AHC/WI - Sunni Iran, Iraq and Oman

What if Iran predominantly practised Sunni Islam along with Iraq, and Oman practised Sunni Islam instead of Ibadi Islam, how will this change the middle east

The pod is after 800
 
Is Islam unified or is the Levant, and Egypt still practicing Shia Islam?

That said we can't ignore the effects on India as a different brand of Islam and ruling traditions will be different and interact differently
 
In 800 AD, or 183 AH, Iran was still Sunni and or Zoroastrian in the Zanjan heights/Mazandran/Galun, which would become the Shi'i strongholds of Iran that led to the Safavids which made the Iran mostly Shi'i from the 1500s-1700s. So that point is mute.

Oman was a mixture of Sunni, Shi'i and Khawarij groups then. The Ibadi of today came from Minjan to the north and settled south of the Rub al-Khalil likely following the Qarmatians revolt and the fall of the Abbasid period. To make Oman Sunni, you butterfly the Qarmatians and have a Iranian state from Hormuz own Oman as was the case in the Sassanid period. This will solidify it. The reason for a lack of Sunni power in Oman was due to political instability there and lack of a true state power in the region. Anytime a Sunni state ruled it, the Khawarij would practice Qitman and avoid persecution.

For Iraq, it was the birthplace of Shi'i Islam and was the powerbase. The Abbasid attempted to uproot and erase it completely, but failed. Due to Taqqiyyah, it is unlikely to remove it from the region. If we erase Shi'ism completely, we likely have Khawarij or a myriad of other non Sunni sects take its place. The Shi'ism of Iraq was a reaction to Islam and the attempts of unification of the Mid East and the personification of pre Islamic and pre Christian beliefs of the Mid East, it was truly the quagmire of the caliphates and of Islam.

Thus, I would say with kindness, that your question is flawed as it is near impossible to achieve or was already achieved by 800 AD. Perhaps rephrase the question?
 
Is Islam unified or is the Levant, and Egypt still practicing Shia Islam?

That said we can't ignore the effects on India as a different brand of Islam and ruling traditions will be different and interact differently

Of course at this time, we not only have Shi'i to worry about, but Mu'Tazila which arose as a sect shortly after this, Murji'ah who rebelled in the 700s assisting the Shi'i at Jami'jan, Shi'i and Khawarij being the dominant form of Islam from the deserts of Libya to Morocco before Sunni Islam becomes the majority in Iberia. Islam was far more fractured at this time than it is now.
 
Of course at this time, we not only have Shi'i to worry about, but Mu'Tazila which arose as a sect shortly after this, Murji'ah who rebelled in the 700s assisting the Shi'i at Jami'jan, Shi'i and Khawarij being the dominant form of Islam from the deserts of Libya to Morocco before Sunni Islam becomes the majority in Iberia. Islam was far more fractured at this time than it is now.
My ignorance is certainly showing on the subject of Islam
 
At least you have the interest to reply, most Islamic history topics on here go untouched until someone like I or Falecius chime in.
Blame Provincialism. Anyway let's start with the preposition that Islam is unified more or less. Would we see more or less syncretic Islam in Indonesia? I know they were converted By Asian Muslim Trader Populations, do you know where they were mostly coming from?
 
To be more charitable to the OP's questions, we might ask how with any PoD after 800 CE that leads to a modern world where OTL Iraq, Iran, and Oman all are Sunni countries. This, I don't think is as hard, simply because as John says it was the Safavids who made Iran a Shia state. Oman is probably the trickiest to deal with, but Iran could probably be a majority Sunni state if it had a longer legacy of being ruled by Sunni Turkic dynasties, and Iraq could consequently be a majority Sunni region with Sunni rulers into the modern day.

It's very true that the Iranians will seek some sort of way to make their religious experience distinct from the Arab world. Perhaps they could embrace Tasawwuf to a greater extent, while still remaining within the umbrella of Sunni practice? If no powerful Shia dynasty successfully emerges, the Twelver version of Shi'ism will likely remain a somewhat underground and minority religion with a lot less influence and success.

Middle Eastern identities would consequently develop along other tribal, national, and sectarian lines that they did OTL.
 
Blame Provincialism. Anyway let's start with the preposition that Islam is unified more or less. Would we see more or less syncretic Islam in Indonesia? I know they were converted By Asian Muslim Trader Populations, do you know where they were mostly coming from?

These traders were coming from old trade ruotes set by previous Hindu states. The Islamic conquest of India was the catalyst for the conversion of Indonesia. Without India being more or less ruled at parts by Islamic states in the Bengal, Gujarat and later Moqadishu, Kilwa and Zanzibar, the Indonesian people would be a mix of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity.

The religion of India will determine Indonesia or at least the religion of its merchant class which was so pivotal to the states of Aceh and Malacca that they converted as well.

Indonesia will likely not change much, they converted nominally to Sunni Islam and are still so today. The Islamic invasion of India was underway before the 800s and picked up speed in the periods of the Saffarid which led to the Ghaznavid and later states. This is because the Saffarid, then a part of the Abbasid state, quelled the two most important hinderances to Islamic invasion of Pakistan; the Khawarij armies and peasantry of Baluchistan who arose in a rebellion under the famous so called warrior prophet Amr ibn Yusuf, who was cut down by Layth ibn Saffarid. The defeat therein ended Khawarij dominance of the eastern fringes of Islam and opened the gate for full on attacks to the east. As well, the Saffarid destroyed and converted the Zunbil of the Pahstuns co getting them to Islam. Creating the primary warrior class for invasions into India.

Thus butterflying Shi'i and Ibadi areas will have no effect on India and thus the same on Indonesia.
 
These traders were coming from old trade ruotes set by previous Hindu states. The Islamic conquest of India was the catalyst for the conversion of Indonesia. Without India being more or less ruled at parts by Islamic states in the Bengal, Gujarat and later Moqadishu, Kilwa and Zanzibar, the Indonesian people would be a mix of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity.

The religion of India will determine Indonesia or at least the religion of its merchant class which was so pivotal to the states of Aceh and Malacca that they converted as well.

Indonesia will likely not change much, they converted nominally to Sunni Islam and are still so today. The Islamic invasion of India was underway before the 800s and picked up speed in the periods of the Saffarid which led to the Ghaznavid and later states. This is because the Saffarid, then a part of the Abbasid state, quelled the two most important hinderances to Islamic invasion of Pakistan; the Khawarij armies and peasantry of Baluchistan who arose in a rebellion under the famous so called warrior prophet Amr ibn Yusuf, who was cut down by Layth ibn Saffarid. The defeat therein ended Khawarij dominance of the eastern fringes of Islam and opened the gate for full on attacks to the east. As well, the Saffarid destroyed and converted the Zunbil of the Pahstuns co getting them to Islam. Creating the primary warrior class for invasions into India.

Thus butterflying Shi'i and Ibadi areas will have no effect on India and thus the same on Indonesia.
Thanks for letting me pick you're brain, Can you explain then why Ethiopia stayed Christian/ the Islamisation of West Africa?
 
At least you have the interest to reply, most Islamic history topics on here go untouched until someone like I or Falecius chime in.
Medieval Islamic history is sometimes a tough field because a lot of folks can't read primary sources in Arabic. (I can't either but I tried to find primary sources in translation where possible.)

With respect to the OP, avoiding Shi'ism in Iraq isn't really feasible after 800 unless you posit some sort of mass religious conversion of a scope that'd almost require ASB. A lot of the roots of Shi'ism being in Iraq is because - and I'm sure John will correct me if I'm wrong - most of Ali's supporters were based in Iraq. You'd have to go way back and start butterflying things in the life of the Prophet to avert a Shia Iraq.
 
Thanks for letting me pick you're brain, Can you explain then why Ethiopia stayed Christian/ the Islamisation of West Africa?

The Islamization of West Africa occurred in two parts:

1. The period of Islamic trade ruotes which began precariously at the same time as the beginning of organized trade and politics in Mali.

- this period was characterized by an Islamic ruling class who do to isolation knew little of Islamic Fiqh and thus practiced a state rule that saw Sharia modified to further needs. By this, I refer to, the slaving practices of Mali which according to Ibn Battuta included allowing pagans remain in infidelity to Allah (non Muslim) so to keep a hierarchy that allowed them to take their people as slaves or sell them emended it benefited them. This system was copied largely in Mughal India and other Islamic states, especially the Ghaznavid of Afghanistan and India.

- therefore it was only a moderately Islamic society.

2. The rise of the Songhai.

- the rise of the Songhai and other associated groups such as the famous Fulani Jihad, led to the remedying of the previous period and saw Islamization of west Africa and culturally mixing of Taureg with Hausa and other populations surrounding the north of West Africa, particularly Mali and Nigeria.

- until this point, Islam while present was barely Islam as practiced outside and was more of a syncretic faith. The Songhai revolutionized the region in terms of religion and with the European colonialism, created the religious demographics of west Africa to this day.

Ethiopia remained Christian due to several events, in no particular order:

1. The fall of the Umayyad period.

- this saw the end of Islamic attacks from across the Red Sea and efforts by the Arabs in conquering Ethiopia. The Abbasid would take the approach of slaving missions into Ethiopia and into Nubia but chose a policy of leaving alon in terms of political posturing. Part of this is due to the instability beset by the Abbasids and the near impossibility to rule it's unruly empire, which had previously not been an empire, but merely a conglomeration of clans and tribes United in invading outward and by their Islamic faith.

2. Ethiopia's value of not being controlled directly.

- Ethiopia for the majority of its history formed the main source of slaves going into the Arab states. They were instrumental in the continuing of the Abbasid period's salt mines and plantations in the harsh climate of southern Iraq ( which can exceed 49 Celsius) which due to the amount of slaves from Africa was called the Sawad in its southern plantation section and al-Batihah in the swamplands. This might be for the same reason as European use of African slaves in Brazil or more likely ancient Arab beliefs supported by the science of the era that blacks from Africa whether Ethiopian, Nubian or Zanj where immune to heat in comparison to the supposedly noble Arab which was seen in extreme forms of racism in pre Islamic Arabia which persisted and legitimized by science into the Abbasid period and continued into the Ottoman period Arabia.

- not to mention that if Ethiopia was conquered, the Christian inhabitants would enter the Jizya covenant and thus granted security and could not be slaves any longer.

3. The mountainous terrain.

- simply the difficulty of actually conquering Ethiopia. From what I know the easiest place to invade Ethiopia would be from the south into the population centers. This was out of the question for Islamic states however.

Also note that Islam was to be accepted in the form of joining the Ummah by submitting to the Caliph for the majority of Islam. This is characterized by the famed Aslem Taslim or the proclamation to the rulers or people therein, often in languages they couldn't interpret. This hindered Islamic conversion for centuries outside of merchant classes or within Islamic states.
 
Medieval Islamic history is sometimes a tough field because a lot of folks can't read primary sources in Arabic. (I can't either but I tried to find primary sources in translation where possible.)

With respect to the OP, avoiding Shi'ism in Iraq isn't really feasible after 800 unless you posit some sort of mass religious conversion of a scope that'd almost require ASB. A lot of the roots of Shi'ism being in Iraq is because - and I'm sure John will correct me if I'm wrong - most of Ali's supporters were based in Iraq. You'd have to go way back and start butterflying things in the life of the Prophet to avert a Shia Iraq.

You are very correct. It is very true that the difficulty in primary sources is real. Medieval Islamic history is also, to some/most, very dense and difficult to follow without also having knowledge of Islam in terms of Fiqh. It is as I say, the easier version of the real difficult middle astern subjects; Sumerian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian and Elamite history.

I'd agree with your assessment of Iraq. However I feel it might be possible to need to go before Islam to change it. However, at the minimum you would need to go to the life of Umar to change things, mainly kill Abdullah ibn Saba and change the events of the Riddah wars.
 
Fascinating. I have always found missionary efforts incredibly interesting, I just happen to have focused on Christianization more.
 
You are very correct. It is very true that the difficulty in primary sources is real. Medieval Islamic history is also, to some/most, very dense and difficult to follow without also having knowledge of Islam in terms of Fiqh. It is as I say, the easier version of the real difficult middle astern subjects; Sumerian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian and Elamite history.

I'd agree with your assessment of Iraq. However I feel it might be possible to need to go before Islam to change it. However, at the minimum you would need to go to the life of Umar to change things, mainly kill Abdullah ibn Saba and change the events of the Riddah wars.

To be fair, that's probably true of most areas without a lot of sources in western European language*. Is stuff like political/economic history still hard without knowledge of fiqh?

*Or areas where the corpus of sources is scanty to begin with; compare say the number of extant sources on the Mameluks with the number of sources on the...what's an area with few sources?
Also, re: Iraq; if you are OK with Iraq not being its own country you could have a Sunni Iran take control of it and now you have a Sunni state governing Iraq with a substantial regional Shia minority.
 
To be fair, that's probably true of most areas without a lot of sources in western European language*. Is stuff like political/economic history still hard without knowledge of fiqh?

*Or areas where the corpus of sources is scanty to begin with; compare say the number of extant sources on the Mameluks with the number of sources on the...what's an area with few sources?
Also, re: Iraq; if you are OK with Iraq not being its own country you could have a Sunni Iran take control of it and now you have a Sunni state governing Iraq with a substantial regional Shia minority.

I would say so, without form knowledge of Fiqh, economics (Fiqh al-Mualamat) and politics could be misinterpreted and leads to hyper revisionism in Islamic scholarship.
 
Top