AHC: Make Shi'a Islam dominant

Ali becomes caliph?

He did.

Now, if Ali becomes Caliph SOONER, there never is a Shi'a--hell, the schism really dates from his son Hussein getting himself killed, and a lot of the disputes that followed. Looking over the events, I'd say the Fatimids taking a more missionary stance is probably your best bet--but as to getting them to do that--well, it's a trial...
 
He did.

Now, if Ali becomes Caliph SOONER, there never is a Shi'a--hell, the schism really dates from his son Hussein getting himself killed, and a lot of the disputes that followed. Looking over the events, I'd say the Fatimids taking a more missionary stance is probably your best bet--but as to getting them to do that--well, it's a trial...

Plus, that POD butterflies the Safavids, which is the only reason Shi'ites are a substantial presence in the modern era. Remove them, and the Shi'a are an religious curiosity, like the Alawis or, at best, the Ibadhis; not a major geopolitical force.
 
He did.

Now, if Ali becomes Caliph SOONER, there never is a Shi'a--hell, the schism really dates from his son Hussein getting himself killed, and a lot of the disputes that followed. Looking over the events, I'd say the Fatimids taking a more missionary stance is probably your best bet--but as to getting them to do that--well, it's a trial...

It's hard to have the Fatimids more missionary than they were IOTL without changing their doctrine deeply. They were really big on missionary activity, but the point is that their activity was necessarily targeted to an elite.

I'd go with preventing the Seljuks gaining ground westwards. Without them, most of the Near East would remain under Shiite dinasties and the Sunni scholarly system would remain largely informal longer.
Another possibility might be al-Ma'mun being successful in having his choice of Imam Rashid Rida as his successor stick. If Rashid manages to become Caliph with little challenge and pass it on his sons and grandsons, Shiism might be far more widespread, though I doubt it would fly without substantial opposition.
 
It's hard to have the Fatimids more missionary than they were IOTL without changing their doctrine deeply. They were really big on missionary activity, but the point is that their activity was necessarily targeted to an elite.

That isn't really true. Isma'ili converts in Khorasan, North Africa, and Bahrain were mainly of the lower class variety, inspired by what they saw was a social movement against the corruption and decadence of the Abbasid caliphs. While the Persian nobility was more interested than the peasantry, in many other areas it was a religion pursued more by the poor than the nobles. It is true that they did not attempt missionary action in Egypt, but this was because of other issues.

I can't really see it, since for the most part Shi'a dynasties were composed mostly of the nobility and therefore only lasted as long as the dynasty, generally. In areas where it didn't, the situation was reversed; areas solidly converted to Shi'a Islam recently would be quickly re-converted back by Sunni dynasties. It would require some serious changes, such as a more fanatical Buyids who remove the Abbasid caliph and a distinct lack of Seljuks.

Or at least removing the Ghaznavids as a force.
 
That isn't really true. Isma'ili converts in Khorasan, North Africa, and Bahrain were mainly of the lower class variety, inspired by what they saw was a social movement against the corruption and decadence of the Abbasid caliphs. While the Persian nobility was more interested than the peasantry, in many other areas it was a religion pursued more by the poor than the nobles. It is true that they did not attempt missionary action in Egypt, but this was because of other issues.

Sorry, I haven't been clear. You are right about the class composition of the Ismaili converts, I was referring to their belief they were a spiritual elite, no matter what their worldly status was.
Fatimid Ismailism, as far as my understanding goes, was deeply elitistic, but you correct in pointing out that it adressed all classes and groups within mainstream society. The Ismaili religious hierarchy had very little to do with established social hierachies, but was even stricter in its own domain.


Having no Ghaznavids would actually help, but I'd maintain that the really important part is keeping the Seljuks at bay, or possibly (but arguably more difficult) having them endorsing Shiism at the beginning of their expansion. That however would weaken their leverage with the Caliph and the local Sunni "nobility" so to speak, a lot.
 
Having no Ghaznavids would actually help, but I'd maintain that the really important part is keeping the Seljuks at bay, or possibly (but arguably more difficult) having them endorsing Shiism at the beginning of their expansion. That however would weaken their leverage with the Caliph and the local Sunni "nobility" so to speak, a lot.

I don't think that's possible. The Samanids were very pious and energetic in their proselytizing, especially when it came to the Turks. There is no close Shi'a authority that would be particularly swaying.
 
I don't think that's possible. The Samanids were very pious and energetic in their proselytizing, especially when it came to the Turks. There is no close Shi'a authority that would be particularly swaying.

You are probably right, but this is AH so I would be careful in saying "impossible".
Ifriqiya was hardly a hotbed of Shi'ism before the Ismaili mission among the Kutama Berbers, though I agree that the situation is quite different in this case.
 
I wonder.... if the Safavids had taken the Mecca instead of the Ottomans, it would be the Safavids that would have felt pressure to be more orthodox and the Ottomans who would seek the advantage in heterodoxy and possibly Shi'ism.
 
I wonder.... if the Safavids had taken the Mecca instead of the Ottomans, it would be the Safavids that would have felt pressure to be more orthodox and the Ottomans who would seek the advantage in heterodoxy and possibly Shi'ism.

Very unlikely. Ottoman orthodoxy was quite deeply ingrained by the time they took Mecca, which by the way was an almost unintended side effect of their takeover of the Mamluk realm... a move made mostly as a strategic counter to the Safavids.
Also, the Safavids were already etherodox by that point. Not to mention that Mecca is horribly far away and ill-connected to be usefully controlled by Safavid power bases. The Ottoman control in turn was usually tenuous, enforcing it would be a nightmare from Iran unless they firmly control Egypt and Syria... wich requires massive Ottoman screw.
 
I wonder.... if the Safavids had taken the Mecca instead of the Ottomans, it would be the Safavids that would have felt pressure to be more orthodox and the Ottomans who would seek the advantage in heterodoxy and possibly Shi'ism.

Also, don't forget that the Fatimids were sort of controlling Mecca for quite a while without this affecting their hetherodox views in any significant way, to my knowledge.
 
Another possibility might be al-Ma'mun being successful in having his choice of Imam Rashid Rida as his successor stick. If Rashid manages to become Caliph with little challenge and pass it on his sons and grandsons, Shiism might be far more widespread, though I doubt it would fly without substantial opposition.

I must have had some bug in my head when I wrote this. Rashid Rida is a twentieth-century Syro-Egyptian influential thinker.
The guy I was referring to is Ali al-Rida, the eight Imam of the Twelver Shiites.
 
Very unlikely. Ottoman orthodoxy was quite deeply ingrained by the time they took Mecca, which by the way was an almost unintended side effect of their takeover of the Mamluk realm... a move made mostly as a strategic counter to the Safavids.

Also, the Safavids were already etherodox by that point. Not to mention that Mecca is horribly far away and ill-connected to be usefully controlled by Safavid power bases. The Ottoman control in turn was usually tenuous, enforcing it would be a nightmare from Iran unless they firmly control Egypt and Syria... wich requires massive Ottoman screw.
Not so. Selim was grimly Sunni, but Bayezid II favored the Kizilbash (Twelvers) and purging them was a big part of Selim's start in power.
 
Not so. Selim was grimly Sunni, but Bayezid II favored the Kizilbash (Twelvers) and purging them was a big part of Selim's start in power.

But apparently he wasn't a Twelver himself, or, at least, I don't know any reliable source suggesting that.
Also, the Kizilbash were not very orthodox by Twelver standards either prior to Caldiran, and in part even after. They would get purged by the Safavids as well.
I agree that the crystallization of religious options by the Ottomans and the Safavis was for a good part more about politics, power, and contingent expediency than actual belief.
The Safavids moved to a rather fringe extreme Shii ideology to the more established and moderate Twelver outlook in a matter of a few years, and it would not be unconceivable to have them endorsing Sunnism at some point, though I don't think it's very likely.
On the other hand, the Ottomans had used to welcome or at least tolerate a hell of a lot of Shii heterodoxy in their early times and weren't big on Sunnism at their beginning.
I still think that more or less any time after the fall of Constaninople would be to late to endorse officially a form of Shiism as the official dynastic ideology without a spectacular backfire, especially if they try top-down proselytism.
The Safavids have been fairly unique among Shiite dynasties I know of for even attempting that, not to mention having that succeed and stick. I suppose that some parts of Yemen might offer very broad paralleles, but I don't know much of that area.
Usually, the Twelver or Ismaili dynasties before them did not seriously to spread their heresy over the subjects provided theey didn't rebel. On average it was more of a Sunni thing I'd say ( the Almohads are an example, though even there, it was hardly a lasting success). I think the Ottomans, in the unlikely case they adopt Shiism, would leave the Sunni masses largely alone as the Buyids and the Fatimids had usually done before, or the Shii rulers of Awadh would do later on.
(Yes, this seems to contradict what I stated about the Fatimids being consistently missionary. They were both, engaged in missionary activity and basically tolerant of a majority under their rule that professed the religion of their enemies. Stranger things happen.)
 
Top