It depends what your definition of colinisation is. Pretty much every country conquered and ruled neighbouring towns and states, that's how countries form.

I mean do we consider Russia a colonial power? They conquered huge ammounts of land from poland to alaska. Is that a colonial empire?

Or for the same reason do we count China as one for conquering from tibet to mongolia?

Or the Mongols who ruled the second biggest empire that ever existed?

If we're talking solely conquering overseas lands not connected to your homelands and setting up colonial administrators that ruled over a native population exploited economically and small numbers of settlers, well if you look at the muslim conquests, the Umayyads did that with spain, the fatimids with sicily and the ottomans with algeria and eritrea among others. Perhaps most obviously Oman conquered a series of trade ports in eastern africa where they set up arab administrators based in zanzibar to bring slaves in from tanzania which was almost identical to what the europeans were doing in western africa. And the cholas in southern india led military campaigns against the maldives, sri lanka and indonesia to gain control of the indian ocean trade in much the same manner as the portuguese did hundreds of years later.

And Saadi Morocco led a classically colonial campaign over the 'sea' of the sahara to conquer the songhai and mali people of north africa. They used gunpowder weapons to seize the important salt and gold mines and set up a colonial overclass who were too far away from marrakech to be directly controlled by the sultan but had their own administration which ruled the native africans in the name of morocco and imported black slaves into Morocco.

It's just certain european powers were much more succesful (but not all of them were, polish, danish, prussian and swedish colinisation all happened but never really went anywhere, arguably oman did much better than any of them. Austria, who were undoubtably a major european power, did even worse. When we talk european we mean the british, french, dutch, spanish and portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries with later efforts by belgium, germany and italy in the 19th and 20th. So eight countries.). Essentially other non european powers outside those 8 either were incapable of projecting power enough to do it (morocco had ambitions for american colonies it couldn't fulfill, oman lost control of zanzibar due to british pressure, the ottomans lost their battles with portugal in east africa, india and indonesia and so were unable to project power much beyond the med and red sea) or were unwilling to do so (china could have comfortably spread into taiwan, philippines and indonesia had it desired to do so but state policy viewed that as a waste of time. They only took taiwan because a political rebel had set up base there and the emperor's reaction to that was to say '"Taiwan is no bigger than a ball of mud. We gain nothing by possessing it, and it would be no loss if we did not acquire it.")

So yes essentially the north africans and arabians who wanted to establish overseas empires were unable to do so and the far eastern powers who were able (china primarily but also korea, siam or the mughals and marathas in india) were unwilling to do so. Hinduism for instance has a religious ban on travelling by boat which rather reduces the chance of a hindu colonial empire.

M. N. Pearson also argued that colonial empires only happen in trade orientated countries and that states that gain the great majority of their revenue from agriculture, which most of the indian and chinese/korean states did, act differently and tend to ignore the prospects for revenue from oceangoing trade. Gujarat and the Mughals were both dismissive of fighting wars at sea rather than on land and the swahili cities in africa didn't even have tarrifs on trade.

Macassar, Brunei and Aceh were the asian states to most rely on trade but none were perhaps powerful enough to form a great colonial empire as they were mostly local powers.

Japan was the exception because it had both the desire (because it wanted to prove itself an equal to the european powers) and the capability (because it was incredibly rich and far enough away from europe that it could project power in the area much easier).