Replies

No, the origins really were as an Arab superiority cult. Mohammed was an Arab, and Arabs were nomadic tribes who lived by camel and goat herding and by raiding caravans heading to more advanced ME cultures, such as the Persians, the Babylonians, etc. With the collapse of the unity of the Church because of a wave of heresies and the growing separation between East and West, as well as the complete collapse of the Roman Empire, the savage Arab tribes stepped up their attacks.

Mohammed was probably the best military leader, or at any rate, the best warrior, and led his tribal supporters on attacks on their wealthy but now undefended neighbors. Islam was basically a tool in consolidating his power, because he took over the city using the traditional terror techniques and by forcing the conquered people to change their religion, he insured permanent control over them.

To make this a little easier, he came up with a syncretist religion, as Fr. Schall points out: a bit of Jewish ritual law, pagan moon worshipping beliefs, and some Christian figures and images. And, of course, the imposition of pagan Arab customs (polygamy, for example) as part of his new religion.

Only someone descended from Mohammed’s family is technically allowed to be at the top of the heap in islamic religious hierarchy, although there are disputes about exactly what constitutes his family (the Shiites vs the Sunni). That is the reason that the Islamic holy places are in Arabia and the Saudis are “the guardians of the holy places.” That’s the reason the 9/11 jihadis were virtually all Arabs, and that the terrorist groups have arisen in Saudi Arabia or been directed or led by Saudis.

Even the conquered peoples who were forced to convert were not considered equal to Arabs - witness Africa, where the native population was enslaved at the service of the North African Arabs and in fact is still controlled by them.

I think this is something that has to be taken into consideration when dealing with them.