There was never a process where Arab or Muslim conquerors completely replaced the native population, they just added to it. Conversion and Arabization gradually transformed the existing population’s identity. If descent from conquerors means colonizer, then virtually no population on earth is non-colonial. Arabs in Palestine, Normans in England, Turks in Anatolia, Romans everywhere…
Colonizer status is typically attached to an event and structure, not inherited indefinitely.
Interesting perspective. But does that mean that Taylor Swift is just as native as Sitting Bull? Or are descendants of aboriginal Americans more entitled to the land?
Under the most common frameworks for assessing claims about "indigenous status" or "land entitlement", length of continuous inhabitation and external support for migration are big factors. Considering Sitting Bull's lineage likely migrated unsupported from other regimes and his lineage inhabited North America for much longer, it's unlikely Taylor Swift would be considered "just as native." Whether descendants of Sitting Bull are specifically entitled to land is a matter of ongoing legal and cultural dispute.
