Why do we call the conquests of the Companions "Islamic conquests" and not "occupations"?

There is no equivalence between Islamic conquests and military occupations; there are clear differences between them:

1. Objective: Military occupation aims to seize wealth and subjugate peoples, while Islamic conquests aim to deliver the true religion and guide people to Allah, with the mujahideen being commanded to invite people to Islam before fighting. If they embrace Islam, the Muslim army withdraws from their lands and does not seize their possessions.

2. Ethics: Occupations attach no value to ethics and commit war crimes. Islamic conquests, however, are based on justice and benevolence. Only combatants are fought, others are not harmed, and prisoners are treated well.

3. Resources: Occupation plunders resources, eliminates anyone who obstructs its tyranny, and spreads ignorance. Islamic conquests, however, make the resources of the conquered land primarily for its people.

4. Treatment of Peoples: The occupier practices racial discrimination, whereas Islamic conquests equalize those who embrace Islam and Muslims in rights and obligations. Those who choose to remain on their religion enjoy protection and security in exchange for a symbolic jizya (tribute), and they are defended in battle. They are not coerced into Islam.

In summary, Islamic conquests differ from military occupations in their objective, aim, and means. They aim to open lands to the mercy and justice of Islam.