In the Arabic speaking world it is inappropriate to ask “what is citizenship?” in the singular. Rather, owing to the linguistic wealth of Arabic this question must be employed in the plural. In Arabic political discourse there are at least four terms: ra‘?yah/ra‘ay?, t?bi‘/atb?‘, jins?yah and muw?tin/muw?tinun; which encompass the web of behaviours and associations connected with the words citizen and citizenship, understood on the basis of its Greco-Roman predecessors polites and civis. This paper focuses on two: jins?yah and muw?tanah because both are intimately tied to the the nation-state, and thus to the so-called modernity project in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The prevailing literature has treated these as little more than labels, lending a degree of regional authenticity to an otherwise assumed universal analogy. Hence the ease with which democratisation studies in-particular have taken for granted the existence of a model of citizenship facilitative of liberal democracy. Yet, they are derived from dissimilar roots, j-n-s and w-t-n respectively, and therefore refer to different forms of association and behaviour. It is the state construct that brings them together, and in whose advent they came into existence. Within this context then, my position is to assert that when scholars discuss modern/contemporary citizenship in the Arab world both jins?yah and muw?tanah must be taken together, effectively as two sides of a single concept. Conceptualising jins?yah and muw?tanah in this way elucidates their inherent relationship while not denying their very distinct pedigrees, and therefore capacities, as drivers for political action on the part of citizens. I argue that comprehending the contests over, and changing behaviours of citizens in the Arab world in response to their citizenship can be further advanced. Specifically, insofar as citizenship regimes in an Arab context are divided between jins?yah, and muw?tanah. While the former is the preserve of the state, and thus concerns questions of recognition, the latter contrastingly centres on residing within an identified space. This may or not be contiguous with the borders of the nation-state. It is through this residence, and the constructions of individual and collective self and other, that facilitates claim-making by these actors, to which the state is called to respond. Such offers a unique perspective with which to analyse contemporary realities of citizenship regimes in the MENA, and their different trajectories following the uprisings of 2011.