Huh? Nobody said the Japanese or the Koreans were tribal. They are very ancestor linked, like the pre-Christian Romans, and of course also very class bound.
Tribalism was one of the first things conquered in Europe by Christianity. It took a long time - the further north they went, the more tribal the countries, with Germany being very, very tribal and hostile to Christianity until nearly the 9th century.
However, whatever its problems, Europe ceased to be tribal in many areas with the spread of Christianity and in many others tribalism was already on the decline because of the advance of Roman concepts of citizenship and nation.
It varied in the ME. Tribalism was also something that Judaism ended up fighting against as its concept of tribe expanded beyond that of blood and into those who accepted the Covenant (as Judaism finally began to admit converts, although this was certainly not without opposition). This, of course, was infinitely expanded by Christianity, which was the death of blood-based tribalism.
By the time of the Mohammed, the remaining tribal groups were mostly pagan. Mohammed came from one of these pagan tribes, and his syncretist religion combined tribalism (the special status of being one of his descendants, through one line or another) and beliefs in Arab superiority with the realization that a religious cult provided the best way of subduing other tribes or even states in the undefended, post-Roman world.
Two horrendous twentieth century wars suggest that Europe didn't quite cease to be in some sense "tribal" for some centuries after Rome, or if not literally "tribal" then not immune to some of the same enmities and violence acted out on a much greater scale than that of mere tribes.
Somebody posts Times stories from 70 years ago here each week. Reading about what was going on in Europe then might make us a little less smug about our own superiority.
You seem to be enamored of a "non-tribal West vs. tribal Arabs" model, but historically both civilizations combined tribal and non-tribal elements, or at least aggregative and disaggregative elements. To different degrees, to be sure, but it wasn't a black-white, all or nothing contrast between the two civiizations.
Also, you're talking about two different things. First, the ability of religions to produce a community of believers (organized against other communities with other beliefs), and second, the reorganization of society into nations, rather than tribes. The second process may have begun earlier and gone farther in the West, but the first occured in other cultures as well as our own.