The Fatimids were more successful in converting the Egyptians to Ismailism

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The Fatimid Caliphate were Shia Muslims of the Ismaili sect and they ruled over Egypt from 969-1171. However as far as I know the conversion efforts of the Fatimids over the Egyptians were not terribly success. Therefore the Muslims of Egypt stayed overwhelming Sunni to the present day. The POD is that the Fatimids manage to convert the overwhelming majority of Muslims of Egypt to the Islamili sect of Shia Islam. It could have been doable, because Safavid dynasty in Iran managed to turn a lot of subjects of their empire into adherents of the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. Iran before the Safavid took over was predominantly Sunni.
 
This has big effects. In our timeline, the Shia Buyids in Iran and Iraq were overthrown by the Sunni Seljuks in the 11th century, and the Shia Fatimids in Egypt were overthrown by Saladin in the 12th century.

If Egypt remains Shia, the whole balance of power is altered. The Assassins based at Alamut were Shia Ismailis; their activities were partly a reaction against the collapse of Shia power at the time.

A Shia Egypt is going to exert a lot of pull on Syria as well, which it typically rules. It's not impossible to imagine a Shia crescent extending from Egypt through Syria into Iraq and Iran.

Would the Shia in Egypt be able to rule the Hijaz? If so, Islam today could see Shia as the majority form of the faith.

Later history becomes hard to fathom. The Safavids made Persia Shia partly to oppose the Sunni Ottomans. But would the Ottomans ever emerge in this scenario? What about North Africa? The Fatimids originally came from the Maghreb and that region was Shia for a time too.

It all depends partly on how successul this Shia Egypt is at projecting its power. It's certainly plausible that it never gets conquered by the Ottomans. In that case, the whole Arab world's history would likely be very different as the entire history of Ottoman neglect and decline followed by European colonialism likely never happens.

In that case the middle East as we know it today would simply not exist. In its place would be entirely different countries, likely with drastically changed political and economic circumstances. Who knows how it would all affect the rest of the world? We might see an Egyptian empire unheard of in modern history.
 
The Fatimid Caliphate were Shia Muslims of the Ismaili sect and they ruled over Egypt from 969-1171. However as far as I know the conversion efforts of the Fatimids over the Egyptians were not terribly success. Therefore the Muslims of Egypt stayed overwhelming Sunni to the present day. The POD is that the Fatimids manage to convert the overwhelming majority of Muslims of Egypt to the Islamili sect of Shia Islam. It could have been doable, because Safavid dynasty in Iran managed to turn a lot of subjects of their empire into adherents of the Twelver sect of Shia Islam. Iran before the Safavid took over was predominantly Sunni.

I have always heard that the Fatimids could not do this, as it would lead to rebellion and that the fact that they did notr try was an important reason why they were tolerated by the Egyptian people, but you have a point that the Safavids were able to convert the Iranians. I don´t know much about how people practiced their faith in the two countries prior to the Safavids, but one thing I have heard is that the form of sunism that were practiced in Iran prior to the Safavids had some commonalities to the new variety of Islam that were introduced and that the Safavids imported clerics from Southern Iraq. Was the situation in Egypt very different?
 
Top