Why did Arabization occur only where it did?

[Mouthwash]

Why don't Iranians or Malaysians today consider themselves Arabs? They were certainly influenced, both linguistically and socially. The native Egyptians or Mesopotamians could have preserved their own identities the same way. How did the process of Arabization settle along these lines?

 

[Tahuti]

First, Malaysia was never directly conquered by the Arabs, pretty much a prerequisite for Arabisation. Islam spread there through trade with the Arab world, so the Malay pretty much conserved their own culture, as did the Indonesians.

Iran is kinda special: Persians often achieved positions in Arab society and many of the great Arab philosophers (I think Al-Farabi was one of them) were actually Persians. Farsi became a popular language among Arab scholarly circles. So the Arabs went kinda easy on the Iranians, one might say. Eventually, Iran slipped from the grip of the Arabs quite fast due to the Turkish and Mongol conquests and Persia's subsequent independence.

There was no such pressure in Palestine, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Libya etc. The Arabs just considered its inhabitants and their tongue to be simple minded peasants when they got there, so assimilation ensued. That being said, local identities never truly died: Saddam Hussein wanted to move away from the Pan-Arab identity towards a Mesopotamian one, you have Phoenicianist and Pan-Syrian movements in the Levant and Anwar Sadat emphasised a more Egyptian identity to justify Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in the face of Pan-Arab ostracision of Egypt.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wonder how early on the peoples in the areas considered themselves Arab. Did they previously consider themselves Greek or Roman?

 

[Mouthwash]

I wonder how early on the peoples in the areas considered themselves Arab. Did they previously consider themselves Greek or Roman?

I imagine Egyptians would have defined themselves in religious terms. Independence was a alien concept at that point, and the traditional Egyptian theology was dead. That's why they embraced Islam and its associated culture.

I actually have no idea, though.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I have at least some idea about the reasons for embracing Islam. But my question is more about embracing the identity of "Arab." For example, when did they stop considering themselves Egyptian instead of Arabic (or do they still not view themselves as Arab)? For purposes of my question, I would argue that considering oneself "Egyptian Arab" or some similar variant is the same as identifying oneself as Arab. Although, if something analogous happened prior where they saw themselves as Egyptian Romans as opposed to Egyptians, that might be informative.

I'm doubtful the sources are good enough to tell one way or the other, but I'd be curious if anyone has a good answer or theory.

 

[awesome]

i did some digging and found a couple articles.
-the rosetta stone itself was carved in 196 bc, around the midpoint between when it was taken from persia by greece and taken from greece by rome. hieroglyphics was still being used at this point, even though it had been under foreign control for several centuries
-this article notes that there was a strong egyptian culture still in egypt at the time of cleopatra, so they still had an egyptian identity and didn't consider themselves greek (or persian, or whoever else conquered them).
-this timeline says that hieroglyphics were used until about the 4th century ad.


so they definitely didn't consider themselves greek, but i can't find anything about whether or not they considered themselves roman. i can't find anything about egyptian rebellions under the greek or romans.

 

[MilesGregarius]

In the case of Egypt, I would assume linguistics played a major role. Once the Egyptian language was replaced in everyday use by Arabic, Egyptians became Arabs.

Neither Iranians nor Malaysians nor Pakistanis speak Arabic in their daily lives. By maintaining a language of their own, they maintain a cultural identity of their own.

 

[Agent327]

I imagine Egyptians would have defined themselves in religious terms. Independence was a alien concept at that point, and the traditional Egyptian theology was dead. That's why they embraced Islam and its associated culture.

I actually have no idea, though.

You seem to have missed the rather obvious fact that there still is a Coptic church in Egypt today, after centuries of Islam.

I have at least some idea about the reasons for embracing Islam. But my question is more about embracing the identity of "Arab." For example, when did they stop considering themselves Egyptian instead of Arabic (or do they still not view themselves as Arab)? For purposes of my question, I would argue that considering oneself "Egyptian Arab" or some similar variant is the same as identifying oneself as Arab. Although, if something analogous happened prior where they saw themselves as Egyptian Romans as opposed to Egyptians, that might be informative.

If you'd ever been to Egypt, you might have noticed that Egyptians still very much consider themselves Egyptian.

It's one of the reasons why panarabism is quite dead. The only thing really linking all Arab countries is their language. Religious differences abound.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm aware of the existence of the Coptic Church and am not going to refute strawmen.

 

[Agent327]

If you are aware of this fact, whence your outlandish claim that Egyptian theology is dead and that that is supposedly a partial explanation for arabization?

 

[Plotinus]

i did some digging and found a couple articles.
-the rosetta stone itself was carved in 196 bc, around the midpoint between when it was taken from persia by greece and taken from greece by rome. hieroglyphics was still being used at this point, even though it had been under foreign control for several centuries
-this article notes that there was a strong egyptian culture still in egypt at the time of cleopatra, so they still had an egyptian identity and didn't consider themselves greek (or persian, or whoever else conquered them).
-this timeline says that hieroglyphics were used until about the 4th century ad.


so they definitely didn't consider themselves greek, but i can't find anything about whether or not they considered themselves roman. i can't find anything about egyptian rebellions under the greek or romans.

You're assuming that language correlates to perceived self-identity, though. Just because someone used hieroglyphics doesn't necessarily mean they didn't see themselves as Greek or Roman.

More importantly, it's a mistake to lump everyone in Egypt in late antiquity together. It depends very much on what part of it you're talking about. People in Alexandria spoke Greek and regarded themselves as cosmopolitan elite members of the empire. They referred to their city as being "next to" Egypt rather than in it. People in the countryside spoke Coptic and regarded themselves as Egyptian. The two groups rarely met - it was quite possible to live a few miles from Alexandria and never visit it. This is why there were such disgreements among the monastic communities in Egypt in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, because those communities were drawn from both the Copts and the Greeks, as well as from people outside Egypt altogether, and they found that they had very different cultural approaches to religion.

If you are aware of this fact, whence your outlandish claim that Egyptian theology is dead and that that is supposedly a partial explanation for arabization?

He obviously meant the traditional Egyptian pagan religion, not Christian theology.

However, even though Egypt was wholly Christian by the seventh century (at least, assuming it was - no doubt paganism still survived at least to some degree), it's still the case that it was a distinctive kind of Christianity. Basically there were two rival church organisations in Egypt on the eve of the Muslim conquests. The majority church was the Coptic one, which was theologically Monophysite and subject to persecution from the Byzantine authorities. The minority church was the Chalcedonian one, in full communion with the rest of the empire, but contemptuously referred to as "Melkites" or "emperor's men" by the Monophysites.

So in other words Egypt was theologically distinct at the time of the Muslim invasions. This was tied to linguistic distinction, since the Monophysite church was largely Coptic-speaking and the Melkites were Greek-speaking. But this didn't prevent Arabisation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

There might be something to it. If Egypt (Alexandria excepted) saw themselves as distinct and maintained a distinct variation of Christianity, could the decline of a distinct religion lead to their adoption of the Arabic identity? Although I wonder when that occurred. I know Egypt was Shi'a (or, at least had Shi'a rulers) at the time of Saladin. Did they see themselves as Arab during the rule of the Fatimids?

I will note one possible explanation I pretty much rejected and no one has suggested, but has been suggested in similar debates elsewhere: the idea that people are Arab because Arabs replaced the earlier populations (i.e., the theory often advanced for Anglo-Saxons in Great Britain). I don't find the theory all that plausible, but that's another one right there.

 

[Tahuti]

I will note one possible explanation I pretty much rejected and no one has suggested, but has been suggested in similar debates elsewhere: the idea that people are Arab because Arabs replaced the earlier populations (i.e., the theory often advanced for Anglo-Saxons in Great Britain). I don't find the theory all that plausible, but that's another one right there.

Well, Muslim rulers actually had an interest in a large Dhimmi population as it would generate a large stream of tax revenue from Jizya. However, many Christians and Jews eventually converted to Islam to avoid the Jizya and probably Arabised in the process.

Compare how the Turks Turkified Anatolia. Most modern Turks are probably Islamised Greeks that speak the Turkish language.

 

[timtofly]

Why don't Iranians or Malaysians today consider themselves Arabs? They were certainly influenced, both linguistically and socially. The native Egyptians or Mesopotamians could have preserved their own identities the same way. How did the process of Arabization settle along these lines?

It was the spread of a religion, not an ethnicity. It takes generations and strong families to build an ethnicity. The desert people of Saudi Arabia never really spread out past their borders, but they were good communicators and traders. They formed strong bonds with other people groups and influenced them in ideology and religious practices. Even Greeks and Romans did not spread that far as an ethnicity, but neither did they have a strong religious ideology. They were more cultural and controlling entities. While their control eventually fell apart, the strength of their culture lasted longer than their ethnicity.

 

[Agent327]

Interesting observation. Although the religion primarily spread through the language of Qu'ran: Arabic. (And the not to be underrated initial tax freedom for Muslims.)

He obviously meant the traditional Egyptian pagan religion, not Christian theology.

However, even though Egypt was wholly Christian by the seventh century (at least, assuming it was - no doubt paganism still survived at least to some degree), it's still the case that it was a distinctive kind of Christianity. Basically there were two rival church organisations in Egypt on the eve of the Muslim conquests. The majority church was the Coptic one, which was theologically Monophysite and subject to persecution from the Byzantine authorities. The minority church was the Chalcedonian one, in full communion with the rest of the empire, but contemptuously referred to as "Melkites" or "emperor's men" by the Monophysites.

So in other words Egypt was theologically distinct at the time of the Muslim invasions. This was tied to linguistic distinction, since the Monophysite church was largely Coptic-speaking and the Melkites were Greek-speaking. But this didn't prevent Arabisation.

Thank you. (I was aware that pagan theology was implied, but in the 7th century this might hardly have played a role either way.)

 

[sydhe]

Arabization was most successful when Arabic replaced a related language, either Semitic or one of the "Hamitic" languages such as Egyptian that have some structural similarities (such as words based on three consonant structures). The general family is called Afro-Asiatic, and Coptic is a member despite being written in a modified Greek alphabet.

Farsi and the languages of northern India are Indo-European. Malay is a different language family, but I don't remember which.

 

[awesome]

You're assuming that language correlates to perceived self-identity, though. Just because someone used hieroglyphics doesn't necessarily mean they didn't see themselves as Greek or Roman.

More importantly, it's a mistake to lump everyone in Egypt in late antiquity together. It depends very much on what part of it you're talking about. People in Alexandria spoke Greek and regarded themselves as cosmopolitan elite members of the empire. They referred to their city as being "next to" Egypt rather than in it. People in the countryside spoke Coptic and regarded themselves as Egyptian. The two groups rarely met - it was quite possible to live a few miles from Alexandria and never visit it. This is why there were such disgreements among the monastic communities in Egypt in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, because those communities were drawn from both the Copts and the Greeks, as well as from people outside Egypt altogether, and they found that they had very different cultural approaches to religion.

well, of course you can't lump everybody under one label. there will always be exceptions. my point was that there is strong evidence that a lot of people in egypt didn't see themselves as greek and i'm guessing they saw the romans the same as they saw the greeks.
it's kind of like how a lot of people in the usa see themselves either as americans second or not americans at all, but the vast majority of people see themselves as americans.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Arabization was most successful when Arabic replaced a related language, either Semitic or one of the "Hamitic" languages such as Egyptian that have some structural similarities (such as words based on three consonant structures). The general family is called Afro-Asiatic, and Coptic is a member despite being written in a modified Greek alphabet.

Farsi and the languages of northern India are Indo-European. Malay is a different language family, but I don't remember which.

Was Arabic ever a significant language in Anatolia? I know Byzantine rule and Seljuk rule, but did it go Greek to Turkish without much in between?

 

[Ajidica]

Was Arabic ever a significant language in Anatolia? I know Byzantine rule and Seljuk rule, but did it go Greek to Turkish without much in between?

I don't believe Arabic ever caught on in Anatolia, and I remember reading that up until the collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate you could find villages in western Anatolia still speaking Greek.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't believe Arabic ever caught on in Anatolia, and I remember reading that up until the collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate you could find villages in western Anatolia still speaking Greek.

Greek Muslims?