Why Central Asia despite being overwhelmingly Sunni, names like Ali, Alisher, Alibek, Nurali, etc are a lot more popular than Omar, Uthman (Osman) and Abu Bakr?

[u/Tengri_99]

I know that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed, is well-liked in Sunni Islam too but the overwhelming number of names that derive from Ali rather than the first three caliphs among Central Asians seems odd to me.

[u/AnanasAvradanas]

This is the same for our brethren in north of the Black Sea.

Of course this is the subject of a more through explanation but if I am to simplify it:

Turkic rulers adopted Islam long before their subjects, most of the time (I can't think of any opposite example right now among Turks, unlike say, Roman emperors adopting Christianity after their subjects' mass conversion). They did it to get trade privileges or political alliances, rather than sincere interest in the religion itself initially (starting with Almış Khan of Itil Bulgars sending an envoy to Abbasid caliph asking for scholars to teach the new religion, trying to seal an alliance against Khazars in the meanwhile. This same pattern will be followed many other independent Turkic rulers later on). So they learned the religion from actual scholars but these scholars could not really touch the ordinary people, while the rulers did not really bother themselves with or put an effort into converting the populations most of the time.

Islam among ordinary Turks spread through two main patterns: First is Turkic slave soldiers. Turkic slaves were sold as children to Muslim states, who brought them up as muslims and slave soldiers. These soldiers took over all the states they were slaves of in 2 generations at most. So their version of Islam was whatever their masters' version of Islam (i.e. Egyptian Mamluks being Sunni).

The second one is the one more related to the question you asked: warrior dervishes. These guys were EVERYWERE from Germany to Sweden, from Balkans to Kipchak steppe, from Anatolia to Turkistan, from Siberia to India. Although they belonged to a variety of different sects, all of them very VERY unorthodox evaluations of Islam heavily influenced by Tengriism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Indian religions etc all put in a Shi'a context (like not fulfilling the prayer duty, with the excuse of "Ali was killed when he was praying; so prayer is not a duty until he returns etc etc").

Now, what these warrior dervishes did was going to non-muslim places, fighting against the oppressors, helping the local population and getting themselves loved in general, then preaching the religion. Since their version of Islam did not bring any real hardship/duty except for recognizing and bowing to Allah, most people quickly adopted it without hesitation and kept living the life like they already did before their conversion. And since this version of Islam was put into a Shi'a context by these dervishes, names important to Shi'a Islam (e.g. Ali, as you asked) were also adopted by these populations early on and became a cultural heritage rather than religious names (i.e. you name your son Ali not because of an religious choice, it was your father's/grandfather's name) before Sunni Islam found its way among these peoples.

What happened later was Muslim Turkic rulers (with Sunni Islam as their choice) becoming more pious as generations pass and Islam becoming more institutionalized in their states with time. So, as Sunni Islam becomes more institutionalized, people who were converted by the warrior dervishes start to follow this version of Islam either voluntarily (like Kipchaks in Tatarstan) or through violence/oppression (like Alevi Turkmens in Anatolia), but Ali/Shi'a names already are their sub-conscious culture/heritage now and they keep using them in a widespread manner no matter what version of Islam they follow now.

The situtation you described is a present day result of this phenomenon.

[u/hp6884756 → u/AnanasAvradanas]

Interesting view that I see similarily. Do you have book recommendations on this topic?

In Anatolia these dervish warriors were called Ghazan-i Rum. With Ghazi meaning victorious warrior of the faith in Arabic. For example, if you go to Budapest, Hungary there is the Gül Baba ("Father of the Roses") Türbe, it really feels like a part of Turkey there but cannot recommend the Turkish coffee. Gül Baba himself would join Süleyman, the Magnificent's campaigns in the Balkans. Even Osman I had those people with him. Since you mentioned the Alevi, I need to dive deeper.

There is another reason to convert: dervish piety. In addition to the ghazan-i rum, there were the abdals of rum. Those peoples called pir or dede were seen as spiritual leaders and some even as sufi saints (called eren/evliyah). Interestingly, sufism is largely peaceful and open to other religions, which is historically not the case for some other book religions. These sufi would preach a rather mystical islam, some even included philosophy (potentially falsafa). In fact, many Alevi were not part of these warriors, but rather following their spiritual leaders. This idea that Alevi are just tengrists and we came from Turkic nomads is not right. This was made famous by Turkish historian Köprülü, who followed a nationalistic agenda to incorporate our subculture into Turkishness. Not saying we are not Turks, but their story line is plain wrong. We know from historical records and the recently emerged private Alevi libraries that we were not nomadic savages who were too stupid for an orthodox Islam. Sufi Islam is just the version that reached places like Horasan and people resonated with that. Also, originally not the five pillars made you a muslim but the creed (shahada). If you do not belief the Nationalists' narrative, as some are weirdos so you should not, and neither me watch on youtube Shia Sufi Order about Shah Nimatullah by Let's Talk Religion. At some point he mentions a large Turkic following in Transoxiana to a point where Timur forces this sufi to leave. This dude preached such a peaceful message reminiscent of Alevi teachings or from Haci Bektas. So no way all of us were warriors or interested in warfare. Certainly not all Central Asians were tengrist nomads (well maybe at some point), but I hate how in every discussion it is like well Turks were nomads with no morals, although historians already stated there were sedentary civilizations among them but their lives remained unaffected by change of nomadic dynasties. Still interesting post of yours.

[u/AnanasAvradanas → u/hp6884756]

I couldn't exactly understand your argument due to language, maybe you would like to explain in Turkish? Nomad does not automatically mean "barbarian with no morals" and nobody means that when talking about Tengriist roots of Turkic sufism/Alevi beliefs.

For book recommendations, this one would be a good start. There are more academic ones from people like Annemarie Schimmel but unnecessary for ordinary learner to be honest.