راهبردهای تشیع امامی در مقابل گفتمان اهل سنت در منطقه شام از قرن پنجم تا پایان ممالیک

the strategic land of ancient Syria, including Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine, was the scene of a sensitive and fateful confrontation between the two discourses of the Imamiyya Shia and the Sunnis.However, the advantages available to the Sunni community, such as their historical presence, which was linked to the time of the Islamic conquest of this land; population dominance; political support of centralized and aligned governments that, due to their successful record in containing external crises, had gained general political and social acceptance and were willing to use all their capacities to strengthen this discourse; the presence of first-class Sunni scholars with them; and issues like that had placed the Sunni discourse in a superior and hegemonic position, which resulted in very difficult and tiring conditions for the Twelver Shiites.However, according to historical evidence, the Imamiyya Shia surprisingly had an active presence in the Levant in the following centuries. Despite the research that has been done, resolving this historical conflict still requires further investigation to answer the questions: How did the Imamiyya Shias of this region emerge from those difficult and tiring conditions? And what strategies did they adopt in response to the hegemonic discourse of the SunnisThe present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to seek an answer to the above question, in order to find the root causes of the vitality and dynamism of the Shia in this region in the tenth century, and to arrive at scientific and practical models that the Shia can adopt according to the requirements of the time and the capabilities at their disposal to improve the situation or maintain their existence.
The findings of this study indicate that the Imamiyya Shia faced the aforementioned situation with two active and passive positions in this discursive space. A part of the Shia body saw the preservation of their current existence in aligning with the rival.?other part drew a broader perspective, such as ensuring the survival of their discourse in the following periods. As a result, knowing the risky nature of this path and considering the four factors of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and environmental challenges, they put a series of strategies on the agenda that were not the same in terms of effectiveness. Among them, the strategy of taqiyyah, although adopted by both groups of Shiite scholars and the common people, was effective only for saving lives and relieving suffering in those difficult circumstances.However, a strategy such as establishing a government, in addition to providing a platform for Shia to show off against rival discourse, helped to strengthen the Shia's doctrinal foundations, define their identity, and ensure their future survival by paving the way for the growth of Imami Shia thought. The debate strategy also often depended on the existence of a Shia power that could protect the scholar who participated in the debate assembly. However, in terms of its effectiveness and clearing the face of Imami Shia from some accusations and rumors, it had a complete and complete effect similar to the strategy of explaining Shia beliefs.
The migration strategy at this time was two-fold: the migration of the Shiite common people to difficult-to-reach areas to save their lives, and the short-term or permanent missionary migration of Shiite Imami scholars to this region; which ensured the survival and at the same time the further maturation of the semantic system of the Imamiyya discourse, and its blessings were manifested in the transformation of the Jabal Amil region into a Shiite focal point. A centrality that resulted in the establishment of Shiite seminaries and the emergence of great scholars such as Shahid Thani, whose scientific legacy was remembered in his scholarly family.
A focal point that had the ability to purify Shiite thought in other regions such as Iran during the Safavid era from the deviant thoughts of the Sufi movement.
It can be said that the Shiites' functional model in this discursive confrontation was to first form a government if possible, and if successful, they would use all the capacities of that government to strengthen their ideological system; but if it was not possible to form a government, the use of the indigenous capacities of the region and the internal capabilities of the discourse would be on the agenda, and at the same time, they would actively wait for an opportunity in the future, adopting patience and silence as much as possible.