Except for non-Muslims who would be poor, subjugated and extorted in order to enjoy only some of the rights Muslims enjoy.
Have you read the Covenants of Muhammad with the Christians. Non Muslims are to be treated very fairly.
Assuming this is true then Muhammad deserves the credit for nationalism. But then he also deserves all the blame for the bad things about nationalism too.
It was a step forward in our social development. He initiated the process. It was not a perfect system just an evolving one.
The fact is this is not true at all. National entities developed completely isolated from Muhammad's teachings; China & Japan are probably the best examples. England is another good one.
The concept of nationalism spread far and wide after the Muhammadsn Revelation and we can't just say it had no influence on the creation of nation states as countries like America and Australia were not yet discovered. It did have a great imfluence on the world and the west.
Not true at all. There existed
several law codices which can be deemed constitutions which predate the Medina constitution. There is the code of justice set down by Urukagina of Lagash, a king in Sumeria
circa 2300 BC. There's the
Solonian Constitution of Athens in the 6th Century BC. I could go on but I've made my point.
I think it was the first constitution that incorporated different religions and gave religions endowed rights to its citizens.
But they were not the first places of learning in the world. If you're willing to give credit to Muslims for inventing the university is it not just as vital, arguably more so, for you to give credit to the Pagan civilisations who accumulated knowledge for
millennia that people could learn from and improve upon? All learning is derivative.