Firstly, the original “sunni caliphate” (circa 7th century AD) & their followers were largely bedouin, desert-dwelling Arabs. They had little to no “luxury” to speak of. They in fact lived a very simple, primitive life. Once these Arabs & their Caliph Umar (Omar) attacked the Sassanid Empire, and defeated them, they then took over the luxury & opulence that the Persians already had. In typical Arab fashion, they looted many national Persian treasures, & destroyed others.
Later, under the Arab Abbassid Caliphs, who then ruled Iran & Iraq, during traditional Persian-Zoroastrian celebrations such as Mehrgan & Norooz, the Abbassids had the audacity to sit on a throne like previous Persian Kings and receive gifts. So, one can suggest that the "love of luxury" you mention by Sunnis is in fact a pre-Islam Persian influence. Remember Iran between 7th century AD & late 16th century AD (approx. 1000 yrs) was by majority a Sunni country. Thereafter, Iranians were, once again, forcibly converted, this time, to Shia Islam under the Turkic Safavid dynasty (circa 16th century AD).
Secondly, although Iranians remained mostly Sunni until the 16th century, Shi’ite communities did exist both in Iran as we know it today as well as in Iraq, S. Arabia, etc.. But, they were Arabs not Iranians (Persians). Nevertheless, Sunni Islam has always been the dominant sect and often has managed to have control even in places where Sunnis were outnumbered by Shi’ites (today this includes many of the major oil-producing areas of the ME even in Saudi Arabia. Shi’ites make up the majority population in key oil-producing regions). A key to the Sunni strategy of domination, within their domain, has been excluding Shiites from the military and bureaucracy.
Historically, the Shi’ites have been the underclass, often forced to do manual labor and denied their fair share of state resources. Therefore, the sense of victimhood and being the underdog has been & still seems to be quite strong among Shi’ites. A popular Shi'ite saying goes: Every day is Ashura and every city is Karbala. The Shi’ites way has traditionally appealed to those who were oppressed. So, this may partly explain what you mentioned as “simplicity”. As for “piety”, I can only point at my post #49 & the fact that Shi’ites consider themselves related to Mohammad through Shi’ite Imams. In Iran at least, this is particularly the case with those Mullahs who wear a Black Turban. They claim to be direct descendants of Mohammad thru one or more of the 12 Shia Imams, and call themselves “Seyyed”. However, that doesn’t necessarily make them more “pious” than the Sunnis.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire didn’t reach its height of glory so to speak until 15th/16th century. By that time, they were already influenced by the Byzantines, the Persians, and later the Europeans, especially royalty & aristocracy.
So, I'd say, simplicity & luxury are not strictly a Shia vs Sunni difference. I’d say one has to factor in other outside influences. I often read and hear how “Arabs” contributed so much to “Islamic” Architecture, literature, poetry, paintings and generally what has been coined as the “Islamic Civilization” particularly in the middle ages in the ME and North Africa (even in Southern Spain for instance). During the first four caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali and the Ummayad caliphate (who rule Iran soon after Arab-Islam conquest), there was no such thing as the “Islamic Renaissance”.
Those who don’t know may be surprised to discover, for example, the extent of influence Pre-Islamic Iranian (Persian) Empires such as Parthians (Arascids) & Sassanids had on Architecture in Iran & beyond. the spiral fire temple tower is the architectural precedent of the Great Mosque of Samarra. The round domes we see on top of mosques in fact dates back to Sassanid architecture. Same applies to vaulted-hall eyvans (iwan); even Taj-Mahl in India very much has pre-Islamic architectural style. You can view some pics & background info: Sassanid Architecture -- vaulted-hall iwan -- Persian Architecture
As for Khamenei, he is a “Seyyed” (note he wears a black turban). But, he is an ex-beggar & hoarder, hardly qualifies as human. He certainly is not a “Grand” Ayatollah. Even his ‘qualifications’ as an “Ayatollah” meaning sufficiently well-versed in Shia 12ers theology & per Khomeini’s doctrine has been questioned. His appointment as the “Supreme Leader” was a political move aided by his friend back then, Rafsanjani (another self-professed ayatollah) whose real lastname is Bahremani. Prior to 1979 revolution in Iran, Rafsanjani was businessman. He later put on a robe & a turban and asked his associates & friends to call him “hojat ol eslam” (proof of Islam) - *lol*… (btw, I’m serious).
Then again, personally I believe most if not all mullahs should be dispensed with, at least in Iran. But, to give him the lofty & extravagant title of Grand Ayatollah helps promote an image of "holiness & legitimacy", for some people at least, which he & his kind do Not deserve. Iran currently is full of self-professed & otherwise "Ayatollahs". Historically, they’ve been like vultures. I've said before that Qom would be a good place to start the *reconstruction* process.
Wonderful post!
Thank you for this detailed expansion of my preliminary thoughts.