WI: Persia does not convert to Shia Islam
- Thread starter Ostost
- Start date
Persia's relations with its neighbors will almost certainly be better-being Shia made Persia the "odd nation out" surounded by Sunni Muslims. Its possible that, with a non-Shia Persia, the Ottomans might manage to expand into it more than OTL (since Persians will be more accepting of Ottoman rule), perhaps even managing to conquer much of it.
Another thing-without a Shia Iran, there will essentially be no distinction between Iranians and Tajiks (the only real cultural difference between these two groups is religion), and thus their will be a much stronger nationalist pressure for the unification of Afghanistan and Iran. Also, Persian culture will likely be much more influential in places like Uzbekistan or Pakistan than it is today without the religious difference.
Another thing-without a Shia Iran, there will essentially be no distinction between Iranians and Tajiks (the only real cultural difference between these two groups is religion), and thus their will be a much stronger nationalist pressure for the unification of Afghanistan and Iran. Also, Persian culture will likely be much more influential in places like Uzbekistan or Pakistan than it is today without the religious difference.
Ummm. for over centuries most of the persian populace was SHia only Tiimur and nobility were sunni during his time, in fact I doubt the Sunni would last because this sultan who keeps Sunni will be overthrown soon, jus my to cents
Ummm. for over centuries most of the persian populace was SHia only Tiimur and nobility were sunni during his time, in fact I doubt the Sunni would last because this sultan who keeps Sunni will be overthrown soon, jus my to cents
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Persia was a majority Sunni country until the Safavids took over and converted the population. Certainly, the Farsi-speaking areas that were never under Safavid rule, or were only under it intermittedly (such as Bukhara, or Herat and the rest of Tajik Afghanstan) are almost entirely Sunni. Before the Safavids, Persia was a center of Sunni scholarship and theology, even today a good many of the textbooks used at Al-Azhar were originally written by Persians. No reason to think that would have changed without the Safavids.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that, when the Safavids first changed Persia's official religion, there was no real Shia clergy in Iran for them to work with. The Safavids had to import Shia clergymen from predominately Shia Arab regions, chiefly southern Lebanon, southern Iraq, Bahrain, and eastern Saudi Arabia.
Last edited:
Hmm. The thing that sparked my interest and research into the matter was that Perisa had trouble levying troops due to the fact that while the Tajiks, Afghans and well, pretty much everywhere in the empire that wasn't Perisa (and even some that were) were Sunni ismlamic and did not like fighting for a Shiite leader. In the possibility that Perisa is Sunni, could we see it perhaps beeing more a serious power?
Your scenario with the Ottomans gaining more ground is also internesting though
I wonder, with a front in the east beeing more streched out, does this mean Hungary/Austria/Venice/Spain will be able to pick on the overstreching of Ottomans more? And if the Ottomans do shift more East, might be see more of a presence in the Indian ocean?Your scenario with the Ottomans gaining more ground is also internesting though
Actually, the presence of Safavid Persia was what made Ottomans got terribly streteched out. Throwing the Safavids out of the picture will be a big plus for Ottomans.
Though yes, it will also bear the possibility of more east-oriented Ottomans.
Heheh, I know that. But coudent an equally capable Sunni replacement come into play instead, at roughley the same point the Safavids rose to prominese? Did Shia Islam really play that big a role in holding the Ottomans back?
Well, prior to safavids emergence, Ottomans were actually shia-ish and heterodox. The Safavids were perceived by Ottomans as ideological and strategic threat due to their popularity among Anatolian Qizilbash Shiites, which were previously usually Ottoman-affiliated, IIRC. It will be interesting to see a competent Sunni Persia as a rival to Ottoman Empire. However I wonder how likely would that be, since Qizilbash troops formed an important portion of Safavid military force.....
I don't know if it'd be possible at that point in time, but to lessen the reliance on Qizillbash troops, could one of these Sunni Shahs do a Shah Abbas and start recruiting Sunni troops from the outlying tribes in order to counter-balence them? (Maaannn Persia is tricky)
That's what I'm wondering as well.
Also, most likely that a capable Sunni Persia won't be as much of a threat for the Ottomans as OTL capable Shiite Persia was, at least at first. Due to the memory of ideological clashes between Ottomans and Safavids, eastern peripheries of the former could have always been a potential source of problem in before a capable Persia.