AHC/WI Alternatives to Iran as center of Shia Islam?

[EnvarKadri]

Apart of Iran what other state could have become the de facto political center of shia islam? In otl the other shia majority regions are small periphery in countries dominanted by other fates, and the only three shia countries apart of Iran are: small in population and territory and only recently governed by the shia majority (or in Bahrein not even that).
I was thinking what if Iran remained sunni majority while shiism is confined to ethnic minority areas like Azerbaijan, Khuzestan and Tabaristan, and other place becomes alt Iran (only relevant shia bastion with lots of influence over shia minorities around the world)? Maybe a region of India (in case of diveded india), like the Bahmanis? Or Ismaeli Egypt? Keep in mind this is an escenario were sunni islam is hegemonic like in otl, thats why the shia bastion has so much influence. Also remember that modern twelver shiism is mostly an iranian product being the only independent shia society, so things like the 18th century clerification of the mullahs was a product of Iran historical circunstances, if other place (especially if other shia current is the dominant one) is the center if shiism than things may go differently.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The Twelver Shia are not a byproduct of Iran, that is ridiculous. Twelvers have been common since the 8th century, especially in the fertile Shia lands of Iraq. The center of Shi’a thought and scholarship has always been Iraq and closeby areas...

 

[EnvarKadri]

The Twelver Shia are not a byproduct of Iran, that is ridiculous. Twelvers have been common since the 8th century, especially in the fertile Shia lands of Iraq. The center of Shi’a thought and scholarship has always been Iraq and closeby areas...

I dont mean twelver shiism per se, but some later developments like the centralization of the iranian clergy are a product of 18th century iranian politics. If alevi twelver shiism centered in anatolia were the center of shiism than it would have developed differently.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I think given a Fatimid wank you can make Egypt majority Shia and keep it like that til the modern day

 

[Albert.Nik]

Azerbaijan or Shia version of Afghanistan or Turkey are the three best candidates. Otherwise,it would be a Fully Shia Iraq.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Azerbaijan or Shia version of Afghanistan or Turkey are the three best candidates. Otherwise,it would be a Fully Shia Iraq.

Azerbaijan is the seed of modern Iran.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I dont mean twelver shiism per se, but some later developments like the centralization of the iranian clergy are a product of 18th century iranian politics. If alevi twelver shiism centered in anatolia were the center of shiism than it would have developed differently.

Why would Alevi be the opposite of Twelver Iran? Iraq had already built the Shi’a creed of the Twelver and the other types of Shi’a as well generally. You are conceiving of the Shi’a in the realm of the last 500 years, as opposed to the last 1400 years.

Even the basic ideals of the Alevi find their roots within the minor and major occultation periods. Even to this day, the centre of Shi’a jurisprudence and thought/innovation is Iraq, and the byproduct of this is Azerbayjan in the 15th century, who as you stated, is the seed of Iran.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Why would Alevi be the opposite of Twelver Iran? Iraq had already built the Shi’a creed of the Twelver and the other types of Shi’a as well generally. You are conceiving of the Shi’a in the realm of the last 500 years, as opposed to the last 1400 years.

I am thinking about minor theological differences among diffent currents of the twelvers of the past 500 years. For example if Iran ist the unoficial center of shiism than the usuli school of jurisprudence is not guaranteed to become the hegemonic one against the akhbari, or more esoteric ones like the alevi or alawite jurisprudence or theology. Especially if a complete different branch of shiism like the seveners or the zaydi are the hegemonic ones.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Why would Alevi be the opposite of Twelver Iran? Iraq had already built the Shi’a creed of the Twelver and the other types of Shi’a as well generally. You are conceiving of the Shi’a in the realm of the last 500 years, as opposed to the last 1400 years.

Even the basic ideals of the Alevi find their roots within the minor and major occultation periods. Even to this day, the centre of Shi’a jurisprudence and thought/innovation is Iraq, and the byproduct of this is Azerbayjan in the 15th century, who as you stated, is the seed of Iran.

IIRC, compared with later developments of iranian twelvers, the alevis (just like the Alawites) maintained more esoteric theological views.
Also I think their clerics are organiced differently or not clerics but cholars, I cant remember.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I am thinking about minor theological differences among diffent currents of the twelvers of the past 500 years. For example if Iran ist the unoficial center of shiism than the usuli school of jurisprudence is not guaranteed to become the hegemonic one against the akhbari, or more esoteric ones like the alevi or alawite jurisprudence or theology. Especially if a complete different branch of shiism like the seveners or the zaydi are the hegemonic ones.

I understand, I am simply combatting possible misconceptions that Shi’a is simply some sort of Iranian scheme or Safavid ploy; as some less informed Sunni tend to play upon with the insults of ‘majosi’ etc...

 

[EnvarKadri]

I understand, I am simply combatting possible misconceptions that Shi’a is simply some sort of Iranian scheme or Safavid ploy; as some less informed Sunni tend to play upon with the insults of ‘majosi’ etc...

Of course, I completly agreed. I wanted to highlight that the modern organization of the iranian clergy is a result of the political circunstances of 18th century Iran, but not by a plot by the monarchy (especially not the long gone safavids) but a reaction of the clregy against the power of the monarchy. So with a different history things may play out differently.
What I wanted to say is that the modern estructure of the twelver clergy is not something "innate" to shiism but a result of political circunstances (but not a "plot", just people taking decitions in their own circinstances, not conspiracy theories).

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Of course, I completly agreed. I wanted to highlight that the modern organization of the iranian clergy is a result of the political circunstances of 18th century Iran, but not by a plot by the monarchy (especially not the long gone safavids) but a reaction of the clregy against the power of the monarchy. So with a different history things may play out differently.
What I wanted to say is that the modern estructure of the twelver clergy is not something "innate" to shiism but a result of political circunstances (but not a "plot", just people taking decitions in their own circinstances, not conspiracy theories).

Then, I would argue, that Iraq would remain the dominant region of Shi’a thought and innovation as in otl and as was the case in the history of the region.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Iraq, the Gulf States, Lebanon or Azerbaijan.

If you want something original then there is also Northern India.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Iraq, the Gulf States, Lebanon or Azerbaijan.

If you want something original then there is also Northern India.

Northern India otl was only because of Iranian influence- if you have a Sunni Iran and persianate culture in Indian Islamic rulers, there are pretty much no Shia groups in India

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Northern India otl was only because of Iranian influence- if you have a Sunni Iran and persianate culture in Indian Islamic rulers, there are pretty much no Shia groups in India

Okay, Central India then? I mean, weren't the Bahmani's Shia?

 

[EnvarKadri]

Then, I would argue, that Iraq would remain the dominant region of Shi’a thought and innovation as in otl and as was the case in the history of the region.

That's what I tought, but irak after the mongols and Timur has little chance of being a center of power. I was thinking of a more iran like analogy: a relativly peripherical but powerful country (otl Iran only controls the resting place of the 8th Imam and their clergy has far less prestige than the iraki one, but Iran is clearly a regional power and their clergy has quite the political power, where iraki clergy was for most of their history under sunni rule).
Could our alt-Iran be a little farter away the middle east and its religious centers? Could it be in india? Or indonesia? Africa? Or even be in anatolia and become and alt ottoman (and than alt turkey)? In that case we could get shia majority regions or countries in europe.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Northern India otl was only because of Iranian influence- if you have a Sunni Iran and persianate culture in Indian Islamic rulers, there are pretty much no Shia groups in India

That is not entirely the case, the Fatimids had managed to plant Shi'a da'i states into the Sindh and Gujarat in the 10th century. As well, during the Umayyad and Abbasid period, Khawarij rebels ruled regions east of Iran despite the primary Sunni and Zoroastrian status of Iran.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

That's what I tought, but irak after the mongols and Timur has little chance of being a center of power. I was thinking of a more iran like analogy: a relativly peripherical but powerful country (otl Iran only controls the resting place of the 8th Imam and their clergy has far less prestige than the iraki one, but Iran is clearly a regional power and their clergy has quite the political power, where iraki clergy was for most of their history under sunni rule).
Could our alt-Iran be a little farter away the middle east and its religious centers? Could it be in india? Or indonesia? Africa? Or even be in anatolia and become and alt ottoman (and than alt turkey)? In that case we could get shia majority regions or countries in europe.

If Iraq is too devastated by Timur, then Iran should have never been eligible for a powerbase. Those other areas may have some plausibility, most especially Anatolia or Armenia and perhaps the Sindh region. My issue remains though, Iraq was long the site of the primary Shi'a scholarship and discourse and all types of Shi'a require pilgrimages to Karbala-Najaf-Kufa and this automatically places Iraq not only as its region of founding historically, but also its most holy region, wherein the scholars inevitably will meet to discuss their opinions.

EDIT: As a different option, the Levant could pose as a centre, especially southern Syria.

 

[EnvarKadri]

If Iraq is too devastated by Timur, then Iran should have never been eligible for a powerbase. Those other areas may have some plausibility, most especially Anatolia or Armenia and perhaps the Sindh region. My issue remains though, Iraq was long the site of the primary Shi'a scholarship and discourse and all types of Shi'a require pilgrimages to Karbala-Najaf-Kufa and this automatically places Iraq not only as its region of founding historically, but also its most holy region, wherein the scholars inevitably will meet to discuss their opinions.

EDIT: As a different option, the Levant could pose as a centre, especially southern Syria.

A tml were the levant/irak remain both a regional center of power and even the center of shiism is quite interesting to me, but I fine it dificult: they are surrended by three region with lots of potential and lots of ambition on those lands:Intanbul/Anatolia, Egypt and the Iranian plateau. The only way I see a power centered in Irak be strong enough to pretect itself to the modern era is if the conquer the iranian plateau and secure their east, but then thay become Iran, just changing Azerbaijan for Irak as a conquering center that first converts its new empire and then gets aboserved by its own creation, the pull of iran imperial structure its too strong. The Ottomans were quite capable of owning the imperial legacy of East Rome thanks to their different ideological drive (religious differences) and more importantly persianate court administration inherited from the seljuk period.
As for the levant, it faces too strong competition from Istanbul/Anatolia and Egypt. The taurus and the sinai are not enough protection and the demographic ceiling of the two competing regions is way higher. And if the levant raises as a bastion of shiism the way the safavids did then they have two options: get destroyed by Egypt/Anatolia or conquer one of them and than face the same dilema of the safavids and get forced to move the capital and center of their empire to the real power center (in this escenario Istanbul is more atractive than Cairo, and obviously both are more powerful than Damascus: just like Isfahan and Teheran were to Tabriz).
If an Irak centered empire tried to hold the levant than is is gonna be in some trouble, Egypt and Istanbul can project far more power from the mediterranean than Irak/Iran from the east (this escenario assumes that iran has been absorbed, and that puts irak at risk of becoming Iran but maintaining iran as a power apart from Istanbul and Egypt leave Irak with NO chance in hell, but maybe adding the levant give the arab half of the empire more weight against the persian pull), irak being separated from the levant by kurdish mountains and a great desert. So if irak is gonna keep the levant they need to neutralise (wicht probably means absorve) at least Egypt so you end with a powe centered around Baghdad that controls the iranian plateau, the levant and Egypt... so the Abbasid frontiers, shiism is probably the hegemonic one now so it no longers needs a "bastion".
So irak and the levant face too many threats from more powerful neighbouring regions that either conquer you ot if you conquer them their bastness and denseness end up absorving you like the chinese and the yuan mongols, or the azeri turks and iran.