• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

civfanatic

First Lieutenant
Apr 18, 2011
244
584
In this post, I will show how the religion called "Islam" can be understood as an early form of Arab proto-nationalism. I will prove this by quoting from Arabic texts themselves, including the Quran (holy book of Islam) and the Hadiths (sayings of Muhammad).

First, we must debunk the idea that Islam is a "universal religion" that is as Arabic as it is Turkish, or Persian, or Kurdish, or Somali, or Pakistani, or Malay, and that Islam views all peoples to be completely equal regardless of ethnicity or culture. This is complete and utter nonsense, and is rejected by Islamic sources themselves. Islam was and is an Arab religion, and Islam did and does elevate Arabs over non-Arabs. The fundamentally Arab nature of Islam can easily be seen in the everyday life and practices of Muslims around the world. Muslims around the world give their children Arabic names like Karim and Ali, greet each other with Arabic phrases like "Salaam Aleykum," get down on their knees and prostrate towards an Arab city in Arabia five times a day, and believe that the Quran is perfect only in its original Arabic form (I will talk more about the Arabic nature of the Quran later). In fact, not only is Arabic culture deeply ingrained in Islam and placed on a pedestal over all other cultures, it is a tenet of the religion of Muhammad to believe that Arabs are superior people. I will now show this by providing quotations from the sayings of Muhammad himself.

First, here is an authentic (sahih) hadith of Muhammad from Jami at-Tirmidhi, Vol. I, Book 46, Hadith #3605:

حَدَّثَنَا خَلاَّدُ بْنُ أَسْلَمَ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُصْعَبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي
عَمَّارٍ، عَنْ وَاثِلَةَ بْنِ الأَسْقَعِ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى مِنْ وَلَدِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَاصْطَفَى مِنْ وَلَدِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بَنِي كِنَانَةَ
وَاصْطَفَى مِنْ بَنِي كِنَانَةَ قُرَيْشًا وَاصْطَفَى مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَاصْطَفَانِي مِنْ بَنِي
هَاشِمٍ ‏”‏ .‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ

Translation: Narrated Wathilah bin Al-Asqa’, that the Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed Allah has chosen Isma'il [ancestor of the Arabs] from the children of Ibrahim, and He chose Banu Kinanah from the children of Isma'il, and He chose the Quraish from Banu Kinanah, and He chose Banu Hashim from Quraish, and He chose me from Banu Hashim."

So, we see that Allah himself has "chosen" the Arabs from the non-Arabs. This means that Allah himself (who speaks Arabic and gave the final revelation in Arabic) favors the Arabs over the non-Arabs. The Arabs are the chosen people of Allah (God).


Here is a similar narration from Sahih Muslim (#2276):

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ الرَّازِيُّ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَهْمٍ،
جَمِيعًا عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ، - قَالَ ابْنُ مِهْرَانَ حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، - حَدَّثَنَا
الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي عَمَّارٍ، شَدَّادٍ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ وَاثِلَةَ بْنَ الأَسْقَعِ، يَقُولُ
سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏"‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى كِنَانَةَ
مِنْ وَلَدِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَاصْطَفَى قُرَيْشًا مِنْ كِنَانَةَ وَاصْطَفَى مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ بَنِي
هَاشِمٍ وَاصْطَفَانِي مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Translation: Wathila b. al-Asqa' reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.

Thus, we see that Allah himself "granted eminence" to the Arab ancestors of Muhammad (not just Muhammad himself as an individual), which means again that God himself favors Arabs over non-Arabs.


Here is another hadith that describes the superiority of the Arab over the non-Arab, from al-Albani's Sahih Jami` al-Sagheer, Hadith #1472:

أنا محمدُ بنُ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ عبدِ المطلبِ ، إنَّ اللهَ تعالى خلق الخلْقَ فجعلني في خيرِهم ،
ثم جعلهم فرقتَين ، فجعلَني في خيرِهم فرقةً ، ثم جعلهم قبائلَ ، فجعلني في خيرِهم
قبيلةً ، ثم جعلهم بيوتًا ، فجعلني في خيرهم بيتًا ، فأنا خيركُم بيتًا ، وأنا خيرُكم نفسًا

Translation: (The Prophet said): "I am Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abd al-Muttalib. Indeed, Allah created the creation and made me from the best of them, and He then made them two groups (Arabs and non-Arabs) and made me from the best of them (the Arabs), then He made the tribes and made me from the best tribe, then He made the houses and made me from the best house. So I am the best house among them, and I am the best person among them."

Here, once again, we see that Allah favors the Arab over the non-Arab. Muhammad said that Allah created two groups - Arab and non-Arab (ajam) - and that Allah himself favored the Arab over the non-Arab. He made Muhammad from the Arabs because the Arabs were superior to the non-Arab.


In case you doubt my own amateur opinion on the matter, read what some professional Arab Muslim scholars have to say regarding the superiority of Arabs over non-Arabs, which is clearly established in the Islamic scholarly tradition. Here is what Sheikh Amjad Rashid, a professional Islamic scholar, has to say on the matter: http://archive.is/bze40

Relevant quotes from the above piece:

"It is obligatory on a Muslim to believe that Arabs are preferred over other nations because there is proof for it. However, this is not one of the pillars of our religion such that if someone rejected this, they would be considered outside of Islam. But if one does reject this, one has sinned for not believing in it because it is an affirmed matter according to a clear rigorously authenticated hadith. Also, this issue is not something that is commonly known among most Muslims, so for this, one should not hasten to blame one who disagrees with it. It is necessary, rather, to tell him about the issue.

And the fact that Arabs are preferred over others does not mean that a non-Arab can not have a higher merit in the religion than an Arab, because a person earns the good deeds that Allah has recommended we compete for. This is the highest merit of God-fearingness and this will be the basis upon which things are decided in the hereafter. However, the merit of the Arabs will still remain, in terms of their respect and exaltation being higher than others. And from this some hadiths have come to us about the Quraysh being put first for the caliphate before others, such as the hadith in Bukhari (#3500) on the authority of Muawiyah, may Allah be well pleased with him who said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'This matter of government belongs to the Quraysh. Anyone who takes a hostile attitude to them will be thrown on his face, as long as they are true to the faith." And Bukhari also related (#3501) on the authority of Ibn `Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, that he said, "Government continues to belong to the Quraysh, even if they are (no more than) two."


At this point, some Muslims may bring up the so-called "last sermon" of Muhammad where Muhammad supposedly said that Arabs and non-Arabs are equals and brothers, or something to that effect. I have seen this so-called "last sermon" being circulated widely on Islamic and non-Islamic sites alike, but never once have I seen this so-called "last sermon" being accompanied with an original Arabic transcript, and a genuine citation from a collection of hadith such as Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim. This so-called "last sermon" and its fraudulent translation was disseminated by a Pakistani Islamist named Syed F.H. Faizi in the last century. Because the Pakistanis are 'ajami (non-Arab) Muslims, they obviously have a motivation to lie about the teachings of Islam with regards to the position of Arabs and non-Arabs. The rigorously authenticated hadiths of Muhammad make it clear that God favors the Arabs over the non-Arabs.

It is also worth mentioning that in the Quran, the central holy text of Islam, the word "Islamic" (Islamiyya) does not appear even once, but the words "Arab" and "Arabic" (Arabiyya) appear multiple times. In fact, the Quran calls itself Arabic in eleven different locations in the Quran:

1) Quran 12:2

إِنَّا أَنْـزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُون

Translation: "We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people may understand"


2) Quran 13:37

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ حُكْمًا عَرَبِيًّا ۚ وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بَعْدَمَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا وَاقٍ

Translation: We revealed these laws in Arabic, and if you ever acquiesce to their wishes, after this knowledge has come to you, you will have no ally, nor a protector, against GOD.


3) Quran 16:103

وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُبِينٌ

Translation: We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.


4) Quran 20:113

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا وَصَرَّفْنَا فِيهِ مِنَ الْوَعِيدِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ أَوْ يُحْدِثُ لَهُمْ ذِكْرًا

Translation: We thus revealed it, an Arabic Quran, and we cited in it all kinds of prophecies, that they may be saved, or it may cause them to take heed.


5) Quran 26:195

بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ

Translation: In a perfect Arabic tongue.


6) Quran 39:28

قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا غَيْرَ ذِي عِوَجٍ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

Translation: An Arabic Quran, without any ambiguity, that they may be righteous.


7) Quran 41:3

كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ

Translation: A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know.


8) Quran 41:44

وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ ۖ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ ۗ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاءٌ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِنْ مَكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ

Translation: And if We had sent this as a Qur'an in a foreign language other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its Verses explained in detail (in our language)? What! (A Book) not in Arabic and (the Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'an) is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they neither listen nor understand).


9) Quran 42:7

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَتُنْذِرَ يَوْمَ الْجَمْعِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ فَرِيقٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَفَرِيقٌ فِي السَّعِيرِ

Translation: We thus reveal to you an Arabic Quran to warn the central community and all around it, and to warn about the Day of Summoning that is inevitable. Some will end up in Heaven, and some in Hell.


10) Quran 43:3

إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

Translation: We have rendered it an Arabic Quran, so that you may understand.


11) Quran 46:12

وَمِنْ قَبْلِهِ كِتَابُ مُوسَىٰ إِمَامًا وَرَحْمَةً ۚ وَهَٰذَا كِتَابٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِسَانًا عَرَبِيًّا لِيُنْذِرَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا وَبُشْرَىٰ لِلْمُحْسِنِينَ

Translation: Before this, the book of Moses provided guidance and mercy. This too is a scripture that confirms, in Arabic, to warn those who transgressed, and to give good news to the righteous.


Thus, we see that the Quran itself mentions that the book is Arabic in multiple different places. However, nowhere in the entire Quran is the Quran called an "Islamic book" or an "Islamic revelation." In fact, the word "Islamic" (islamiyya) does not even exist in the Quran. Thus, we cannot say that the Quran is an "Islamic book." The Quran is an Arabic book, not an Islamic book, because the word "Islamic" did not even exist. If any 'ajami Muslim tries to say that the Quran is not specifically Arabic but a universal "Islamic" text, show him the verses above, and tell him that the word "Islamic" does not appear anywhere in the Quran while the word "Arabic" appears multiple times in the Quran. The Quran is Arabic, not Islamic.

Once again, I can quote Arab Muslim scholars to prove my point. The great Muslim scholar Ayad Jamal al-Din of Iraq explicitly says that that the word "Islamic" does not exist in the Quran. Watch the first minute of this video:



One of the important foundations of any nationalist movement is a clear in-group and out-group differentiation. There must a clear and vivid distinction between "us" and "them" in any nationalist movement. Islam itself, besides dividing the entire world into the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb - into Muslims and Infidels - also clearly emphasizes the distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs. The Arabs are clearly associated with Islam, and the Quran is clearly associated with the Arabs and their language. In fact, we can go one step farther and even say that according to Islam, God himself is an Arab, because God speaks in Arabic and clearly chose the Arabs as "his favorite team." It was only after the invention of Islam that Arabs rose from the position of irrelevant tribes on the fringes of civilization to become the greatest and most powerful people on earth, and it was thanks to Islam that Arabs developed a strong sense of identity and self-confidence in themselves. This is why even Christian Arab nationalists like Michel Aflaq (one of the founders of Ba'athism) admired Islam and Muhammad, and this is why Islam can be characterized as an early form of Arab nationalism.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 2
Reactions:
Arab Proto-Nationalism? You realise there actually were Arab nationalist groups, and indeed a couple pan-nationalist states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Federation

The problem then was the issue with half of the Arab states being staunchly republican, and the other half being monarchist, and all were led by ego maniacs who didn't really care for pan-nationalism.

I am talking about the 7th century, not the 20th century. Modern Arab nationalism was invented by Arab Christians like Francis Marrash and Michael Aflaq (the founder of Ba'athism), and is heavily influenced by contemporary European nationalism. I am saying that Islam could be described as Arab proto-nationalism in the context of the early medieval world. Muhammad and his immediate successors could be described as a proto-nationalists who united all the Arab tribes under a single government and led them to dominance over non-Arabs. They were highly conscious of their Arab ethno-linguistic identity.
 
Totally agree. The jizya was getting levied to non-Arabs under the Ummayads, conversation or not. There is a term for this called Hebratic nationalism where you have one language, one god. When you think of why Oliver Cromwell did so much ethnic cleansing in Ireland think of his Puritan beliefs that favoured the old testiment rather than the new one. The vengeful all powerful truth is a frightfully effective tool to spread your language.
 
Totally agree. The jizya was getting levied to non-Arabs under the Ummayads, conversation or not. There is a term for this called Hebratic nationalism where you have one language, one god. When you think of why Oliver Cromwell did so much ethnic cleansing in Ireland think of his Puritan beliefs that favoured the old testiment rather than the new one. The vengeful all powerful truth is a frightfully effective tool to spread your language.

Yep. Muawiyah, the first Ummayad caliph who ruled from 661 to 680, probably took this Arab nationalism to the greatest extreme, to the extent that he could be called an Arab supremacist. In his famous letter to Ziyad ibn Abih, the governor of Iraq, Muawiyah explicitly said that Iranians (non-Arabs) should not be treated as equals to Arabs even if they converted to Islam, that Arabs have a right to non-Arab women but non-Arabs have no right to Arab women, that Arabs are to be favored over non-Arabs in inheritance, that non-Arabs should receive lower pensions than an Arab, and that a non-Arab cannot lead a prayer congregation in front of an Arab. The Ummayads also levied taxes on non-Arabs specifically because they were non-Arabs (not just non-Muslim).

GIA6qj1.png
 
No. There were no "Arabs" at the time. At least now how we understand them stretching from Morocco to Oman. Even in the neighborhood of modern Saudi Arabia, Yemenis didn't speak Arabic. Syrians didn't speak Arabic. Iraqis didn't speak Arabic. Heck, did the "gulf arabs" of the time speak Arabic? Probably not.

"Arab" as we understand it, is a much later construction.

"Hijazi" is probably a more accurate understanding of what the Koran is attempting to say.
 
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
There's similar tendencies in christianity, which was originallly restricted to jews. (and there remained judeo-christian groups for quite a while)

Though I note that this:
Translation: And if We had sent this as a Qur'an in a foreign language other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its Verses explained in detail (in our language)?What! (A Book) not in Arabic and (the Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur'an) is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they neither listen nor understand).

Simply says "We sent the Qu'ran in your language because otherwise you wouldn't have understood it/listened to it."
 
There's similar tendencies in christianity, which was originallly restricted to jews. (and there remained judeo-christian groups for quite a while)
Seconded. There was a major split among early Christians regarding whether or not the religion should be spread to gentiles, and this issue was ultimately resolved by politics, not scripture. Just like how acceptance of non-Arab Muslims was a product of politics.

Also, keep in mind that vernacular forms of the Bible only became widely tolerated at the time of the Reformation, and that Christian reverence for Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and historical Jews hasn't done very much to prevent the Christian world from often being violently anti-Semitic in practice.

I agree with the general outline of the OP, that Islam was first and foremost a nation-building effort for the Arabian peninsula that ultimately became something much larger and broader than originally intended. But Islam was Arabizing like Christianity was Romanizing or Confucianism was Sinicizing, different in the details but not the broad pattern.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No. There were no "Arabs" at the time. At least now how we understand them stretching from Morocco to Oman. Even in the neighborhood of modern Saudi Arabia, Yemenis didn't speak Arabic. Syrians didn't speak Arabic. Iraqis didn't speak Arabic. Heck, did the "gulf arabs" of the time speak Arabic? Probably not.

"Arab" as we understand it, is a much later construction.

"Hijazi" is probably a more accurate understanding of what the Koran is attempting to say.
There were certainly Arabs, although you're right that obviously Egyptians or Moroccans weren't Arab in the slightest. But there were plenty of Arabs who spoke Arabic and wrote in Arabic script from the Hedjaz to the Gulf. You had Jewish Arabs in Yemen, you had Christian Arabs in Jordan, you had pagan Persian-aligned Arabs in Iraq and the Gulf (not sure about the gulf islands themselves).

The real later construction seems to be Islam. Early Islamic history is extremely murky and it's very difficult to tell what actually happened.

As for the OP, regardless of some dodgy Arab chauvinist Hadith (there are supposedly-authentic hadith in favour of basically every position imaginable) it's clear that 21st century Islam *is* a universal religion. The only Muslims who grant some sort of formal special status to the Arabs are Arabs themselves and people with a cultural cringe.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
3) Quran 16:103

وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَٰذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُبِينٌ

Translation: We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.

5) Quran 26:195

بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ

Translation: In a perfect Arabic tongue.

This is a somewhat misleading translation. Rather than 'perfect', "مبين"/mubîn means "clear, manifest", i.e. perfect in its ability to be understood, not perfect in terms of quality. So it's not saying that the Arabic language is superior to other languages, it's saying that the the language of the Qur'an is not jumbled and unclear.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting thread. I'm living totally out of Islamic world, so please be merciful if my following questions sound silly to your ears:

1. OP quoted some source who insisted that Quran and Hadith speak clearly on Arabic eminence among others, but most believers do not know it, so they should not be blamed too much. So, if this part of doctrine is largerly unknown among Muslims, isn't it somehow 'dead'?

2. Quran's references to 'chosen' people are strikingly resembling similar statements in Old Testimony on Jews. We know that Jews were not interested in proselyting their faith among non-Jews. Also, during Mohammed's life, Islam did not spread among non-Arabs, yet - if I'm not mistaken.
My question is, isn't it possible that Mohammed did not actually have the intention to spread Islam among non-Arabs? And even if he meant so, could he possibly imagine the situation that Arabs would quickly conquer many non-Arabic nations, of whom many converted to Islam? Perhaps if he knew, he'd talk differently? (Don't blame me for considering him not a Messenger of God, but merely a religious thinker, since I'm not a Muslim.)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting thread. I'm living totally out of Islamic world, so please be merciful if my following questions sound silly to your ears:

1. OP quoted some source who insisted that Quran and Hadith speak clearly on Arabic eminence among others, but most believers do not know it, so they should not be blamed too much. So, if this part of doctrine is largerly unknown among Muslims, isn't it somehow 'dead'?

the status of Arabic (the language) is actually more contreversial than one might think. There are lot of people (muslim or not) that it has something special to it altough the majority would not agree.

2. Quran's references to 'chosen' people are strikingly resembling similar statements in Old Testimony on Jews. We know that Jews were not interested in proselyting their faith among non-Jews. Also, during Mohammed's life, Islam did not spread among non-Arabs, yet - if I'm not mistaken.

It did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-Arab_Sahabah

Altough pretty rare in itself they were indeed non Arab convert by the time of Muhammad and the religion did start to spread outside of Arabia. Mostly in Sudan/Somalia.

My question is, isn't it possible that Mohammed did not actually have the intention to spread Islam among non-Arabs? And even if he meant so, could he possibly imagine the situation that Arabs would quickly conquer many non-Arabic nations, of whom many converted to Islam? Perhaps if he knew, he'd talk differently? (Don't blame me for considering him not a Messenger of God, but merely a religious thinker, since I'm not a Muslim.)

Very unlikely. It is very clear that islam was thought as a universal religion since the beginning which is unsurprising since it main source of influence was Christianism.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Once again, I can quote Arab Muslim scholars to prove my point.
What about Iranian, Turkish, Indonesian, Indian, or African Muslim scholars?
 
It's worth noting that many modern Arab Islamist groups, such as Hamas, are ideologically Arab nationalist as much as they are Islamist. These two ideological strands often merge imperceptibly into one another. Anyone who has spent some time listening to Arabic songs can attest to this. Take, for example, this Hamas music video:



The title of the Hamas song is "Ana Arabi" which literally means "I am Arab." The entire song is about pride in being Arab and fighting against enemies of Arabs (Zionist Jews). Unlike many non-Arab Islamist groups, who are often confused Arab wannabes, Arab Islamist groups like Hamas have a strong ethno-nationalist component, because Islam and Arab identity are very strongly associated with one another.
 
These two ideological strands often merge imperceptibly into one another.

Again, not particularly unusual. Religion is in most cases an integral part of national identity (see also: Ireland, ex-Yugoslavia, etc. etc.)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The title of the Hamas song is "Ana Arabi" which literally means "I am Arab." The entire song is about pride in being Arab and fighting against enemies of Arabs (Zionist Jews). Unlike many non-Arab Islamist groups, who are often confused Arab wannabes, Arab Islamist groups like Hamas have a strong ethno-nationalist component, because Islam and Arab identity are very strongly associated with one another.
yes, but that's an extremely recent development, in the young history of arab nationalism.

as it's been mentioned, Pan-Arabism was originally conceived in largely Christian Arab circles. The founders of the Baath were Christian Syrians, for instance.

It's only AFTER the Iranian Revolution, the Saudi counter-revolution, and the Camp David accords that the nationalist/islamic identities became intertwined.
 
yes, but that's an extremely recent development, in the young history of arab nationalism.

as it's been mentioned, Pan-Arabism was originally conceived in largely Christian Arab circles. The founders of the Baath were Christian Syrians, for instance.

It's only AFTER the Iranian Revolution, the Saudi counter-revolution, and the Camp David accords that the nationalist/islamic identities became intertwined.
Interesting... Will you develop a bit your arguments, especially the last sentence?
 
Interesting... Will you develop a bit your arguments, especially the last sentence?
It's pretty easy - look at the great Arab movements from before, say 1975. They are pan-Arab. You have various permutations of the United Arab Republic, unifications of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc. These are also essentially secular movements - watch the Battle for Algiers. Christians are members of the PLO.

AFTER the defeat of the Arabs in 1967, changes come afoot. The Saudis and the Gulf Arabs, long in the pocket of the USA, use the oil weapon in 1973. They are suddenly awash in money, nationalize the oil resources, etc. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution happens - but the Siege of Mecca happens as well. Camp David ends the Egyptian war against Israel.

The Saudi reaction is to put the women into tents, send the boys to fight in Afghanistan, and build mosques staffed with Saudi preachers around the world. The embarrassed Pan-Arabism is supplanted by Pan-Islamism, from the multi-national mujahadeen in Afghanistan to the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis working in the Gulf, to the broader anti-shia, anti-iranian program.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
yes, but that's an extremely recent development, in the young history of arab nationalism.

Nope. Every nationalist movement invents a glorious past for that nation, and the glorious past of the Arab nation was the Islamic conquests and Golden Age of Islam. Even as early as the turn of the century Arab nationalists like George Zeidan (a Christian, no less) were writing about the Caliphate as the high water mark of Arab civilisation and an inspiration for Arab unity in the struggle against European colonialism.

The relationship between secular Arab nationalism and modern political Islamism is far more complex than many assume.
 
  • 1
Reactions: