Mehmet embraces radical Shi’a preacher?

[CHKeeley]

“In 1444 an inspirational religious fanatic of a heretical Shia sect had appeared in the city. Crowds flocked to the Persian missionary who promised reconciliation between Islam and Christianity, and Mehmet himself, attracted by his teachings, welcomed the man into the palace. The religious authorities were shocked, and Halil himself was alarmed by the popular enthusiasm for the heretic. An attempt was made to arrest him. When the missionary sought sanctuary in the palace, Mehmet had to be persuaded to give the man up. He was eventually hauled off to the public prayer site and burned alive; his followers were massacred.”

From 1453, Roger Crowley

Was reading this excellent book on the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and I found this little tidbit. Pretty interesting and it’d be a cool PoD for an alternate history in my opinion. What if Mehmet had refused to give up the preacher and instead rallied popular support for the new sect? It’s likely the Christians would ignore any Ottoman overtures for religious unity, but I think maybe the ailing Byzantine state could exploit it. Thoughts?

 

[Wendell]

This worsens prospects for an Ottoman Caliphate down the road.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

Over the years as this Shi'i preacher gains prominence in the Ottoman Empire, maybe a more Persian-influenced Ottoman empire would arise, which converts its population to Shia Islam at around the same time as the Safavids do the same in Iran. The Ottomans and Safavids form an alliance in the 16th century as part of a economic and ideological continuum from Anatolia to Persia, although this alliance would break a century later as the two empires develop competing interests.

 

[Remitonov]

This worsens prospects for an Ottoman Caliphate down the road.

Pretty much. The benefits of being the leader of the Sunni caliphate far outweigh embracing an obscure Shiite heresy (from my exceedingly limited knowledge, it sounded very Druze-like, or even Manichean). That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it does mean that its conquests in the Middle East are far less secure, much less those in Christian Europe.

 

[Wendell]

Over the years as this Shi'i preacher gains prominence in the Ottoman Empire, maybe a more Persian-influenced Ottoman empire would arise, which converts its population to Shia Islam at around the same time as the Safavids do the same in Iran. The Ottomans and Safavids form an alliance in the 16th century as part of a economic and ideological continuum from Anatolia to Persia, although this alliance would break a century later as the two empires develop competing interests.

They may have been competing schools of Shia, which may not make them natural allies any more than was the case historically. And who knows? The butterflies here might keep the Safavids Sunni if they even still gain prominence here.