No Shia/Sunni divide

Let's say the Sunni/Shia divide doesn't happen - and pretty much all Muslims are now "Sunni", not to count few sects - but small in numbers.

How does this affect the Middle East? would it be possible for Iran/Persia to become more culturally tied to the Arab states - possibly with Arabic being used in today's Iran, rather than Persian?
 
I am not sure this will have the desired effect effect on Iran, since it did not become majority Shia until the Safavids came to power and the first major Persian cultural revival was under the Sunni Samanids. It will however have substantial repurcussions early, since this probably makes southern Iraq and Kuzestan much more stable, makes the Umayyad assumption of power a good deal smoother(assuming the PoD is after the Umayyad ascendance, which is quite possible) and possibly leading to somewhat expanded Umayyad frontiers. It also might mean no Tulunid or Fatimid dynasties ruling Egypt; wether or not this means Egypt would stay under control of the principle Caliphate or some other local dynasty would pop up I don't know.
 
Let's say the Sunni/Shia divide doesn't happen - and pretty much all Muslims are now "Sunni", not to count few sects - but small in numbers.

How does this affect the Middle East? would it be possible for Iran/Persia to become more culturally tied to the Arab states - possibly with Arabic being used in today's Iran, rather than Persian?

Unlikely. Persian, unlike say Coptic or Punic or African Romance, had high prestige and was used in the divan of the Caliphate. That I know will likely not happen but I am unable to answer the rest as my knowledge on the Middle East is extremely sparse.
 
Certainly

Certainly, Persian was highly regarded and treated as the language of culture and, at least at the beginning of the Arab conquest, the language of state administration, but I know at some point after the conquest Arabic was widely spoken in Persia but then declined - I see at some point Arabic becoming more important and Persian staying as the language of artists - and possibly rural or mountainous areas...
 
I am not sure this will have the desired effect effect on Iran, since it did not become majority Shia until the Safavids came to power and the first major Persian cultural revival was under the Sunni Samanids. It will however have substantial repurcussions early, since this probably makes southern Iraq and Kuzestan much more stable, makes the Umayyad assumption of power a good deal smoother(assuming the PoD is after the Umayyad ascendance, which is quite possible) and possibly leading to somewhat expanded Umayyad frontiers. It also might mean no Tulunid or Fatimid dynasties ruling Egypt; wether or not this means Egypt would stay under control of the principle Caliphate or some other local dynasty would pop up I don't know.


Possibly Ottomans taking over more Persian lands - no religious barrier to do just that
 
Why would Ottomans get butterflied? I do not suppose their existence depends on Shia Islam, or Persia, the other way round - they would have benefited from lack of competition...
 
The absence of Shi'a Islam means that the entire history of islam post-Ali is butterflied away. The 9th century was a time of Shi'a rise, with the Buyids, Fatimids, Ziyarids, Idrisids, and that one dynasty in Yemen I forgot about. Take Shi'a away and you utterly alter Islamic history.

And no, Persian was not going away. Arabic, while having a brief rise during the heyday of the Abbasids, was always seen as an alien language and as the Abbasids languished they lost the possibility of any further assimilation of Iran. When the Samanids split off and revived much of Persian Identity, the chance for Arabic to become like it did in Egypt was gone. Plus, Arabs didn't settle in Iran. The areas that were not marginal land were fiercely protected by Iranians and the Umayyads didn't want to damage their relation with an already rebellious region even more.
 
The absence of Shi'a Islam means that the entire history of islam post-Ali is butterflied away. The 9th century was a time of Shi'a rise, with the Buyids, Fatimids, Ziyarids, Idrisids, and that one dynasty in Yemen I forgot about. Take Shi'a away and you utterly alter Islamic history.

And no, Persian was not going away. Arabic, while having a brief rise during the heyday of the Abbasids, was always seen as an alien language and as the Abbasids languished they lost the possibility of any further assimilation of Iran. When the Samanids split off and revived much of Persian Identity, the chance for Arabic to become like it did in Egypt was gone. Plus, Arabs didn't settle in Iran. The areas that were not marginal land were fiercely protected by Iranians and the Umayyads didn't want to damage their relation with an already rebellious region even more.

--

Well, does it not just mean that Buyids, Fatimids etc. are butterflied as Shi'a dynasties, rather than made redundant?

This is not to argue that the in this thread, that the Islamic history is not utterly altered.

But I am thinking more different loyalties, likes, dislikes and alliances
 
--

Well, does it not just mean that Buyids, Fatimids etc. are butterflied as Shi'a dynasties, rather than made redundant?

This is not to argue that the in this thread, that the Islamic history is not utterly altered.

But I am thinking more different loyalties, likes, dislikes and alliances

That's not really how it works. The Fatimids were based on Isma'ili Islam. Remove that from them and they have nothing left. Tribesmen from Gilan hired into the work of a warlord trying to carve out his own land in Iran that overthrow him might happen, but it won't be the Buyids. You need to read up more on what exactly the butterfly effect is and how History isn't one immovable object. This isn't even butterfly effect, which assumes infinite consequences for an action, but very natural conclusions based on what happens.
 
Top