There is more than meets the eye on the streets of Tehran. on the sruface there seems to be a battle between the followers of Ahmeninijad and the followers of Ayutallah Montezeri. There is a deeper and more profound clevae in Iran–which goes back to the rise of the Islamic revolution–as well as as before.

Dr. Asrar describes the rise of Shiaism.

Every revolution is followed by counter-revolutionary movements, which seek to overthrow the new order and to revert back to the previous system. Many of these counter-revolutionary movements were dealt with by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (raa). However, there were still two groups who openly resented both Islam and the Prophet of Islam, and these were the Jews of Arabia and the Persians. The Jews were angry because they were expecting the final prophet to be one of the Israelites, and they could never accept and reconcile themselves with the fact that he turned out to be someone from the Gentiles. (The envy of the Jews of Madinah is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah. It is also mentioned there that they refuse to believe in the Prophet even after recognizing him as the promised one, only because of their jealousy and arrogance). The other group that never accepted the ascendancy of Islam were the Persians, who developed a special hatred towards the second Caliph, Umar (raa), under whose era Iran was conquered. Indeed, it was a Persian man who killed Umar (raa).

During the later years of the Caliphate of Uthman (raa) an underground conspiracy was hatched, led by Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew who had outwardly converted to Islam, in order to produce political unrest. The conspiracy succeeded, mainly because a lack of proper communication facilities in those days made the spread of rumors against the Khalifah rather easy. This resulted in a rebellion against Uthman (raa) on various fabricated charges of nepotism, and he was martyred in the course of the rebellion. In this chaotic situation, Ali (raa) became the next Caliph. A disagreement arose among the Muslims about the killers of Uthman (raa). Some demanded that the killers, who were hiding among the supporters of Ali (raa), must be punished immediately. Ali (raa) was of the opinion that we need some sort of order and peace to return before we can do this. These two groups were known as the “Shi’ah of Uthman” and the “Shi’ah of Ali” meaning the pro-Uthman and the pro-Ali parties. As you can see, this was a purely political disagreement, not a religious one. The “Shi’ah of Uthman” later became known as the “Sunni” and the “Shi’ah of Ali” became just “Shi’ah.”

The Safavids (1501-1772) were bent upon creating a separate identity based on the Iranian ethos. Their decline has led to a new reformation within the Shia who want to be part of the larger Islamic brotherhood. These pan-islamic idealists are the followers of Ayutallah Montezari–who, a chosen successor of Ayatullh Khomenei was sidelines by Ayatallah Khamenie.

Dr. Asrar describes the rise of Shiaism in Iran.

during the early centuries of Islam, Shi’ism was synonymous with an attitude of uprightness on the part of the descendants of Ali (raa) and Fatima (raa), and their courage to speak out against the rulers and to resist their unjust actions even in the face of oppression. The present sectarian version of Shi’ism is a later development which took shape especially during the rule of the Safavid dynasty in Iran (1501-1732). The Safavids wanted to foster a distinct religious identity in Iran so as to maintain the population’s loyalty in the conflict against the powerful Sunni Ottoman Empire, and for this purpose they had imported Shi’ah Ulama from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and provided them with wealth and power.

Isma’il based his political authority on two claims. The first was his claim to inherit the Persian monarchy; the title of the Persian monarch was “Shadow of God on Earth.” The second was his claim to be descended from the Seventh Imam and to be the “Representative of the Hidden Imam” (na’ib al-khass ). This latter claim, however, was heretical, for the doctrine of Greater Occultation asserts that the Hidden Imam will have no representative on earth until his reappearance. This heresy, however, was accepted and Shi’ites happily believed the Safavid Shahs to be the Representatives of the Hidden Imam. In the nineteenth century, this title would be transferred to the Shi’ite ulama . This is again heretical, but it lies behind the Iranian respect of the ulama and is a fundamental reason for the position the ulamaoccupies in the current Islamic republic of Iran. Claiming to be the Representative of the Hidden Imam, Isma’il, a young Safavid master, expanded Safavid control over much of Iran, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Azerbaijan, and the Caucusus south of Russia by 1506 AD. He had assumed control of the Safavids in 1494 AD / 900 AH (at the age of seven!), and appears to have gained a fanatical following by not only calling himself the representative of the Hidden Imam, but by claiming to be the Hidden Imam himself (later he would claim divinity). His followers believed that the Hidden Imam had returned and that they were soldiers in the forces of righteousness. Their victory, which was certain, would inaugurate a period of world-wide justice and spirituality. In 1499 (at the age of twelve!), Isma’il led his army in a war of conquest. In 1500, he conquered the kingdom of Shirvan, and in 1501, he was crowned King of Tabriz (at the age of fourteen). He then declared Shi’a Islam to be the state religion of Tabriz.

The meteoritic rise the fall of the Safavids in Iran was followed by a precipitous fall. Both Islamic and Western historians believe that Safavid decline began shortly after the death of Shah Abbas I. The later Shahs were never as firm or disciplined as Abbas, and the Empire slowly disintegrated under the invasive pressures of the Ottomans and the Uzbeks in the north. The economy also declined, primarily because wealth began to concentrate in only a few hands.

The most direct reason for the fall of the Safavids was religious persecution. The Shi’ite ulama enforced Shi’ism ruthlessly and actively stirred up animosity against Sunnis. This produced a series of revolts, especially among the Sunni tribes in Afghanistan. One such tribe, rising up against persecution, conquered Afghanistan itself and in 1722, seized Isfahan and forced Shah Husayn I to abdicate. From this point onwards, the Safavids controlled only a tiny bit of territory, but the real power lay with a new Sunni monarch named Nadir Shah

There is a huge schism within Siaism–which many outside the region have no understanding of. The Alavids or Alavians had an empire Tabaristan of Iran. They were descendants of the second Shi’a Imam (Imam Hasan ibn Ali) and brought Islam to the south Caspian Sea region of Iran. heir reign was ended when they were defeated by the Samanid empire in 928 AD/. However thier progeny never accepted the Safavids as their rulers, and continue to claim their claim to the caliphate.  The Alavids asserted that the rule of the jurisprudent should not be an absolute rule. Montazeri belongs to this school of thought. Even though he Montazeri’s was not seyyed, or descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, he remained very popular in Iran–specially Northern Iran. Born In Najafabad, a city South of Qom–he is greatly influenced by the Alavids.

Dr. Asrar Ahmed also decribes the current situation in Iran.

This distinction between the Alavid and the Safavid versions of Shi’ism was emphasized by Dr. Ali Shari’ati. According to some analysts, the Iranian revolution has revived the Alavid Shi’ism, and the Safavid Shi’ism is on the decline. According to them, the stress is now gradually shifting towards the dynamic teachings of Islam and the Muslim Ummah’s unity, rather than hairsplitting on historical, doctrinal, or juristic matters. If this happens, it would be very beneficial for the Muslim Ummah