It is common today in both Islamic and non-Islamic scholarship to associate the terms 'conquest' and 'empire' with Islam, Muslims and Islamic civilization.

However, this is highly inappropriate. This association is partly due to the efforts of former Muslim colonial powers and partly to the pseudoscience of Orientalism, which aimed to undermine Muslims and belittle their faith and civilization. 

The historical and practical truth is that Muslims main objective was never to conquer others and build empires as a result. There were, of course, many unfortunate episodes in the long and colorful history of Islamic civilization, often led by unqualified individuals, but these were exceptions that cannot invalidate the long-standing rule.

The civilizational contributions of Muslims were so rich and diverse that those exceptions pale in comparison to the legacies created by the Muslim mainstream. 

The word “conquest” was coined in the 14 th century and means “to defeat and subjugate an adversary by an armed force” and “to occupy and take control of a country or city through the use of force.” The word originated from the past participle of Vulgar Latin “conquaerere” which means "to search for, procure by effort and win" (www.etymonline.com). 

In the context of “conquest”, “to search for” implies “seeking opportunities, resources and goods, wherever they may be”, “procure by effort” indicates “going all out to get, by any means necessary, what is searched for”, and “win” alludes to “overcoming all existing and potential obstacles to keep what is acquired, again by any means necessary.” 

Moreover, the word “empire” was also created in the 14th century and signifies "territory subject to an emperors rule," "supreme authority of an emperor," and “generally absolute and unquestionable power in governing” (www.etymonline.com). The concept of “empire” is an outcome of the political theory centered on the idea of divinely sanctioned authority. 

Accordingly, emperors were not accountable to the people or to any aspect of their realm or this worldly life in general, but rather directly to a heavenly authority or to themselves.

It is no wonder that both “conquest” and “empire” were created and gained currency at a time when the emerging European powers were plotting to conquer and colonize the world, ostensibly in the name of exploration and discovery, and to create empires that would thrive, just as they were set to be created, on the premises of occupation, subjugation, oppression and exploitation. 

However, what Muslims have done throughout their history in their interactions with others has nothing to do with the notion of “conquest.” Additionally, their organization as a political community, whether under a single government or multiple governments, has nothing to do with the idea of “empire.” 

The overarching task of the Prophet and Muslims

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was instructed to convey the Islamic message revealed to him to the world, not to conquer and convert it, nor to create worldly kingdoms. Enlightening minds and purifying hearts was the Prophet’s primary focus from the first day and remained so down the line. 

Both the world and people belong to Almighty Allah. They are part of a greater and more significant dominion. The record needed to be set straight, especially regarding who is who and what is what in the grand scheme of things. People were to be shown why and how not to worship creation but the Creator, and why and how not to deify people but the Lord of people. 

What people needed on Earth was liberation from various forms of falsehood, with polytheism being just one example. This liberation would set them on the path to self- affirmation and self-fulfillment.

They also needed the resulting freedom as a lifestyle, allowing people to make their choices freely and to live and die honorably by them. Finally, people needed a new sense of direction towards serving the Creator alone, instead of serving the idols of the mind, animalism and matter. 

Putting it another way, people needed to be acquainted with the final Messenger and the final message given to him (the final and ultimate Testament).

They needed supportive social and political environments where they could freely accept or reject Islam, meaning they could take responsibility for their thoughts, actions and their consequences, and be in control of their own destinies. 

To be a believer (Muslim and mu’min) or otherwise (kafir), one must undergo this process of emancipation and perform the essential duty of affirmation. The Qur’an states: “And say: 

‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve” (al-Kahf 29). 

There is no “conquest” in Islam, but only “fath” (opening territories, minds and hearts to Islam) 

The Prophet and the generations of his followers were desirous of providing the world with what it needed. They were committed to "opening" (fath) countries and territories, along with their diverse contexts, to the light of Islamic monotheism, aiming to "open" the minds and hearts of people for the same purpose. 

Instead of conquering cities and villages, Muslims aimed to "unlock" and "open" them for the spread of truth and for better communication, interaction and dialogue. Rather than conquering and enslaving people, Muslims sought to liberate and "conquer" their spiritual and cerebral capacities. 

Muslims wished to win over and capture hearts and minds, for there is no authentic Islam without freedom, and no Islamic fraternity – nay, Islamic civilization - is possible without truly free and enlightened individuals. To be sure, Islamic civilization was at its finest when the spiritual, moral and enlightening determinants were at the helm. 

However, as soon as the priorities became confused, and the obsession with conquest for its own sake and the creation of kingdoms for the sake of expansion took hold, Islamic civilization, along with all the goodness associated with its miraculous ideals and tenets, began to decline. 

 That is why the Qur’anic concept of “fath” (opening, unlocking), which is bracketed with overpowering and taking control of cities and countries, is wrongly translated as “conquest.”  

As seen above, the Islamic notion of “conquest” is totally different from the conventional versions found in other so-called civilizations. 

There is a world of difference between “fath” and “conquest.” While the former involves opening, liberating, empowering and nurturing, the latter involves locking up, subjugating, yoking and debilitating.

As a result, creating Islamic states and even monarchies within the framework of the “fath” standard was a by-product. It was a principled expediency demanded by the pressing exigencies of the corollaries of “fath.” 

Creating different political realms was a means—though with some exceptions—serving “fath” as the ultimate goal. Through the lens of Islam, fighting was seen as a form of mercy, and “fath” was viewed as a blessing. 

In Islam, all authority and rule belong solely to Allah  

In passing, it is an Islamic tenet that all authority and rule belong solely to Allah. He is the Creator and Lord; people are merely His creation and servants. Under no circumstances can titles be exchanged. People are referred to as powerful and rulers only symbolically.  

The only true kingdom is that of Allah: the Kingdom of Heaven. The scope of humanity does not exceed servitude to Allah and service to one another, for “there is no power or strength except through Allah, the Most Exalted and All-High, the Magnificent and All-Mighty.” 

Due to this, the books on the laws of Islamic governance, such as al-Mawardi’s “al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah,” focus on outlining the divinely guided limits of rulers jurisdictions and their responsibilities towards the Creator, the religion of Islam and people, including non-Muslims. 

It is as if their rights have disappeared from the spotlight. Instead of holding power, those in authority are illustrated as being at the service of others. 

Similarly, al-Farabi’s “Ara’ Ahl al-Madinah al-Fadilah” presents the concept of an ideal Islamic state through the idea of a madinah or a series of madinahs—urban environments that serve as the nerve centers of states. The goal of this political philosophy is to optimize both the earthly and spiritual aspects of humanity through collective justice, proper interactions and cooperation. Polities that lack these elements are not ideal states; instead, they are rooted in and directed towards jahiliyyah (ignorance). 

As said by Isma’il al-Faruqi: “The task the Muslim conceived was global; and he wanted to be sure he had fulfilled it all. The nature of the task was moral and religious, for the Muslim was concerned neither with political office nor with economic advantage.

It was an earth governed by a new world order that he sought to establish; an earth where no injustice can escape without meeting its just redress; where ideas are free to travel and men are free to convince and be convinced; and where Islam can call men to the unity of God, of truth and of value.” 

Acts of distortion of history and truth 

Thus, for illustrative purposes, "fath Makkah", Ottoman Sultan Mehmed al-Fatih and "futuhat Islamiyyah" cannot be translated as "the conquest of Makkah," Mehmed the Conqueror and "Islamic conquests", respectively. Doing so would distort history and misrepresent the extraordinary personalities and events associated with them, which could discredit them.  

Simply put, this would be unjust. Those terms should either be kept in Arabic or be Arabized and incorporated into other languages. 

Muslims fought only in self-defense and to stand against the forms of fecund injustice and tyranny that prevented their people from being free—ideologically, physically, or both—from engaging with the latest revelation to humanity, allowing them to make their own choices. 

If Muslims had to physically remove the embedded material and immaterial obstacles, empowering people to freely choose their own beliefs and values, they would then be obliged to stay to ensure that old despotic governing patterns did not return and force people back into repulsive old ways. 

The political entities and governmental systems that emerged from this approach were seen by Muslims as caliphates, states, sultanates, or other forms of rulership. These entities were, to varying degrees, guided by the principles of madinah (the idea of an ideal city-state), ummah, tawhid, ijtihad, maqasid al-shari’ah (the objectives of Shari’ah) and al-siyasah al-shar’iyyah (good governance based on the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah). 

To consider any of the Islamic polities or states as empires is an intellectual misstep. For instance, viewing the Ottoman caliphate and state as an empire—despite its self-identification as “The Sublime Ottoman State" (Devlet-i Alîye-i Osmânîye), "The Well-Protected Domains" (Memâlik-i Mahrûsa) and “Caliphate” (Hilâfet Makami), with the Ottoman sultans serving as both caliphs and defenders of the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah—disrespects the Ottomans and their civilizational legacy, as well as the broader Islamic community. 

The agents of the Western colonialism project were aware of their actions. Their methods ranged from subtle to coarse and vulgar. Sir Richard Burton, who referred to the entire Muslim polity as either “an extended empire” or “Caliph-empire,” exemplified the latter.  

He even interpreted Almighty Allah’s Power and Dominion (al-Mulk) as “the empire.” Franz Rosenthal, the translator of Ibn Khaldun’s “Muqaddimah,” represented the former. He irresponsibly translated innocent terms of Ibn Khaldun, such as “al-mamalik al-Islamiyyah” (“Islamic states”) and “amr al-Islam” (“the case of Islam - as a religion, state and civilization”), as “the Islamic empire.” 

The objective was to distort and misrepresent the truth, so that new constructions and historical narratives would justify a specific behavior from the West, while absolving it of its criminal colonization and “mission to civilize” actions against Muslims. Muslims needed to be portrayed like other historical perpetrators of crimes, leading to calls for the world’s liberation from them and their influences. 

Hence, the accusations suggested that just as Muslims conquered the world to build empires, the conquered regions needed to be liberated, either by re-conquering them, like the Spanish Reconquista, or by transforming them beyond recognition, as was done with the former Ottoman provinces in the Balkans. 

Needless to say, since the Ottomans were the latest torchbearers of Islamic civilization, whose influence extended deep into Europe, they attracted labels such as “barbarians,” “the lasting peril” and “the rod of God’s wrath.” Consequently, they were targeted the most.  

In the eyes of the West, their actions were seen as nothing but merciless conquest and colonial hegemony, aimed at both the Occident and the Orient. 

 This way, the West managed to close most of its doors to anything genuinely Islamic and Muslim, after many of these doors had been opened (fath) and the rest were also meant to be opened. Like so, furthermore, the West’s mild disorder of religiophobia morphed into the cancer of Islamophobia. 

An example of Portugal in Brazil and Muslims in Portugal 

Finally, according to an anecdote, a person was bragging that Brazil was under Portugal for more than three centuries, which is why the Brazilians are now Christians and speak Portuguese. At this, he was asked why, after living under Arab-Islamic civilization for over five centuries, the Portuguese people are neither Muslims nor can speak Arabic. The man was baffled. 

The reason he was told was that Portugal was neither conquered nor colonized by Muslims, nor was it part of a Muslim empire. The Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula, like everywhere else, was much nobler and more consequential than mere conquest, colonization and empire-building.