The linguistic dichotomy of Bedouin- and sedentary-type dialects is still commonplace in Arabic dialectology, though very few specific linguistic features have been identified hitherto as typically “Bedouin” or, more precisely, “Bedouin-only” features. For this reason and due to the major socio-demographic changes of the last decades, some scholars in the field have recently questioned the usefulness of the Bedouin-sedentary dichotomy. This paper does not claim to provide a final answer to the question posed in the title, which touches on one of the most complex issues in the linguistic history of Arabic. Rather, it aims to discuss some basic questions related to the Bedouin-sedentary split and recommends looking for further features that might help to linguistically underpin it. In particular, it questions the usefulness of “linguistic conservatism” as a major criterion for characterizing Bedouin Arabic. And it proposes to look for more “Bedouin-only” or “sedentary-only” features, for bundles of features that connect certain dialects, and for hitherto unconsidered features such as prosody. Although the commonly assumed dichotomy alone cannot provide answers to many of the open questions regarding the history of spoken Arabic, it may prove useful as a heuristic tool for explaining certain peculiarities of Arabic dialects. In particular, it may help us to understand the role nomadic people with their large-scale mobility play in the development of Arabic.