Who can accuse the expansionism of the futuhat period of being imperialist?

Among the common features of nationalist and Islamist movements in the Islamic world is their opposition to colonialism. In general, Marxist movements also share this anti-colonial stance, which aligns them in this regard with nationalist and Islamist movements. However, the groups representing these three movements differ in how they are practiced across various countries. These differences become even more apparent in more distant regions. One notable example is how Marxist groups relate to religion. In Latin America, for instance, movements had a distinctly different relationship with religion compared to other parts of the world. To understand where these differences come from and why they matter, we probably need more comparative studies. The differences among Marxist movements themselves also require explanation. The same goes for nationalist and Islamist movements. For example, the solidarity sometimes seen between nationalist movements needs to be studied more closely to be properly understood.

In our schools, European history is taught in a very superficial way. It is well known that the major frameworks used to teach European history are shaped by specific ideological agendas. The historical narrative built around the colonial expansion of European states spread globally in the 20th century as a kind of universal model. This was clearly a direct result of colonial and imperial expansion. As a result, generalizations like “the West” and “Europe” came to shape our intellectual landscape. It took quite some time before people began to question whether these generalizations were in fact ideological constructs. In reality, the very world that terms like “the West” or “Europe” refer to was also shaped by internal struggles for hegemony. As one astute observation puts it: local histories were marketed globally as universal templates. The so-called “universal principles” were also part of that marketing.

There’s no doubt that concepts like “the West” and “Europe” helped define the agendas of Islamist, nationalist, and Marxist movements in the Islamic world. Comparisons were drawn between the two worlds, and similarities and differences were explored. Since the days when Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Namık Kemal published articles responding to Ernest Renan’s claims about religion and Islam, such comparisons have been ongoing. This trend continued until at least the 1980s. For example, Ismail Gaspıralı also reflected on the similarities and differences between the two worlds. His comparison, based on the concept of justice, remains deeply insightful.

After the 1990s, however, with the U.S. and U.K. reoccupying and invading the Muslim world, comparisons between “the two worlds” began to lose their value. A new era began—one in which judgments were made solely based on Western standards. Orientalists had long judged others, but their conclusions were not widely accepted before. This changed in the 1990s. Even groups categorized as conservative, religious, and nationalist began to adopt Westernized viewpoints. The evolution of their discourse can be traced through literary works, and political columns in newspapers and magazines are especially helpful in revealing this shift. In this regard, the Turkish newspaper Karar has a particularly rich archive. Its writers—seen as representing a “modern, conservative, and Muslim” outlook—generally embrace the label “liberal democrat.” The paper offers valuable material for analyzing the post-1990 transformation. For instance, consider the following striking line from an article by Salih Cenap Baydar titled “We Cannot Overcome the Crisis with Islamism”, published in the May 3, 2025 digital edition of Karar:

“…Islamic states in history grew rich by conquering other countries and collecting taxes… this imperialist mindset…”

For a “modern, conservative, Muslim, and liberal” writer to accuse early Islamic expansion of imperialism represents a major shift. Such a rapid change can only be properly understood through comparative analysis. Of course, these accusations are not entirely new—but they were typically made by Orientalists or those in Westernized intellectual circles.

To frame the historical events known as the Islamic conquests in the language of imperial expansionism is, for a “conservative Muslim” identity, quite a novel development.