AHC: Equal Numbers of Shiites and Sunnis
- Thread starter Avitus
- Start date
The only thing that comes to mind would be a Fatimid Dynasty that manages to hold onto North Africa and makes attempts to convert its population to Shiism. Such an action would mean that many of the contacts with the Islamic world that people on the Sahel have are Shia, and that gives them a good chance of converting to Shia Islam rather than the Sunni variety.
katchen
Banned
Mongke Khan surviving for a few more years than he did and Hulagu Khan defeating the Mamelukes might accomplish this fact nicely. The Ilkhans became Twelver Shiite and Twelver Shiites tolerate Sevener Ismaili Shiites (witness the Druse and the Alawites in Syria). The Ayyubids had only imposed Sunni Islam for a hundred years in Egypt--which was long enough for Ismaili Islam to bounce back if there was tolerance. And once in Egypt, Hulagu could penetrate all the way to Morocco, most likely, leading to a unified Shia Ilkhanate extending all the way to Spain. In which case, Shia might actually make up a majority of Muslims (though I doubt if they would go past 60%).
Problem with that is, that Iran was not actually majority Shia until the 15th/16th century. Perhaps more mercantile links with Eastern Arabia could help spread Shiism in the Indian ocean, as Eastern Arabia has been Shia far longer than Iran.
Actually, a longer lasting Fatimid Caliphateas you already suggested, could to the trick. The Indian ocean trade links were heavily tied with Egypt (up to Portuguese takeover), and a Fatimid controlled Mecca and Western Arabia could do wonders in expanding Shia beliefs.
While I don't think Shia could hold much well on Arab populations (being more largely used by non-Arabs people to distinguish for them, and not being very rooted in egyptian populations historically), it could do enough for sub-saharian and Indian ocean conversion.
Of course, it would make ITTL Shia quite different from OTL one, being far more inspired by Islamilism that would admtitedly make Shia more acceptable for Arabs (while not likely managing to take a real majoritary hold safe for regional aeras) and eventually less ethnic or tribal minded.
There are plenty of Arab Shi'ites - in Iraq, in Syria (if we count the Alawites and Druzes), in Lebanon, in the Gulf, in Yemen. Where we don't see Shi'ites is Africa and Southeast Asia.
The Alawi have recently been identified as Shi'a, they're a completely different religion (they have saints, believe in reincarnation and don't believe in all of the Pillars of Islam), likewise the Druze, who AFAIK are never counted as a part of any denomination of Islam specifically.
That said, their ARE Shi'as in Syria, comprising 2.1% of the population.
Actually they do, it's just that both regions are so incredibly populous that they're drowned out;
-Nigeria - 4-10 million
-Tanzania - 1-2 million
-Indonesia - 1 million
Additionally many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with Muslim populations tend to have a small (ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand) Shi'a as well, though they of course make-up a tiny portion of the overall population.
As said Iori, the situation isn't that much clear. But I was confusing : I wanted to say that Shia would likely not root itself on Arab societies, not that you won't have Shia Arabs. I was more pointing about how an Arab society, and not social group, wouldn't likely define itself on Shia.
So, it seems that thus far the possible solutions are surrounding Safavid Persia and Fatimid Egypt (reasonable, given that they were probably the most powerful pre-modern Shia states).
For Fatimid Egypt, it seems as though they never got very far in converting their own people, and their position in the world is at least somewhat limiting as well, because the bulk of the world's Islamic population is further east, and the competition in the areas that they could concievably influence (North Africa, Arabia, the Levant, and possibly Anatolia) is very stiff.
So what about the Safavids? They were far more agressive and successful in proselytizing, both in their own territory and beyond their borders, and they are better positioned to influence the massive Muslim populations in southern Asia. Still, their agressive style meant that they could only proselytize about as far as they could project their military, which means that their maximum range is probably Pakistan and Northern India, and the latter only with a greatly reduced Ottoman threat.
To help with this problem of military proselytization, is there any way that the Safavids could have centralized Islam into a more stable heirarchy (based loosely on the Catholic or Orthodox model) and used this as a base for sending out missionaries to areas otherwise beyond their reach? Persia did have a highly influential culture, so missionaries would have the benefit of coming from such a prestigious background, which might help in less developed areas especially, though that probably wouldn't help too much in the Arab world.
Another possibility I'm curious about is that of Shia Islam becoming a sort of cultural response to the Ottomans, who were obviously not descendants of Muhammad, but still claimed the title of Caliph. If resistance to their claim is strong enough, do you think we could see more Islamic countries, not wanting to see a new Caliph with de facto power, begin to adopt a stance that favors only blood relations of the prophet being eligible for the caliph position, and thus leaning Shia?
For Fatimid Egypt, it seems as though they never got very far in converting their own people, and their position in the world is at least somewhat limiting as well, because the bulk of the world's Islamic population is further east, and the competition in the areas that they could concievably influence (North Africa, Arabia, the Levant, and possibly Anatolia) is very stiff.
So what about the Safavids? They were far more agressive and successful in proselytizing, both in their own territory and beyond their borders, and they are better positioned to influence the massive Muslim populations in southern Asia. Still, their agressive style meant that they could only proselytize about as far as they could project their military, which means that their maximum range is probably Pakistan and Northern India, and the latter only with a greatly reduced Ottoman threat.
To help with this problem of military proselytization, is there any way that the Safavids could have centralized Islam into a more stable heirarchy (based loosely on the Catholic or Orthodox model) and used this as a base for sending out missionaries to areas otherwise beyond their reach? Persia did have a highly influential culture, so missionaries would have the benefit of coming from such a prestigious background, which might help in less developed areas especially, though that probably wouldn't help too much in the Arab world.
Another possibility I'm curious about is that of Shia Islam becoming a sort of cultural response to the Ottomans, who were obviously not descendants of Muhammad, but still claimed the title of Caliph. If resistance to their claim is strong enough, do you think we could see more Islamic countries, not wanting to see a new Caliph with de facto power, begin to adopt a stance that favors only blood relations of the prophet being eligible for the caliph position, and thus leaning Shia?