I've often heard that the Persia was predominantly Sunni until the Safavid adoption and institutionalization of Twelver Shi'ism. But this ignores the Buyids, who emerged when almost all the dynasties from Tunisia to Persia were Shiite. Perhaps some or all the intervening dynasties in Persia were Sunni however.
The Shia'/Sunni division was less important it became later, and you have often schools "crossing" over the ideological border, with a similar closeness you had between Latin and Greek Christianities up to the XIth century : growing gap, but not really utterly divisive.
Furthermore, that ruling clans and dynasties were Shi'a doesn't mean the whole country was : it's perfectly obvious with Fatimid Egypt, for instance.
Were the Buyids ethnic Persians, Arabs, or something else?
I'm not too sure, even regarding the more important consideration Arabo-Muslim world had on ethnicity, that was the definitive feature : religious one may had been as much important.
That said, yes, they were definitely a Persian dynasty.
CatIlina, damnit!
That's...complicated.
Al-Andalus may have been the medieval Islamic state that put more focus on ethnicity and "arabity", in no little part due to the really limited numbers of ethnic Arabs (some thousands).
Eventually Muladi rose to growing importance (especially after the revolts of the IX/Xth centuries that showed they were really fed up), but long story short : yes, Abd al Rahman was chosen as amir of Al-Andalus because Umayyads were seen as champions of Arabity as Yemenit and Levantine Arabs felt threatened by the Great Berber Revolt and Abbassid coup that could have marginalized them.
Saqaliba (which meaning is extremly board, up to the point being an equivalent of the christian "slave" without real regard on their ethnicity) ruled some taifa, but that was far more close to a mameluk state than a real defined ethnic rule.
Actually, forget what I said about Tulunids, as it was definitely what was more close of a proto-mameluk state; I think I got mixed up in my notes, but I noted them as Arabs when they were clearly Turks from the Caliphal house. Sorry about that.
That said, their power wasn't that different from their immediate neighbours, so, I've still trouble calling it a saqaliba-state, when it may have been more of a adventurer-like one. Admittedly, the difference could be moot.
Muhallabid or Aghlabid Ifriqiya
Muhallabids and Aghlabids, while, originary from Khorasan (with possibly some mixing with Persians, but eventually coming from central Arabian tribes) were definitely considered as Arabs.
Giving the lower posture of Berber clans in Ifriqiya, mixing would have not been taken in consideration.
They're typical from governors being awarded with a province by Abassids, rooting there, being chased by another family favoured by Abassids that itself roots too firmly.
Ethnic Arab or ethnic Berber or mixed?
Persians, and quite anti-Arabs with that. They did relied on Saqaliba/Ghulam armies, but that's not enough to consider them as such, contrary to their successors as Ghaznavids.
Persians.
Without surprise, Persian from Khorasan (a region that apparently given rise to a lot of
"I want to be Caliph instead of the Caliph!" rants
Shia' Arabs from Iraq.
So basically, is it fair to say that Arabs effectively ruled lands outside of Arabia only from 636 to 861, when the Anarchy of Samarra began, a period of not quite 250 years, and then after that, dynasties in the fertile crescent and Egypt were Turkic, Kurdish, Circassian, Mongol or Crusader until the Hashemites were assisted in gaining Jordan and Iraq after WWI?
Dates would be wrong and more close to XIth century : Arabs, in the narrow meaning of the ethnicity, still maintained their rule on Spain up to the early XIth century, in Levant up to the late XIth (Mirdasids, Uqaylid), in Sicily up to mid XIth century (Kalbids), in the Caucasus up to XIVth century (Mazyadids).
I suppose it's generally fair to say that the period between mid Xth century and mid/late XIth century, ethnic Arabs ceased to be hegemonic in the Arabo-Islamic world.
But let's keep mind ethnicity couldn't and didn't mean the same thing in the Xth century and in the XXth century.
These states were clearly part of an Arabo-Islamic continuum and in spite of their origins, the ruling dynasties were deeply Arabized (culturally, structurally). Only looking up at the origin of the dynasty could lead to some misconceptions.
Would be Mameluk less of a...well, mameluk state because they were technically led by an Abassid of Arab origin?
Were Albanian wali of Egypt (a tradition far older than just Muhammad Ali) were less Turks for that?
I would want to take the example of Husainid and Alaouite dynasties of Tunisia and Morroco, claiming Arab ascendancy, especially as more representative of the population they ruled for Husainid (where "Arab" eventually meant "Tunisian").
So, while there's some good points, the argument should still be made carefully.
