Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The relationship between Arab and Persian cultures might be considered analogous to that between Roman and Greek cultures.
Why did Arabization occur only where it did?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
The relationship between Arab and Persian cultures might be considered analogous to that between Roman and Greek cultures.
Well, Arabism succeeded where Arabic did, as someone pointed out. And Arabic succeeded where Arab tribes settled. Mountains were not good place for Arabs and usually were more independant of the lowlands, hence the part of the Arab conquests that weren't arabised is what's in Zagros mountains and beyond (although there are some Arabs in inland Iran and even in Afghanistan!). Also, it was quite easy for Iraq, Syria or Egypt to get arabised, because Aramaic, and to lesser extent Coptic, were quite similar to Arabic. When it comes to Maghrib, it got arabised quite late, only after the invasion of Banu Hilal Arabic tribe in XII century I believe, mostly, and even today the process is not complete. Take into account also that pro-Abbasid revolt in Khurasan was an indigenous movement and brought Iranians back to rule to some extent in the eastern regions, and not so long afterward different dynasties of iranian origin spread there, so actually the Arab rule was quite short there. The same goes for Maghrib, as Arabs were mostly just leading Berbers there after they converted, and the states of Rustamids and Idrisids - even if Rustamids were of Persian, and Idrisids of Arabic origin, and Arabic was the language of culture, were actually to much extent Berber-speaking. Which explains why these lands were not easily arabised. Also, they are simply more far away.
Also, take into account that Arabs started settling in Syria and Mesopotamia long before islam, so these lands were already full of them when they were conquered, even if they were Christian Arabs.
Also, take into account that Arabs started settling in Syria and Mesopotamia long before islam, so these lands were already full of them when they were conquered, even if they were Christian Arabs.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Exactly. That said, the individual Arab countries may be somewhat similar to France, Italy and Spain, only closer.
That applies to the Arab world in general. Saddam Hussein and Anwar Sadat in particular enacted policies that represented roll-backs in the Pan-Arab identity. More recently, Assad's Syria was expelled from the Arab league, which may have consequences should Assad win for the Arab self-identification in Syria and Lebanon as well. Furthermore, Berber was recently announced as co-official language in Morocco.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That's my point: The basic premise of Pan-Arab identity is primarily linguistic.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
This
.Places where arab languange went along islam spread were often places where Arabs did settle in numbers (Beni Hilal tribes in Tunisia), were there already (Ghassanides in Jordan), the local spoke a language close to Arabic. In Tunisia for example, many people spoke Punic, a language very close to Arabic. even today Tunisian do call the sun Shems (like in Arabic) or Semsh like in Punic.
Absolution
King
Well, I can find the answer within the question.
By the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, Mesopotamian and Egyptians had already lost much of their identity, being under Persian/Hellenistic/Byzantine rule for several centuries.
The region of Iran had remained independent for most of that time until the Arab conquest, and so did the Persian identity.
In Malaysia it is even clearer.
Similar threads
- Poll
