Were persians really sunnis ?

[Raslen3]

I think we all heard the story of how the persians were sunnis until the safavids with Ismail I converted them to Shia Islam .

But I don't think that's true , the persians helped Ali during the first fitna , they opposed the mostly sunni umayyads , the shia immams lived in Iran , many persian scholars were shia , the Hashashin (a shia group of assassins) had their base in Persia and many other factors .

So what d you think ? were they really sunnis before Ismail ? or maybe they converted to Sunni islam sometime around the 10th or 11th century ?

[Marmara]

Sunnis and Shias existed all around Muslim world, Persians were majority Sunni. Ismail I converted Iran to a Shia majority state.

[StonyArabia]

Yes they were for the most part. It was the Safavids who forced them into Shiaism. However there was always Shia pockets here and there. The Ottomans used to study in Iran before the rise of the Safavids. Many of the Sunni scholars were Persian for example.

[Raslen3]

Sunnis and Shias existed all around Muslim world, Persians were majority Sunni. Ismail I converted Iran to a Shia majority state.

I mean what is exactly the basis for that ? Maybe the campaign of Ismail was to abolish sunnism from Iran (which he clearly failed to do) and it was over exaggerated by the ottomans .

[Raslen3]

Yes they were for the most part. It was the Safavids who forced them into Shiaism. However there was always Shia pockets here and there. The Ottomans used to study in Iran before the rise of the Safavids. Many of the Sunni scholars were Persian for example.

You can also look at the dynasties that ruled Iran after the abassid caliphate fell , most indigenous dynasties were shia too .

[StonyArabia]

You can also look at the dynasties that ruled Iran after the abassid caliphate fell , most indigenous dynasties were shia too .

Yes but their influence was not strong. Plus some of them were Persianized Arabs. Many Ismailis took refuge after the Fatamid fell into Iran and India. The Buyids were Zyadi Shias and were different. Zyadism was very close to Sunnism that difference is non-existing. Also it was Arab Shia's who then propagated the faith to Persia mostly from South of Lebanon and Bahrain. Shiaism in Iraq would also be very bloody enforced by the Safavids.

[Raslen3]

Yes but their influence was not strong. Plus some of them were Persianized Arabs. Many Ismailis took refuge after the Fatamid fell into Iran and India. The Buyids were Zyadi Shias and were different. Zyadism was very close to Sunnism that difference is non-existing. Also it was Arab Shia's who then propagated the faith to Persia mostly from South of Lebanon and Bahrain. Shiaism in Iraq would also be very bloody enforced by the Safavids.

Alright , so do you have proof ? I mean writings from the period of the abassids or sometime after that ? My problem is many things led me to question that narrative , especially the political atmosphere of the period and the large number of persian shiites at the time .

[Böri]

1000 years ago, the sectarian landscape was different. Arabs were mostly Shiites under Fatimids. Persians were clear majority Sunnis with minority Shias (like Hassan Sabbah). Turks were virtually all Sufis and Sunnis. Arabs shouldn't cry about Persians now and what they became. Arabs, with the Umayyads, spread Islam with sword. There are historical accounts telling how Zoroastrianism was banned and their priests killed. Even in Transcaucasia, the Arabs targeted Christian people like Albanians to convert them, through burning their bibles etc while not that much touching the Armenians.

Just like you Erabs feel Arab, the Persians also have interested for their ancestors. They will seek glory. And Persians have more reasons to be interested in their prehistory than Arabs since when the Arabs were bedouins, Persians had empires. And until the 7th century AD, no need to tell that they were a lot more advanced than Arab.
The world was divided in two. West was Rome and East was Iran.