No Safavids -> Sunni Iran

Keenir

Banned
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1476736&postcount=31 is an excellent idea:
I assume a Shiite Iran is relatively contingent; I suppose it is plausible enough to have no Safavids, and with it a Sunni Iran. I'm not sure how the butterflies play out on that one; Persian culture having survived Arab conquest in an interesting fashion, Iran is always going to be in a unique position in the Muslim world, even if it was Sunni.

I, like 83Gemini, am curious as to the effects of a Sunni Iran...would it be closer to the Arab regions as a result?
 
If anything, a Sunni Iran would be closer to Central Asia.

Both Iran as well as pretty much all Muslim Turkish peoples have been deeply influenced by Islamic Iranian culture, and it was only due to the Safavids and their fanatical Shi'ite beliefs that Iran essentially became culturally and religiously separated from the Sunni peoples in Central Asia.

...and as the Ottomans were deeply influenced by Islamic Persian culture as well, a Sunni Iran would propably be closer to the Ottomans as well.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
We're most likely to see a Sufi Iran, along the lines of those Turkic people Ran is talking about. Sufi orders were prevalent throughout Iran, and their popularity made it rather easy for the Safavids to spread Shiism (seeing as most Sufi orders have a high regard for the House of the Prophet and even trace their mystical lineage back to Ali). Remember that the Safavids started out as a Sufi order themselves, closely related to the Bektashis, and only adopted Shiism in order to legitimize their claim to independence from the Ottomans.

After they had seized control, they abolished the other Sufi orders, wanting no further challenges against their authority from that part.

Would there be lots of Shiah in Iran? Of course. There was an Arab Shiite dynasty in the south and Qom and Kashan were already established as Shii centers of learning. But Iran would be much more diverse, and probably full of Sufis.
 
IMO / AFAIK the Ottomans didn't not attack the Persians because they weren't Sunni. (wow, triple negative!).

Persia, no matter what its religion is, Persia would still be resistant to Ottoman incursions, so Persia still wouldn't end up under the Ottomans ITTL.
 
IMO / AFAIK the Ottomans didn't not attack the Persians because they weren't Sunni. (wow, triple negative!).

Persia, no matter what its religion is, Persia would still be resistant to Ottoman incursions, so Persia still wouldn't end up under the Ottomans ITTL.

Further explanation will be welcomed.
 
Further explanation will be welcomed.

I'm not an expert on the area, but from what I've read, the Ottomans didn't invade Persia, not because of religion but because of logistics. it was too hard and too expensive to sustain a large enough army across the deserts and mountains of Kurdistan and the Levant, into the deserts and mountains of Persian Azerbaijan. so fielding an army to cross the terrain would cost a fortune, many men would die, and when the arrived they would be faced with
hostile Persians all around for hundreds of miles. even if the Persians were Sunni, they still would not welcome Turkish domination, and would fight for their independence. so eventually the Sultan and his people would get tired of depleting the treasury and legions to fight in Persia,.... and they most likely would withdraw.
 
Top