[WI] Iran converts to Catholicism instead of Shiism

In early 16th century Iranian shah Ismail I began the process of converting Iran to Shia Islam - the process driven by political reasons.

But what if he choose Catholicism instead|? IMHO it would be a much better choice.
1. Shi'ism was a relatively obscure branch of Islam and was followed by few people. By contrast, by 16th century Middle East still had sizable Christian populations in Iraq and the Levant and these populations could become loyal to new Persian overlords.
2. Iran could forge alliances with major European powers - Austria, HRE, Spain, maybe even Russia later on. Iran would get access to European technology easier.
3. Easier exchange of ideas - there would be Persians travelling to Europe to study at European universities and Europeans migrating to live in Iran.
 
Iran converting back to Zoroastrianism is far likelier than this. Even then, the majority of Persian Christians would be Nestorian, not Catholic.
 
I don't see how this conceivable by any stretch of the imagination?

Not only would this be an insta-coup, but it would only drive the Iranian (Persian at the time) populace into the arms of the growing Ottoman Hegemony.

At least Shia Islam had a strong historical tradition among the tribes in the region thus conversion was used as mechanism for strengthening central authority

Catholicism had Zero and would only have the opposite effect.
 
In Iran was more Shias than Catholics. If shah decide convert to Catholism, he wouldn't be shah very long. Leastly Shia shah would be some support but Catholic shah would lose soon.
 
In Sunni majority regions Shiism was treated as something worse than Christianity - Christians were tolerated (under certain conditions) but Shias were ruthlessly persecuted - to the degree that they elevated hiding one's beliefs in public to almost an art (it's called taqiyya).

AFAIk in 16th century much of south Iraq was still Christian.
 
Yes, but maybe they could convert to Nestorian Christianity, And I'm not sure even that would work. Catholic Iran in the 16th century. It just sounds wrong :confused:
 
In Sunni majority regions Shiism was treated as something worse than Christianity - Christians were tolerated (under certain conditions) but Shias were ruthlessly persecuted - to the degree that they elevated hiding one's beliefs in public to almost an art (it's called taqiyya).

AFAIk in 16th century much of south Iraq was still Christian.

All the more reason to pick Shiaism as the religon of choice when forming a national identity.

The whole goal of the Safavid Shahs of the 16th century was to oppose Ottoman Hegemony in the region.

Why pick a religion that works closely with said rival when you could empower one (who proportionally dominated the region) that would have no problem fighting against it?

The answer is elementary.
 
In Sunni majority regions Shiism was treated as something worse than Christianity - Christians were tolerated (under certain conditions) but Shias were ruthlessly persecuted - to the degree that they elevated hiding one's beliefs in public to almost an art (it's called taqiyya).

AFAIk in 16th century much of south Iraq was still Christian.

Apostasy in Islam is equally as bad. This won't change much.
 
Plus, Catholics also hold the Pope as the highest mortal religious authority in the world.

A Shah consolidating power could not afford this gap in legitimacy.
 
Top