I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you. I will focus on the Ottoman Empire, though mostly on the 19th century so not really a time of 'height'

We can see the judgement and views of Western Europe from travelogues made by Ottoman men who traveled there. These travelogues contains curiosity, accompanied with occasional religious rancor but with no accompanying sense of inferiority, disdain, or envy. Travelers to Europe from the Ottoman world who wrote travelogues from the 17th to the early 19th century never fail to notice the sexual, social, and gender differences, and seem to be intrigued by them, but no sense of surprise is evident, and no fantasies are evoked by such sights. If such reactions exists, it was mostly on lower emotional scale and only present on very early travelogues. This less fervent appraisal of Europe by Ottoman travelers probably had to do with the fact that inhabitants of most Ottoman urban centers were closer to Europe and had centuries-long commercial and cultural ties with the West. Though more cautious about public displays of unveiled women and mixed company than in Western Europe, inhabitants of the European quarters of Istanbul and similar areas in other commercial cities such as Izmir, Aleppo, Alexandria and Salonika did not always conform to Ottoman Islamic social codes. For the Ottomans the European West was alien, yet far more familiar and ubiquitous. For example, during his travel to France in the early 18th century Yirmisekiz Celebi Mehmet Efendi recorded rather positive observations. He was certainly aware of cultural differences, and he refers to strange eating habits and to the frequent presence of women in the public sphere, yet he remarks on them with a certain humor and detachment, without any connotation to sexual promiscuity or gratification. Although some of the customs he encountered were anathema to an Ottoman member of the elite, he adapted himself to them with relative ease and portrayed himself as a gallant French gentleman.

However, starting in the mid 19th century, this perceptions changed. With the spread of printing press and mass printing of travel literature, Europe was now viewed as a locus of dynamic change and as a powerful rival and little by little an "Occidentalist" counter-discourse evolved, which attempted to unravel the experience of travelers and to demonstrate Europe’s dark side as well as its possible contribution to Ottoman culture. With the printing of European travelogues, Ottoman readers were shocked when looking in the mirror set up for them by the Orientalist tendencies of the genre. At the time there are two Ottoman travelogue genre to counter this European discourse and to present an equally valid Ottoman one. First, is an ottoman travelogue on the empire’s own "Oriental" places like the Caucasus and in Central Asia, essentially reproducing the themes of European voyagers, presenting to themselves the strange otherness, the quaint sexual morality, and the backwardness of their own East. Second is to painstakingly demonstrate the moral decrepitude of European culture in contrast to their own high moral standards. The latter was particularly ubiquitous in the late 19th century. For example, Midhat Pasha in his book persistently shows the gap between European superiority in science, technology, and material achievement, and its moral inferiority. Although his descriptions of European social and sexual morality are often self-contradictory, he focuses on the corruptibility of Western women as ultimate proof of Ottoman Muslim preeminence. For example in Vienna he listens to a coffeeshop owner describe the plight of the numerous young "fallen women". The owner said that they come from respectable families, but their fathers and brothers have gone broke or lost their money in card games. The girls, educated and well mannered, leave their houses devoid of any means of existence. They become musicians and singers and even play in theaters and casinos for a while, only to finally "fall to the street", where their only option is prostitution. To this, Midhat cynically commented on how he now understands why European women move far from their home to places like Izmir, Salonika, and Syria.

A similar description of European moral decrepitude also comes the Lebanese modernist Jurji Zaydin and Ottoman officer Mehmed Enisi. Zaydin was so affected by the sight of pervasive prostitution that he reversed his good opinions on European women. He also mentions about foundlings, babies discarded by their mothers. He claims that there are eighteen thousand such foundlings in Paris alone each year, and it is all the result of an excess of liberty and a disdain for religion. Zaydin then warns about the outcome of European modernity and liberalism and to keep their morally superior values. Mehmed Enisi, an Ottoman officer on a military expedition to France describes his dicsussion with the French officer in his travelogue. Strolling on deck, the two soldiers argue about the status of women in their societies. The Frenchman accuses Muslims of imprisoning their women. "Aren’t they bored behind those bars all day long?" he asks. "We call it concealment, not prison", responds Enisi, and goes to great lengths to explain how important women’s role is in the Islamic household, and how much they contribute to educating the children and looking after the house. Having convinced the French officer, he now countered. "Our women," he says, "are protected from misfortunes that French and other women of the ‘free’ world are exposed to.” He talks of French women leaving their houses and running away with strangers, and about prostitution and fallen women. He also brings up the same problem of foundlings that Zaydi mention. "Let’s leave your customs to you and ours to ourselves" he concludes. "Our women find nothing useful in your customs"

Simultaneously with their condemnation of European morality, Midhat and other travelers defended Islam and Ottoman culture against what they saw as a distorted representation of Islamic culture. A scantily dressed dancer appearing as a Muslim Arab at the Paris exhibition infuriates Midhat. In an conference in Stockholm he then criticizes the images of voluptuous harem odalisques, and attributes them to poetic imagination rather than to serious academic research. Muhammad Amin Fikri, an Egyptian traveler while responded rather positively on the Paris exhibition saying that the buildings and bazaars are splendid and he doesn't take much offense to the dancer, he noted how his fellow Egyptian visitors are disgusted and embarrassed by the exhibition. He also criticizes the Europeans for overreacting to the dancers and the dervish dancer for doing what was called "dancing" in such a place, something not appropriate for his order.

However as the result of such travelogues, the Occidentalist reaction drove home the claim about the superiority of local morality. Readers of Turkish and Arab travelogues were convinced that their sexual and moral conduct was something to be proud of. On the other hand, molding morality to fit the new standard presented as superior, necessitated far-reaching changes in attitudes toward sex and sexuality. In other words, while reassuring themselves that their culture was still superior to that of Europe, the travelers, as well as their readers needed not only to find fault with Europe but also to redefine their own morality to fit these new standards, or to create an ethics of sex that was absent from discourse before

Sources:

Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East by Dror Ze'evi

An Ottoman Occidentalist in Europe: Ahmed Midhat Meets Madame Gülnar, 1889 by Carter Vaughn Findley

East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century by Fatma Muge Gocek

The existence of "Occidentalism," or, as he prefers, "Ifranjism" in medieval Arabic/Islamic literature is precisely the argument of Nizar Hermes in The [European] Other in Medieval Arabic Literature and Culture.

Hermes takes his term from what Muslims in the Near East called the crusaders (Ifranj => Franks). It is more fitting because, after all, Iberia is as occident as continental Europe gets and parts of it were under Islamic rule for basically the whole Middle Ages. It's still a little wonky because he includes Byzantium with Latin Europe at a few points. However, as he and Nadia El-Cheikh have shown, the medieval Arabic literary relationship with Byzantium is complex and fickle, and Muslim authors often use Byzantium as a foil for the Ifranj.

Hermes makes the following points that align Ifranjism with the general understanding of Orientalism:

1. Medieval Arab Muslim writers were fascinated by Europe (beyond the religious polemic sense). The rest of the book bears this out and it seems obvious, but Hermes points out that--shades of Orientalism!--scholars had long just assumed Muslims only cared about Europe for religious polemic/conversion reasons.

2. Religion was the primary framework through which they defined Us and Them. When Ibn Fadlan visited "Viking" groups along the Volga, he took a purely practical attitude towards the Jurjanis--explaining how they dealt with the cold weather, not using "cold climate" as an explanation of their supposed barbarism...because the Jurjanis were Muslim. Once he realized the Oghuz weren't going to convert, Ibn Fadlan pulled out all the stops to paint them as barbaric. The use of anthropological and climatological factors to define that Other that had already been defined along religious lines was not uncommon. Al-Masudi argued for a version of the ancient Greek climate zones--the farther north you went, the stupider and angrier the people got. He was differentiating, essentially, between Franks and Slavs (as well as between Christians and Muslims).

3. Writers treated Islamic culture as the subject and Christian culture as the object. They saw what they wanted/needed in their object of study--a combination of similarities and differences that highlighted both the superiority of Islamic culture and the validity of the comparison.

4. They emphasize the barbarity and sexuality of the Franks, including by unflattering comparison to the Greeks. (Who, El Cheikh showed, also come in for accusations of being oversexed in other literature). Pagans receive harsher treatment than Christians on these grounds; there is almost more of an air of a dance: al-Ghazal's famous (probably fictional) account of his embassy to (maybe) Ireland or Iceland and the seduction attempt by the Christian queen; Yahya's commentary on the women of Rome as especially beautiful paired with the idea of Romans' sexual prowess.

5. They craft an air of mystery, mythology, and exoticism around Europe and Europeans, especially the city of Rome. Islamic apocalyptic held that Muslims' conquest of Rome was one of the signs of the end of the world, so writers like Harun ibn Yahya emphasized the good points of the city as marvels.

6. The ultimate purpose is to define their own culture by turning the other into what they want to stand against. 10th century polemic stresses the impurity of Christians; a poem from a 9th century prisoner of war in Byzantium depicts Christendom as a place of alienation and separation--that is, utter foreignness.

7. As with Orientalism, the above points paint far too blunt a picture. Of course day-to-day interactions between Muslims and Christians broke the "rules" all the time. But even Arabic literature admits moments of complexity and nuance.

Reading the book, I sort of had the impression that Hermes strove for "Ifranjism" because he had to tack on A Thesis to a really fascinating exploration of medieval Arab Muslims' writing on Christian Europeans. It's definitely a political stance, too--an assertion of the power of a culture that was/is Orientalized, and a demonstration of the ubiquity and timeless of the need to exoticize the Other.

I'm rarely convinced by the "everything we write is defining ourselves" argument. Nevertheless, I think ultimately Hermes presents enough evidence for a mix of description, mythologization, comparison, and fascination with Christian Europeans to justify the term "Ifranjism."