Ismail II

Ismail II
Ismail II's detail from an illuminated page of his version of Shahnameh
Shah of Iran
Reign	22 August 1576 – 24 November 1577
Predecessor	Tahmasp I
Successor	Mohammad Khodabanda
Born	31 May 1537 Qom, Safavid Iran
Died	24 November 1577 (aged 40) Qazvin, Safavid Iran
Burial	Imamzade Hossein, Qazvin, Safavid Iran
Dynasty	Safavid
Father	Tahmasp I
Mother	Sultanum Begum
Religion	Sunni Islam

Ismail II (Persian: اسماعیل دوم; Born Ismail Mirza; 31 May 1537 – 24 November 1577) was the third Shah of Safavid Iran from 1576 to 1577. He was the second son of Tahmasp I with his principal consort, Sultanum Begum. By the orders of Tahmasp, Ismail spent twenty years imprisoned in Qahqaheh Castle; whether for his recurrent conflicts with the realm's influential vassals, or for his growing popularity between the Qizilbash tribes, resulting in Tahmasp becoming wary of his son's influence.

Tahmasp died In 1576 without a designed heir. Ismail, with the support of his sister, Pari Khan Khanum, overcame his opponents and usurped the crown. In order to relieve himself of potential claimants, Ismail purged all the male members of the royal family, except for his full-brother, Mohammad Khodabanda and his three sons. In fear of the Qizilbash influence on the administration and the army, Ismail replaced them with people whom he trusted. Ismail belittled the Shi'ia Islam scholars and sought spiritual guiding with the Sunni Islam ulama. This was perhaps out of spite for his father, who was a devoted Shi'ia.

Towards the ending months of his reign, Ismail shunned Pari Khan, and had her arrested, despite her efforts to made him king. In 24 November 1577, Ismail unexpectedly died from unknown reasons, but the general view is that he was poisoned by either Pari Khan Khanum or the Qizilbash leaders. He was succeeded by his brother, the blind Mohammad Khodabanda. Contemporary historians considered Ismail as an irrational, perverted, and inept ruler, who brought the Safavid dynasty to the brink of collapse. However, a number of contemporary chroniclers also portray him as a just king. Modern historians regard his policies as disastrous and his personality as unusually ruthless, even by the period's standards.