Honestly I know nothing about this but you’ve intrigued me to go learn about it. Thanks 😊 🤙🏻

Sunnis in Iran were seen as a fifth column who might ally with the Ottomans should they invade Iran. The Ottomans were also putting down Shia rebellions in their own territory, and increasingly emphasizing their position as a specifically Sunni Muslim state. But because Iran was majority Sunni, brutal methods were used to quickly convert the population to Shia Islam to secure it against the Ottoman threat.

[deleted]

[deleted]

1. I think there's an important thing to realize about much of history and even today; if you weren't a part of someones ethnicity/religious group/tribe/nation/etc, you were the enemy. To the Safavids, the Sunnis were ideological opposites as well as exploitable by the Ottoman Empire, and therefore had to be converted. But even this had limits, as both sides would exploit tribes of different religions to fight, or kill what they saw as "influence agents" of the others religion.

2. It wasn't as much as they didn't want to defend co-religionists as much as it was that the Ottomans couldn't secure the expanding lands, and religious war even against an opposing sect of the same religion was difficult. Ottomans waited until there was enough of a division within the Safavid Empire to exploit, and did do this multiple times over centuries. They were interested in a long-term squeeze approach and would atempt to exploit internal tensions with war to chip away at land, use proxy groups, etc. Following 1590 is an example of this, but the Safavids (then Afsharid, then Qajars) were good at reconstituting their forces and retaking that land, as present day Iran & Azerbaijan were already successfully converted and provided an easy launching point. It's not easy to fight a war, and you can't just throw bodies at a wall for centuries on end. Ottomans were successful in taking several important cities from the Safavids, but expanding all the way into the core of the Safavid Empire wouldn't be easy unless they made peace with every other empire they were bordered with.

3. As a general rule, I highly recommend never to load personal beliefs onto people who're centuries dead. All human beings are varied, naturally hypocritical, and we don't truly understand events unless we read them directly from their pens. But you're correct, in this case he was supportive of any and all suppression of a very strict, Safavid-supporting Twelve Shia Islam. He was the main organizer of a very brutal "persianizing" non-Persian Shias, then converting all Sunnis to the state religion.

I'm not an expert, but I hope this helps a little bit.

A significant matter is that the only ones considering Sunnis as the true successors of Mohammed as Sunnis. That does not make their position any more valid than that of Shia or any other sect of Islam.

The fact that your argument rests on the implicit assumption that Sunnisim is the right successor makes all your subsequent arguments moot.

[deleted]

The Safavid dynasty, which was founded in the 16th century, was known for its strong Shia identity and its efforts to spread Shia Islam throughout its territory, which included present day Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and other areas. As part of this, the Safavids engaged in religious persecution of Sunni Muslims, including acts such as killing or exiling Sunni religious leaders and scholars, destroying Sunni mosques and graves, and using intimidation and violence to force conversions to Shia Islam.

As to why they thought it was okay to kill Sunni Muslims, it's likely that the Safavids saw their actions as part of their efforts to spread and solidify Shia Islam as the dominant religion in their territory. Additionally, there was likely a political opponent to their actions, as the Safavids saw the Sunni population as a potential threat to their rule.

As for why the Ottoman Empire, which was Sunni, did not assist the Sunni Muslims in Iran and elsewhere, it's likely that the Ottomans did not have the resources or the interest to intervene in the affairs of another Muslim dynasty. Additionally, the Ottomans and the Safavids were rivals and may not have wanted to aid a population that could potentially be used against them.

Regarding the silence of major Shia scholars such as Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi, it's possible that they may have seen the Safavid actions as necessary for the spread and protection of Shia Islam. Additionally, they may have felt that it was not their place to challenge the actions of the ruling dynasty. It's worth noting that historians and scholars have different perspectives on the actions of the Safavids and it's a complex subject with many nuances.

>Why didn’t the Ottoman empire, which was Sunni Muslim, assist those helpless Sunni Muslims in Iran and elsewhere?

First of why would they? I know they were the Caliph but we all know that was basically just another hat the Sultan thought would be cool to wear alongside being emperor of the romans and all.

Second of all a rival empire on your borders intervening to "protect religious minorities from persecutions" would be ground for considering those groups disloyal and justifying a genocide against them, which is something the Ottomans would do themselves to christians.

In fact this is not new, the Roman Empire proclaimed themselves the protector of christians in the east and this pissed off the Sassanians to an endless degree and just invoked persecutions. Those were Zoroastrians but the pattern repeated itself regardless of what religion was actually dominate in the area. Zoroastrian, Christian, Sunni, Shia, didn't matter.

Almost everything written here is wrong Sunni Muslims tend to have as much deviant sects as shia Muslims do

• the word assassin doesn't come from shias lol, it comes from Ismailis in the castle of Alamut.
• which historians lie about Seljuks?