Islamic history is rife with episodes of battles, wars, and conquests. This is no doubt a result of the divine command to engage in armed struggle or “jihad” against disbelieving polities.

Liberal and modernist polemics against Islam often revolve around the idea of jihad as barbaric, materially motivated invasions coated by a mirage of spiritual justification. When the European history of colonialism is brought up as an example of liberal Western invasions, the expected response tends to be something along the lines of, “What about all the Islamic invasions?”

The underlying suggestion here is that Islamic conquests and European conquests were both, in truth, comparable in their justifications for expansion and intentions toward conquered peoples. But is this an accurate parallel?

The Islamic Origins of International Law

The 11th century scholar, Imam Abu Bakr al-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him), one of the most influential jurists of the Hanafi tradition, is famous for his al-Mabsut. This encyclopedia of Islamic law, specifically in a section known as Kitab al-Siyar, has often been considered the first true work of international law and military ethics still in existence, nearly a millennia prior to the United Nations. It (and the now lost manual it was a commentary on, by Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, may Allah have mercy on him) had influenced the imperial policies of countless Islamic states. Therein, Imam al-Sarakhsi mentions how the people of any nation cannot be fought until the following condition is met:

“…they know what they are being fought for — this is the meaning of the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ never raided a people until he had called them to Islam, and had they [the Muslims] fought them without first inviting them, they would have been sinful in doing so…’“[1]

Of course, it is not always strategically prudent to ensure that every individual citizen has grasped the message in its entirety, as waiting for this could allow disbelieving forces to gain an upper hand. But the moral foundation is clear: violent conquest against all humans on earth are forbidden and sinful for Muslims by default, until they know what they are being fought for, at least on a communal level. Another enlightening passage discusses the subject of dhimmitude, where a heretic is said to have asked:

“How is it permissible to allow a disbeliever to remain in Shirk—which is the greatest of crimes—in exchange for money from him (jizyah)? If that were permissible, it would be permissible to allow an adulterer to remain in exchange for money taken from him!”[2]

Imam al-Sarakhsi’s response is concise, yet informative:

“The objective (of jizyah) is not the money … For by the contract of dhimmah, fighting is ceased entirely … Then, the subject lives among the Muslims, observes the beauties of the religion thus, perhaps he may embrace Islam“[2]

In other words, the goals of an Islamic state towards the people it has brought under its control are quite clear: spreading the message of Islam. This clarity extends to every aspect of Islamic administration. Muslims know the reason why they are engaging in jihad, and the enemy knows the ideology that the Muslims are presenting through conquest and da’wah.

RELATED: Is Jihad ONLY Defensive? Did Islam Spread by the Sword? (UNAPOLOGETIC Answer)

Liberal Violence and the Co-option of Religion

Within the liberal secular frameworks that emerged following the enlightenment period, however, both of these notions would become inconsistent and obscured. The 18th century French invasion of Egypt serves as one of the earliest examples of how a secular state utilizes co-option of religion and carefully tailored propaganda to deceive a Muslim population into submission, while obfuscating entirely the true materialistic and ideological goals of the invaders.

Napoleon Bonaparte is perhaps one of the most famous “great conquerors” of the early modern period. He was a staunch ideologue for progressivism, egalitarianism, and liberal theory, as well as a vicious enemy of the church. The laws and institutions he established deeply influenced Western secular nationhood even into the modern day. But before he was to become as famous in Europe, he would lead a campaign to conquer the resource-rich Muslim nation of Egypt, at that time under the control of the Ottoman Empire. The Somalian ‘alim ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti (may Allah have mercy on him) was one of the firsthand witnesses to Napoleon’s invasion. As a Muslim scholar and denizen of Egypt, his records are of particular value in understanding the methodology of colonial deception. Jabarti was well aware of the liberal ideology that the French Republic promoted and its demonstrably inconsistent application:

“They made this the foundation and basis of their system. This is the meaning of their statement ‘based upon the foundation of liberty and equality’ … They follow this rule: great and small, high and low, male and female are all equal. Sometimes they break this rule according to their whims and inclinations or reasoning.”[3]

The fact that this contradicts Islam on a foundational level would be clear even to the poorest peasants of 18th century Egypt. Yet the French did not openly declare their intention to deform the religion based on these principles. Rather, they avoided presenting themselves as ideologues entirely, claiming to be the true bearers of Islam in contrast with the displaced anti-French, Mamluk elites. In a proclamation written in Arabic and disseminated across the provinces of Egypt shortly after Napoleon’s invasion, he says:

“O ye Egyptians, they (the Mamluks) may say to you that I (Napoleon) have not made an expedition hither for any other object than that of abolishing your religion; but this is a pure falsehood and you must not give credit to it, but tell the slanderers that I have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of the oppressors and that I more than the Mamluks, serve God — may He be praised and exalted — and revere His Prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur’an.

 

[…]

 

O ye Qadis, Shaykhs and Imams … tell your nation that the French are also faithful Muslims, and in confirmation of this they invaded Rome and destroyed there the Papal See, which was always exhorting the Christians to make war with Islam. And then they went to the island of Malta, from where they expelled the Knights, who claimed that God the Exalted required them to fight the Muslims. Furthermore, the French at all times have declared themselves to be the most sincere friends of the Ottoman Sultan and the enemy of his enemies, may God ever perpetuate his empire!”[4]

By presenting the French as Muslims and the Mamluks (the actual Muslim rulers) as oppressors, Napoleon intended to co-opt religion as a means of furthering his own ideology. The fabricated alliance with the Ottoman state, which was asserted in order to legitimize the invasion as backed by the Sultan to remove the Mamluks, is also notable. Through this, Napoleon intended to further deceive the population into viewing the French as servants of the Caliph, thus worthy of obedience. Indeed, Jabarti explains how they would use this exact justification when collecting taxes from the Egyptian peasantry:

“…when they sent a group of Europeans demanding taxes or the like he would have two or three of them change their attire and have them dress like Ottomans. He included in his letters to the populace a warning against disobedience since this was an Imperial decree. So these ruses deceived many of the country-folk and they would obey the orders.”[5]

Jabarti would go on to mention how, much of the rural population believed the French claims of being Ottoman representatives, most likely due to their isolation from international politics. Much of the ‘ulama’ of Egypt would, however, not find the French propaganda compelling. Because of this, French rule would face a near constant stream of civil unrest, motivated by the ‘ulama’ calling for jihad against the disbelieving occupiers. This would no doubt contribute to the eviction of the French just 4 years later in 1801. While criticizing the poor grammar and subversive content of the proclamations, Jabarti states the following:

“‘l have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of the oppressors’, which is the first lie he (Napoleon) uttered and a falsehood which he invented. Then he proceeds to something even worse than that, may God cast him into perdition, with his words: ‘I more than the Mamluks serve God …’. There is no doubt that this is a derangement of his mind, and an excess of foolishness … kufr (disbelief) had dulled his heart, and prevented him from reaching the way of his salvation.”[6]

RELATED: [Book Review] What If, Instead of Ataturk, Turkiye Had Been Shaped by Enver Pasha?

Modern Warfare and “Islamic Modernism”

On the surface, it seems shocking just how brazenly the secular state would lie about its identity and motivations. But this method, sharpened by experience and tailored to a more global and media-literate audience, is precisely the same method used by modern liberal states through the use of “Islamic modernism.” Western material and ideological objectives are furthered by dressing and using the symbols of traditional Islamic figures while smuggling in subversive content.

The legacy of Western expansionism has also merely taken a new form. Wars are launched, millions die, and the people forced under liberal secular domination are not informed of the true agenda of their governments. Muslim populations are told that the West has no qualms with Islam or any other traditional religion, while in truth they are bankrolling modernization movements with the goal of gutting the very same religious establishments. In modern times, the public in Western societies has also been put in a state of cognitive dissonance regarding these endless wars, while soldiers would return home suffering from crippling PTSD after killing people for a nonsensical, evidently fabricated reason. This may be the fulfillment of the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ, when he said:

“By Him in Whose Hand lies my soul, a time will come upon the people when the killer knows not the reason for why he has killed, and the one who has been killed knows not the reason for which he has been killed.”[7]

And Allah ﷻ knows best.

RELATED: Invisible Wounds That’ll Keep Claiming IDF Lives: PTSD and the Gaza War

Notes

[1] Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut, Kitab al-Siyar, Bab Mu’amalat al-Jaysh ma’a ‘l-Kuffar, vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah), 30, Shamela.ws, accessed August 14, 2026, https://shamela.ws/book/5423/2035.

[2] Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut, Kitab al-Siyar, Bab fi Tawzif al-Kharaj, vol. 10 (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah), 77, Shamela.ws, accessed August 14, 2026, https://shamela.ws/book/5423/2082.

[3] ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, Napoleon in Egypt: Al-Jabarti’s Chronicle of the French Occupation of 1798, trans. Shmuel Moreh, introduction by Robert L. Tignor, expanded ed. (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2004), p. 28.

[4] Ibid, pp. 24–26.

[5] Ibid, p. 52.

[6] Ibid, pp. 30–31.

[7] Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Fitan wa Ashrat al-Sa’ah, no. 2908a.