinent, Farsi preserved its status throughout and way beyond the Safavid era. It was only the British colonialists who reduced its role after 1800.

The same holds true of the Ottoman empire, where Ottoman Turkish started supplanting Persian for literary affairs from the beginning of the 19th century onward (again way after the fall of the Safavids), and especially after 1839 and the Tanzimat reforms.
 
Last edited:

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,439
-7
4,050
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
There were important Shia dynasties in Iran long before the Safavids.

Such as the Alavid rulers of the Caspian region from the 9th to the 14th century AD. They had nothing to do with the Nisari Ismailis, and were actually followers of the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam. Some northern Yemenis actually can trace back their origns to the Daylamis of northern Iran.

Even more significantly, the Buyid dynasty, which ruled over large parts of Iran and Iraq from 934 to 1062, were Twelver Shia Muslims.

Also, the notion that other countries abandoned Persian as their lingua franca during the Safavid period is incorrect. In the Indian subcontinent, Farsi preserved its status throughout the Safavid dynasty and way beyond. It was only the British colonialists who reduced its role after 1800.

The same is true of the Ottoman empire, where Ottoman Turkish started supplanting Persian for litterary affairs only from the beginning of the 19th century onward (again way after the fall of the Safavids), and especially after 1839 and the Tanzimat reforms.
The Alavids were irrelevant and mostly tribal not empire status or rather a house. The Buyid were indeed Zaydis yemenis but they were mainly based in Iraq and only split into Iran in it's later years before there collapse to the Seljuqs moving westwards expansion. It was a minor incident and basically split into Iran but Iran itself has no history of Shia before Ismail Shah..

Example the founder of Safavid himself was Sunni Ismail Shah I.. He was the son of a famous Kurdi sufi Sheikh from Sinjar.. His house was already ethbishled he inherited his family but half way he decided to change for political reasons. It was politically motivated and later on went to change the denomination of his kingdom including civilians
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,256
2
2,577
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
The Alavids were irrelevant and mostly tribal not empire status or rather a house.
They were a local Iranian dynasty who administered their region, the most densely populated of the country, for some 500 years. That's not irrelevant to the history of Iran.

The Buyid were indeed Zaydis yemenis
The Buyids were northern Iranians (Deylamites), of local Iranian extraction. Not Yemenis nor Arabs.

but they were mainly based in Iraq and only split into Iran in it's later years before there collapse to Seljuqs moving westwards.
The founders of the Buyid dynasty originate from the Caspian area of Iran, quite far from Iraq, and the first region they brought under their control was Fars in central-southern Iran, ie Iranian heartland par excellence, in the early 930's.

Following which they simultaneously took over Khuzestan and Esfahan, then Rey (present time Tehran) in 943 - all located in Iran, not Iraq.

It was only afterwards, in 945, that they entered Iraq for the first time.

It was a minor incident and basically split into Iran but Iran itself has no history of Shia..
It does. See above.

This is without mentioning the direct descendant of the Prophet (sws) who settled in Iran along with several of his close relatives, before being martyred by the Abbasids. Namely Ali ibn Musa al-Ridha or Imam Reza (as), the eighth Imam of Twelver Shia Islam. Immediately after his martyrdom in the early 9th century, both Shias and Sunnis traveled on pilgrimage to his resting place in Mashhad. It wasn't long before a large mausoleum was built there, many centuries before the rise of the Safavids.
 
Last edited:

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,439
-7
4,050
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
They were a local Iranian dynasty who administered their region, the most densely populated of the country, for some 500 years. That's not irrelevant to the history of Iran.



The Buyids were northern Iranians (Deylamites), of local Iranian extraction. Not Yemenis nor Arabs.



The founders of the Buyid dynasty originate from the Caspian region of Iran, quite far from Iraq, and the first region they brought under their control was Fars in central-southern Iran, ie Iranian heartland par excellence, in the early 930's.

After that they simultaneously took over Khuzestan and Esfahan, then Rey (present time Tehran) in 943 - all located in Iran, not Iraq.

It was only afterwards, in 945, that they entered Iraq for the first time.



It does. See above.
Alavids were irrelevant and obsecure. They were not even on the geo-political map in several centuries that are listed for them.. It is mostly a house.

As for Buyids you are true in that one they were indeed Daylamites and iranic people and the events happened as you mentioned but they were Zayids and converted to the 12ers later. All tho they were a minor incident in
They were a local Iranian dynasty who administered their region, the most densely populated of the country, for some 500 years. That's not irrelevant to the history of Iran.



The Buyids were northern Iranians (Deylamites), of local Iranian extraction. Not Yemenis nor Arabs.



The founders of the Buyid dynasty originate from the Caspian area of Iran, quite far from Iraq, and the first region they brought under their control was Fars in central-southern Iran, ie Iranian heartland par excellence, in the early 930's.

After that they simultaneously took over Khuzestan and Esfahan, then Rey (present time Tehran) in 943 - all located in Iran, not Iraq.

It was only afterwards, in 945, that they entered Iraq for the first time.



It does. See above.

This is without mentioning the direct descendant of the Prophet (sws) who settled in Iran along with several of his close relatives, before being martyred by the Abbasids. Namely Ali ibn Musa al-Ridha or Imam Reza (as), the eighth Imam of Twelver Shia Islam. Immediately after his martyrdom in the early 9th century, both Shias and Sunnis traveled on pilgrimage to his resting place in Mashhad. It wasn't long before a large mausoleum was built there, many centuries before the rise of the Safavids.
The alavidas were mostly irrelevant and not even on the political map for centuries despite claiming existence.

As for the Buyid you are correct they were Daylamites but it was the only isolated incident because they came in the middle of long local Sunni dynastic iranian empires such as Saffaridis, Samanids, IIkhante, Seljugs, Timurids, Kawarzimite, Tahirids, Gazanavi, Ummayyid, Abbasid, Rashidun etc etc..

This political map illustrates my point.. (Ummayyid, Abbasid, Rashidun not counted as Iranic hence not included)


and also Buyids didn't really rule of all Iran because majority of population centers were still under Samanid or Gazanavids during their period until the seljuqs all tho I do agree with you that they were Daylamites and really existed but it was an isolated incident and had no link to the Ismail Shah I period as he himself was a foreigner from Sinjar and he lead the massive changes amongst the population whereas the Buyids were more of within the ruling house.. As for the 8 imams denomination there is different accounts on that and for another topic but they had no denomination according to sources but that is another topic all together one that is unnecessary currently we can agree to disagree on that one but my point is that the current Iran is based on Ismail Shah's legacy solely.

You can also see this map all tho it jumps over the timurids period because they didn't count them as Iranic
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,256
2
2,577
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Alavids were irrelevant and obsecure. They were not even on the geo-political map in several centuries that are listed for them.. It is mostly a house.
A local house of rulers which persisted no less than half a millennium and governed the country's most densely populated zones can't be deemed irrelevant or obscure in the framework of that country's history.

As for the Buyid you are correct they were Daylamites but it was the only isolated incident because they came in the middle of long local Sunni dynastic iranian empires such as Saffaridis, Samanids, IIkhante, Seljugs, Timurids, Kawarzimite etc etc..
The Ilkhanids were actually yet another partly Shia Muslim dynasty of Iran (although of Mongol origin, since they were the inheritors to the Mongol invaders). And, they did rule over the better part of Greater Iran.



In fact, the Dome of Soltaniyeh near Zanjan (highest brick dome in the world), built on orders of the Ikhanid shah Uljaito Khan, was originally intended to host Imam Ali (as), ie the first Imam of Shia Islam. However Uljaito failed to accomplish the transfer from Najaf, and so in the end the Dome became his own final resting place.






Here is a more comprehensive enumeration of Shia dynasties of Iran prior to the Safavids:
As this list shows, the Buyids did not represent an isolated phenomenon. Although many of the above were local rulers or only controlled a fraction of Iran, truth is that between the Arab invasion and the Safavids, it was not rare for several Iranian states to coexist as neighbors, whether they were governed by Sunni or Shia kings.

During that period (mid-7th to early early 16th centuries AD), most royal dynasties in Iran were of Sunni Islamic denomination. But, to say that there were no Shia Islamic rulers, or that these merely constitute some isolated and historically insignificant occurrence would be wrong.

and also Buyids didn't really rule of all Iran because majority of population centers were still under Samanid or Gazanavids during their period until the seljuqs all tho I do agree with you that they were Daylamites and really existed but it was an isolated incident and had no link to the Ismail Shah I as he himself was a foreign from Sinjar and he lead the massive changes amongst the population whereas the Buyids were more of within the ruling house..
This is a map of the Buyid empire:



They did rule over the great majority of population centers of the western half of Iran. The Justanids, by the way, which governed parts of the neighboring Sallarid kingdom, were Shia Muslims as well.

At any rate, the notion that the Safavids isolated Iran culturally due to making Shia Islam the state religion is not accurate. Both the Ottomans and the Mughals continued to use Persian as a lingua franca way beyond the Safavid period, and Iranian culture continued to shine beyond Iran's borders.

The thing is that the great Islamic caliphates had come to an end, or regressed in their geographical expanse. Another issue is the arrival of western colonial powers from the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance, and especially from the 18th century. It is these factors which at times led to a relative reduction of exchanges between different parts of the Muslim world.

As for the 8 imams denomination there is different accounts on that and for another topic but they had no denomination according to sources but that is another topic all together one that is unnecessary currently.
Historiographically speaking, Ali Ibn Musa Reza's (as) emigration to Iran does not stand to debate. Nor does the fact that Mashhad became a pilgrimage center with special significance for Shia Muslims right from the 9th century.

This is all part of Iran's pre-Safavid, Shia Islamic history and heritage.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,088
-12
6,820
Country
United States
Location
United States
The Samanid Empire was at the peak of Iranian influence in the world where persian langauge and art was flourishing in the wider world from Al-andalus to the east. The Safavids kinda reserved all that 1000 years later when they came to power.

Iran was influential back then in the world but they became isolationists with the safavids and also went from traditionally Sunni to Shia overnight during the Safavid era..

Even the Taj Mahal which is one of the wonders in the world was build by Persian engineers... Alot of people assume the Iranians were Shia but they were always sunni until just recently during the Safavids they changed for political reasons to disassiaciate themselves from their traiditional allies the ottomans they felt wronged at one point by the ottomans which lead to them excommunicating everyone and just changing denomination it is like someone going from catholic to orthodox overnight it was a significiant underrated moment in islamic history tho Iran lost alot of influence due to this decision Persian langauge was the prime langauge used in comparison to today's english but after these political fallouts the ottomans changed langauge to Turkish and so did the others in India, Arabia, Levent, Maghreb, Central Asia, Europe, And Iberia they stopped using Persian as the common currency language and to different languages..

Even if you read Pakistani history you will see that many of their ancient poems were in Persian langauge but all that stopped but during the Samanid was the peak of Persian influence and started to break-out there into worldwide trend
The Persian empire never extended into Europe (just the Mediterranean) so this revisionist history where Persian language use disappeared due to some notion that Persia going from Sunni to Shiite is incorrect and borderline promoting anti Shiite sentiment.

The only way Persian would be the dominate language in the world today is if the empire never fell and they defeated Alexander and the Romans thus paving the way for full Persian invasion of heart of Europe since the Roman Empire and Roman Holy Empire would never exist in this alternate reality. (Not to mention Persian empire would also have to defeat the Mongrels in the East to pave the way for full domination on that side of the world as well)

Even then Persian governance system was one of keeping local laws, cultures, languages intact and paying tax to the empire so no local language would truly get destroyed or overwritten thus paving the way for another language to dominate the world if the empire fell at a later date.

Reason why English dominates the world is that very reason....they are/were the last empires (England and America) to dominate the modern world. The US economy dominates the world since the end of WWI and WW2 and has paved the way for English to be the most (economical) language learned by foreigners.
 

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,439
-7
4,050
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
A local house of rulers which persisted no less than half a millennium and governed the country's most densely populated zones can't be deemed irrelevant or obscure in the framework of that country's history.



The Ilkhanids were actually yet another Shia Muslim dynasty of Iran (although of Mongol origin, since they were the inheritors of the Mongol invaders), which like the Buyids lasted for about a century. And, they did rule over most parts of Greater Iran.



In fact, the Dome of Soltaniyeh near Zanjan, built on orders of the Ikhanid shah Uljaito Khan, was originally intended to host Imam Ali (as), ie the first Imam of Shia Islam. However Uljaito failed to accomplish the transfer from Najaf, and so in the end the Dome became his own resting place.

Here is a more comprehensive list of Shia dynasties of Iran prior to the Safavids:
As this list shows, the Buyids did not represent an isolated phenomenon. Although many of the above were local rulers or only controlled parts of Iran, truth is that between the Arab invasion and the Safavids, it was not rare for several Iranian states to coexist as neighbors, whether they were governed by Sunni or Shia kings.

During that period (7th to 16th centuries AD), the majority of royal dynasties in Iran were of Sunni Islamic denomination. But, to say that there were no Shia Islamic rulers, or that these merely constitute some isolated and historically insignificant occurrence would be wrong.



This is a map of the Buyid empire:



They did rule over the great majority of population centers of the western half of Iran. The Justanids, by the way, which governed parts of the neighboring Sallarid kingdom, were Shia Muslims as well.

At any rate, the notion that the Safavids isolated Iran culturally due to making Shia Islam the state religion is not accurate. Both the Ottomans and the Mughals continued to use Persian as a lingua franca way beyond the Safavid period, and Iranian culture continued to shine beyond Iran's borders.

The thing is that the great Islamic caliphates had come to an end, or regressed in their geographical expanse. Another issue is the arrival of western colonial powers from the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance, and especially from the 18th century. It is these factors which at times led to a relative reduction of exchanges between different parts of the Muslim world.



Historiographically speaking, Ali Ibn Musa Reza's (as) emigration to Iran does not stand to debate. Nor does the fact that Mashhad became a center for pilgrimage with special significance for Shia Muslims right from the 9th century.

This is all part of Iran's pre-Safavid, Shia Islamic history and heritage.
The remaining you listed except the Buyids were houses not empires by the way nothing is wrong with being a house despite not holding a physical land as the main ruler they had influence and lobbying power within the states and businesses. Ilkhanate was not Shia but after the spliting one portion's main two rulers are assumed to have been shia but the empire itself continued after them in the same line as their forefathers which were sunni.. the guys in discussion here are Muhammad khodabandeh and Abu Sa'd Bahadur not that it matters what they were initially or practiced or whatever denomination they wanted. Just want to say that it was all the same which ever denomination..

After the Ilkhanate, the regional states established during the disintegration of the Ilkhanate raised their own candidates as claimants.

House of Ariq Böke[edit]
House of Hulagu (1336–1357)[edit]
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom