Quite a few of the Prophet's companions were not Arabs, but yes the majority were. Nonetheless, it is more correct to identify as a Muslim before an Arab.

What irritates me greatly is when historians refer to the Muslim scientists of the Islamic Golden Age as "Arabs", when most of them were not Arabs at all. It's such a simpleminded and sweeping generalisation that clearly shows the thoroughness of the so-called orientalists.

I think it may be the preferred nomenclature in the Muslim world since all the people who were conquered are now Muslim - so they should have an easier time accepting the fact of being Islamicized as that's their culture now (whereas bringing up the fact that they were conquered by a foreign people might stir up tensions).

I agree with you about the second point. I guess it's due to the fact that they wrote in Arabic and many of the people they actually belonged to no longer exist (for example al-Khwārizm was from a Persian family but born in what is today Uzbekistan - I actually visited his hometown :)

>What irritates me greatly is when historians refer to the Muslim scientists of the Islamic Golden Age as "Arabs"

To me it's strange to ascribe such areas of study to the religion. What does Islam really have to do with optics besides Ibn Al-Haytham being a Muslim? No one ever ascribes enlightenment science as 'Christian science'.

That seems like a silly thing to get greatly irritated about.

Imagine if all the great Scottish scientists were referred to as 'the English'. That might piss some people off.

I'm sure some people track these sort of tribal affiliations between inhabitants of the British isles over the course of a millenium, too, but again I'd consider it a silly thing to get riled up about.

I think people tend to care about these things when one nation is subjugated by another, more powerful one, which tends to exert its dominance.

Hence the 'weaker' nation feels deprived of its history when its proudest moments are appropriated away.