Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran (Hardcover)

by ERNEST S. TUCKER (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review
...novel...invites intellectual deliberation to review and redesign the history of modernism in Iran. -- The Muslim World Book Review

Product Description

Nadir Shah took the throne of Iran after two centuries of Safavid control, but without “political legitimacy.” Ascending from obscurity and without dynastic credentials, Nadir tried and failed to establish his right to rule the people of Iran from the 1720s until 1747. This biography of Nadir—the first scholarly study of its subject since 1938—tells how Nadir Shah’s novel strategies influenced successive rulers of Iran in their own defense of power.

          The Safavids had based their legitimacy on claims of descent from the seventh Imam and their role as defenders of Twelver Shi'ism. Nadir Shah sought to legitimize himself by recasting religious and ethnic differences in ideological terms. This new study relies on documents in the Ottoman archives to assess Nadir’s reign in a new light. Though Nadir’s schemes did not find acceptance, they were among the first attempts to define political legitimacy in Iran in a modern context, and they would influence the country’s politics centuries later. Scholars will find this book fills an enormous gap in understanding Iranian history.

 

 

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 176 pages
• Publisher: University Press of Florida; 1st edition (June 29, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813029643
• ISBN-13: 978-0813029641
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,234,965 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran, May 7, 2007

By	Michael Rubin "Middle East Quarterly" (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

In the early eighteenth century, Nadir Shah tore like a whirlwind across the Iranian plateau. The Safavid Empire, which had ruled Iran since 1501, had fractured. Nadir Shah picked up the pieces and, in a series of military victories, expanded Iranian domains well into present day Iraq and Afghanistan. His political abilities did not match his military acumen, though. His rule was marked by rebellion, and his empire disintegrated upon his death.

Tucker, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, has written a masterful study of Nadir Shah, the first serious study of the Iranian leader published in English or, for that matter, in any language since 1938. He centers his study on Nadir Shah's reformulation of the shah's legitimacy. Nadir Shah's Safavid dynasty predecessors based their claim to rule on supposed lineage from the Seventh Imam. Tucker examines how Nadir Shah sought to create a new basis for legitimacy by redefining Iran's religious and ethnic heritage.

The Safavid dynasty had converted Iran to Shi'ism in 1501. Traditional Sunnis deny the legitimacy of Shi'ism, which they see as based on false premises. The sectarian divide contributed to frequent warfare between the Sunni Ottomans and the Shi'ite Iranians. Nadir Shah, a Sunni, sought a new formulation. There are four main schools of Sunni thought; he proposed redefining Shi'ism as a fifth school, albeit more divergent than the others. Soon after his 1736 coronation, Nadir Shah tried--and failed--to convince the Ottoman sultan--who had legitimacy in his capacity as guardian over Mecca--to recognize this formulation. The sultan declined, although, in a 1746 treaty, he did recognize the Shi'ites as Muslims rather than heretics who had strayed from true Islam. Tucker traces Nadir Shah's attempts through a careful diplomatic history. Tucker finds that Nadir Shah's attempts to redefine legitimacy exacerbated a schism between the monarch and religious clerics and grew throughout the nineteenth century, manifested on occasion with open tension between ruler and clergy.
Less convincing are Tucker's conclusions--almost as an afterthought--that Nadir Shah represented a "modern" rule. Discussions of modernism are trendy in academic discourse but ultimately add little. An argument that Nadir Shah was modern because his rule represented such a sharp break with the past is disingenuous for such differences can be detected in almost any change of dynasty.

Easy-to-read, succinct, and well organized, Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy incorporates Persian sources and fresh material from the Ottoman archives, making Tucker's study necessary reading for any serious Middle Eastern historian or Iranian specialist.

Michael Rubin
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2007