Islamism- Not that bad?

[Fahran]

Ashur Sarnaya, a wheel-chair bound Assyrian Christian who fled Iraq to escape ISIL and a prominent social media critic of Islamist organizations, is believed to have been assassinated by three Islamists in France.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

There are two big moslem faiths in the world. Both are ridiculously bonkers in the theology.

Mainstream Islam (Green Faith)



A faith founded by a warmonger as a way to unite all the tribes of Arabia. It succeeded on doing so and continues to expand either by violence or trade. Their view about Jesus was that he ascends to the heavens instead of dying.

Ahmaddiya (Black Faith)



A faith founded by the so-called messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in India before its independence. It states that their founder was the reincarnation of Jesus.

[Prydania]

I do think our resident Islamists are hypocrites when they decry Christianity being spread via conquest when Mohammad himself was a warlord and used spreading Islam as a vehicle for Arabic imperialism and colonization... like you don't get to throw stones when you're not without sin, ya know?

Still, I don't feel comfortable attacking Islam and Muslims because of how Mohammad went about his business. Re-litigating wars from the 600s and 700s isn't going to change much about the modern world we live in. And in the modern world we live in there are plenty of good, decent people who are Muslims. I don't believe in denigrating their faith or prophet. I may not share either, but it's not my place to denigrate them. I just wanna point out that Muslims have no room to talk about Christianity being spread via the sword

Bigger picture though? The particulars about religious wars over a thousand years ago isn't the key point here, because this topic shouldn't be about Islam.

It should be about the evils of Islamism, which is a very modern political ideology that is unworkable without large scale oppression of a multitude of flavours.

[Pulo Ka Satu]

In Western discourse, the term Islamism is almost always equated with terrorism, security threats, and anti-democracy. Yet an honest academic analysis reveals that Islamism is not a single entity. It manifests in diverse forms: from armed radical groups to political parties that contest elections. Ennahda in Tunisia, for instance, not only participated in elections but even voluntarily stepped down from power to preserve political stability – a move rarely seen among political parties in Europe or the United States.

Here lies the hypocrisy of the West. Christian Democrats in Europe are accepted as normal, as if Christianity poses no threat to democracy. But when Muslims form political parties based on Islam, they are instantly branded as a “creeping sharia” threat. Why does this double standard exist? Is democracy only legitimate when it aligns with Western values, yet suddenly “dangerous” when Muslims demand the same right?

Worse still, the secularism glorified as the “guarantor of freedom” has repeatedly failed. Iraq after the U.S. invasion is no beacon of democracy, but a fractured state rife with corruption and violence. Afghanistan, after 20 years of a Western “democracy project,” ended with the Taliban back in power – a total failure. Libya, after NATO “saved” it, has become a hub for human trafficking. Palestine continues to suffer under an occupation shielded by Western democracies themselves. If this is the true face of secularism and liberalism, then who is actually more dangerous to the world?

At its core, Islamism is not merely about political power. It offers an alternative ethical vision: social justice, zakat to protect the poor, rejection of usury, and the integration of religion with political morality. If the West truly believes in freedom of choice, why are Muslims not allowed to choose political Islam as their path?

The truth is simple: the problem is not Islamism. The problem is the West’s fear. Fear that Islamism might dismantle the Western monopoly over defining democracy, human rights, and moral values. The West may continue to control the narrative, but history is moving forward. And when Muslims begin defining democracy on their own terms, the real question becomes: which is truly “not that bad” – Islamism, or the West’s failing secularism?

I fully agree with the argument above. For too long, the West has portrayed Islamism as a threat, when in fact historical and political evidence shows that Islamism can operate democratically, compromise when needed, and even provide a clearer ethical vision compared to Western secularism, which has repeatedly failed. I agree that the real problem is not Islamism itself, but the West’s fear of losing its monopoly over the definition of democracy, human rights, and morality. Democracy is not an exclusive right of the West – Muslims have the right to shape it on their own terms. That is why I support the view that Islamism is not a threat, but a legitimate, just, and more authentic alternative to the West’s hypocritical secularism.

[Stellar Colonies]

My counter:
Islamic values have no relevance or notable influence amidst my life or community, and I have no interest in my society being reshaped by them via external force.

[General Atomics International]

In Western discourse, the term Islamism is almost always equated with terrorism, security threats, and anti-democracy. Yet an honest academic analysis reveals that Islamism is not a single entity. It manifests in diverse forms: from armed radical groups to political parties that contest elections. Ennahda in Tunisia, for instance, not only participated in elections but even voluntarily stepped down from power to preserve political stability – a move rarely seen among political parties in Europe or the United States.

Here lies the hypocrisy of the West. Christian Democrats in Europe are accepted as normal, as if Christianity poses no threat to democracy. But when Muslims form political parties based on Islam, they are instantly branded as a “creeping sharia” threat. Why does this double standard exist? Is democracy only legitimate when it aligns with Western values, yet suddenly “dangerous” when Muslims demand the same right?

Worse still, the secularism glorified as the “guarantor of freedom” has repeatedly failed. Iraq after the U.S. invasion is no beacon of democracy, but a fractured state rife with corruption and violence. Afghanistan, after 20 years of a Western “democracy project,” ended with the Taliban back in power – a total failure. Libya, after NATO “saved” it, has become a hub for human trafficking. Palestine continues to suffer under an occupation shielded by Western democracies themselves. If this is the true face of secularism and liberalism, then who is actually more dangerous to the world?

At its core, Islamism is not merely about political power. It offers an alternative ethical vision: social justice, zakat to protect the poor, rejection of usury, and the integration of religion with political morality. If the West truly believes in freedom of choice, why are Muslims not allowed to choose political Islam as their path?

The truth is simple: the problem is not Islamism. The problem is the West’s fear. Fear that Islamism might dismantle the Western monopoly over defining democracy, human rights, and moral values. The West may continue to control the narrative, but history is moving forward. And when Muslims begin defining democracy on their own terms, the real question becomes: which is truly “not that bad” – Islamism, or the West’s failing secularism?

I fully agree with the argument above. For too long, the West has portrayed Islamism as a threat, when in fact historical and political evidence shows that Islamism can operate democratically, compromise when needed, and even provide a clearer ethical vision compared to Western secularism, which has repeatedly failed. I agree that the real problem is not Islamism itself, but the West’s fear of losing its monopoly over the definition of democracy, human rights, and morality. Democracy is not an exclusive right of the West – Muslims have the right to shape it on their own terms. That is why I support the view that Islamism is not a threat, but a legitimate, just, and more authentic alternative to the West’s hypocritical secularism.

Islam is not a threat.
Islamism is.

[Prydania]

In Western discourse, the term Islamism is almost always equated with terrorism, security threats, and anti-democracy. Yet an honest academic analysis reveals that Islamism is not a single entity. It manifests in diverse forms: from armed radical groups to political parties that contest elections. Ennahda in Tunisia, for instance, not only participated in elections but even voluntarily stepped down from power to preserve political stability – a move rarely seen among political parties in Europe or the United States.

Here lies the hypocrisy of the West. Christian Democrats in Europe are accepted as normal, as if Christianity poses no threat to democracy. But when Muslims form political parties based on Islam, they are instantly branded as a “creeping sharia” threat. Why does this double standard exist? Is democracy only legitimate when it aligns with Western values, yet suddenly “dangerous” when Muslims demand the same right?

Worse still, the secularism glorified as the “guarantor of freedom” has repeatedly failed. Iraq after the U.S. invasion is no beacon of democracy, but a fractured state rife with corruption and violence. Afghanistan, after 20 years of a Western “democracy project,” ended with the Taliban back in power – a total failure. Libya, after NATO “saved” it, has become a hub for human trafficking. Palestine continues to suffer under an occupation shielded by Western democracies themselves. If this is the true face of secularism and liberalism, then who is actually more dangerous to the world?

At its core, Islamism is not merely about political power. It offers an alternative ethical vision: social justice, zakat to protect the poor, rejection of usury, and the integration of religion with political morality. If the West truly believes in freedom of choice, why are Muslims not allowed to choose political Islam as their path?

The truth is simple: the problem is not Islamism. The problem is the West’s fear. Fear that Islamism might dismantle the Western monopoly over defining democracy, human rights, and moral values. The West may continue to control the narrative, but history is moving forward. And when Muslims begin defining democracy on their own terms, the real question becomes: which is truly “not that bad” – Islamism, or the West’s failing secularism?

I fully agree with the argument above. For too long, the West has portrayed Islamism as a threat, when in fact historical and political evidence shows that Islamism can operate democratically, compromise when needed, and even provide a clearer ethical vision compared to Western secularism, which has repeatedly failed. I agree that the real problem is not Islamism itself, but the West’s fear of losing its monopoly over the definition of democracy, human rights, and morality. Democracy is not an exclusive right of the West – Muslims have the right to shape it on their own terms. That is why I support the view that Islamism is not a threat, but a legitimate, just, and more authentic alternative to the West’s hypocritical secularism.

The violence directed at LGBT+ peoples, other religious groups, atheists, and women all disqualify Islamism as a moral political force. It can only be achieved via the violent imposition of a theocratic values system. And in the cases where Islam is not the majority or indigenous faith, a violent colonial imposition of a theocratic values system.

Theocracy in general cannot exist without heavy handed state-sanctioned violence.

Additionally, it's clear you're just Qheddah's puppet. Meaning you logged on under a secondary account just to agree with yourself.

[Slembana]

Ashur Sarnaya, a wheel-chair bound Assyrian Christian who fled Iraq to escape ISIL and a prominent social media critic of Islamist organizations, is believed to have been assassinated by three Islamists in France.

Fucking hell.

[ML Library]

I fully agree with the argument above. For too long, the West has portrayed Islamism as a threat, when in fact historical and political evidence shows that Islamism can operate democratically, compromise when needed, and even provide a clearer ethical vision compared to Western secularism, which has repeatedly failed. I agree that the real problem is not Islamism itself, but the West’s fear of losing its monopoly over the definition of democracy, human rights, and morality. Democracy is not an exclusive right of the West – Muslims have the right to shape it on their own terms. That is why I support the view that Islamism is not a threat, but a legitimate, just, and more authentic alternative to the West’s hypocritical secularism.

The violence directed at LGBT+ peoples, other religious groups, atheists, and women all disqualify Islamism as a moral political force. It can only be achieved via the violent imposition of a theocratic values system. And in the cases where Islam is not the majority or indigenous faith, a violent colonial imposition of a theocratic values system.

Theocracy in general cannot exist without heavy handed state-sanctioned violence.

Additionally, it's clear you're just Qheddah's puppet. Meaning you logged on under a secondary account just to agree with yourself.

As a general rule, ceasing the view of the hadiths of Bukhari (or Al-Kafi too in case of twelvers) as absolutely sacred like the Quran, putting the Quran first and trying to reason the verses without abrogation would make islam leftier. But reason in unhinged and destroyed societies with ill intentioned, scientifically and politically illiterate scholars can be fascistic. And they can have honest scholarly intentions and have the same result putting Bukhari hadiths and other ones in such high regard.

That's the thing, islam can be as far right as fascists in the west proposing a brutal capitalism or a more backwards system like slavery (which happens with most of the so called islamists who drink from Qutbism, salafism or Ikhwanism) and the institutional madhabs that are ultraconservative. But in its evolution it can be potentially also more progressive than other religions if the wrongs of the caliphs are recognized (there are shia for example who accept Ali as inheritor instead of Abu Bakr) and if it's Quran centric, weakening hadiths in meaning recognizing the need of alleged narrators to hide from caliph oppression (in shia logic) or thinking it was an error of a number of narrators against the Quran, or that the circumstance of those hadiths can't apply anymore for example (in sunni logic).

Gaddafi was Quran centric but considered himself a sunni and he was takfired by sunnis of other regions. Iran (shia twelver) has a system of marjas where believers can do taqlid (following), delegation of knowledge to scholars and there is 1 marja specifically that is more Quran centric than the other ones.
The zaydis also can pick from considered sunni or shia hadith books, the gradation of hadiths can be more flexible with the principles of their school and hadiths can't contradict the Quran.

That is, the gradation of hadiths, the gradation of those who have authority in narration and the authenticity in meaning compared to the Quran is a matter of the scholars and schools, interpretations that can evolve with knowledge and also intention. When a society sees previously held, graded as sahih hadiths... they can reject them later, considerate them weak or fabricated later if scholarly knowledge and good intention increases. When many hadiths are discarded regarding a verse new interpretations can enter, a word that was previously thought to be something specific can mean something else or be metaphorical if the interpreter considers so.

What I mean is that hadiths can have chains of narration, analysis that works for every school without discussion. But if a narrator (or book) is reliable is a judgement of the school, if the meaning (not the chain of narration) contradicts the Quran and it's allowed to reject the hadith also depends on the scholar and the school.

Personally I consider the most compatible with communist doctrine (and internally coherent with the Quran) to be the zaydis if they had socialist scholars and in the present apart from them rarer scholars like Hassan Farhan al-Maliki (Quran centric) and Kamal al-Haydari (twelver shia). But of course, they have rituals and they don't follow the materialist philosophy of communism that I follow and in the case of zaydis their populism can go very wrong if not codified correctly.

[Jolthig]

There are two big moslem faiths in the world. Both are ridiculously bonkers in the theology.

Mainstream Islam (Green Faith)

([url=https://i.ibb.co/4nDv8T7x/images.jpg]Image)[/url]

A faith founded by a warmonger as a way to unite all the tribes of Arabia. It succeeded on doing so and continues to expand either by violence or trade. Their view about Jesus was that he ascends to the heavens instead of dying.

Ahmaddiya (Black Faith)

([url=https://i.ibb.co/dsZ3nNhT/20250916-103849.jpg]Image)[/url]

A faith founded by the so-called messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in India before its independence. It states that their founder was the reincarnation of Jesus.

I am ex-Ahmadi.

Ahmadiyya isn't really that big. They tend to exaggerate their numbers and are known for doing that. They're a minority.

[ML Library]

There are two big moslem faiths in the world. Both are ridiculously bonkers in the theology.

Mainstream Islam (Green Faith)

([url=https://i.ibb.co/4nDv8T7x/images.jpg]Image)[/url]

A faith founded by a warmonger as a way to unite all the tribes of Arabia. It succeeded on doing so and continues to expand either by violence or trade. Their view about Jesus was that he ascends to the heavens instead of dying.

Ahmaddiya (Black Faith)

([url=https://i.ibb.co/dsZ3nNhT/20250916-103849.jpg]Image)[/url]

A faith founded by the so-called messiah Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in India before its independence. It states that their founder was the reincarnation of Jesus.

I am ex-Ahmadi.

Ahmadiyya isn't really that big. They tend to exaggerate their numbers and are known for doing that. They're a minority.

Also a modern sect.

Ashur Sarnaya, a wheel-chair bound Assyrian Christian who fled Iraq to escape ISIL and a prominent social media critic of Islamist organizations, is believed to have been assassinated by three Islamists in France.

This is disgusting. My condolences.

[Jolthig]

I am ex-Ahmadi.

Ahmadiyya isn't really that big. They tend to exaggerate their numbers and are known for doing that. They're a minority.

Also a modern sect.

Yeah.

Also, Nirza Ghulam Ahmad wasn't a reincarnation of Jesus but a metaphorical second coming. Like how John the Baptist was a second coming of Elijah in Bible.

Ahmadiyya borrows a lot of Biblical theology too unlike other Muslim sects. Part of the reason they're considered heretical.

[Jolthig]

Ashur Sarnaya, a wheel-chair bound Assyrian Christian who fled Iraq to escape ISIL and a prominent social media critic of Islamist organizations, is believed to have been assassinated by three Islamists in France.

Terrible.

[The Byzantine Caliphate]

Arresting people for supporting a proscribed organization that prominently attacked the country's security interests, almost certainly at the behest of foreign actors, is somewhat different from being arrested because you didn't cover your hair correctly, because you practice the wrong religion, or on nebulous charges that you defied G-d's will.

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Mind you, the UK's continuous draconian tilt, both in the context of suppressing racism and xenophobia and in the context of suppressing terrorism, irks me. I just find the assertion that the civil rights situation in the UK is in any way similar to the civil rights situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, or Pakistan completely baseless.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

[The Byzantine Caliphate]

I would not be shitting on the west if not for them r*ping, robbing, and colonizing my brothers for past 400 years.

Aren't you a pasty Euro white guy in America?

No I'm brown.

[Jolthig]

Arresting people for supporting a proscribed organization that prominently attacked the country's security interests, almost certainly at the behest of foreign actors, is somewhat different from being arrested because you didn't cover your hair correctly, because you practice the wrong religion, or on nebulous charges that you defied G-d's will.

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Mind you, the UK's continuous draconian tilt, both in the context of suppressing racism and xenophobia and in the context of suppressing terrorism, irks me. I just find the assertion that the civil rights situation in the UK is in any way similar to the civil rights situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, or Pakistan completely baseless.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

Who? A Muslim victim? Or a Christian one?

[Jolthig]

Aren't you a pasty Euro white guy in America?

No I'm brown.

A brown convert, eh?

[The Two Jerseys]

Arresting people for supporting a proscribed organization that prominently attacked the country's security interests, almost certainly at the behest of foreign actors, is somewhat different from being arrested because you didn't cover your hair correctly, because you practice the wrong religion, or on nebulous charges that you defied G-d's will.

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Mind you, the UK's continuous draconian tilt, both in the context of suppressing racism and xenophobia and in the context of suppressing terrorism, irks me. I just find the assertion that the civil rights situation in the UK is in any way similar to the civil rights situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, or Pakistan completely baseless.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

Strange, I've never seen anyone in a Western country get punished for beating the shit out of a Muslim terrorist...

[Europa Undivided]

Arresting people for supporting a proscribed organization that prominently attacked the country's security interests, almost certainly at the behest of foreign actors, is somewhat different from being arrested because you didn't cover your hair correctly, because you practice the wrong religion, or on nebulous charges that you defied G-d's will.

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Mind you, the UK's continuous draconian tilt, both in the context of suppressing racism and xenophobia and in the context of suppressing terrorism, irks me. I just find the assertion that the civil rights situation in the UK is in any way similar to the civil rights situation in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, or Pakistan completely baseless.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

You're imagining things. It's all in your head. It's not real.

[Fahran]

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

I'm quite certain the UK was never ruled by the Ottomans in much the same way that South Asia was never ruled by the Ottomans.

Palestine Action was proscribed because its members deliberately sabotaged British military assets, likely at the behest or in the service of foreign governments or foreign proscribed organizations.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

They also put you in prison for speaking Kurdish, behead you for practicing witchcraft, or execute you for crimes against G-d when you protest, which is what I was actually referencing. Saudi Arabia and Iran have both notably also flogged or executed women for reporting sexual violence. Anyone complaining about civil rights while arguing for similar legal systems to those outside the West is being broadly disingenuous.

[Unogonduria]

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

There is not Ottoman land. All you (not you specifically, just a disclaimer so the Mods don't come after me for such stupidity; e.g. the Ottomans) did was brutally conquer, forcefully take kids out of their families to become janissaries who had a large chance of later brutally massacring the village they were taken out of, rape our women and forbid any scientific progress until the beginning of the 19th century. All Ottoman land consisted of conquered Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Bosnian (if willing to count as separate from Serb), Vlach, Armenian, Persian, Egyptian, Arab and Kurd lands; with barely any belonging to the Seljuks who migrated into Anatolia beforehand. You favourite edgy empire is the biggest shithole on Earth that has ever existed, forcing the descendants of all the conquered peoples into being thrown around like a ping-pong by the Great Powers after liberating us from the barbaric and utterly disgusting state the Ottoman Empire. No words I know, neither in English nor in Bulgarian, can express how truly and absolute disgusted I am by the Ottoman Empire; I have such distain that can rival the absolute hatred some native Americans feel for the Anglo-saxons and Spanish you yourself keep whining about like a little baby who desperately craves milk from his mother. You have enormous pride - but it all comes crumbling down due to its shaky foundations that is your complete lack of any historical and religious knowledge.

[Fahran]

Rebels affiliated with the Allied Democratic Forces, synonymous with the Islamic State - Central Africa Province, murdered over seventy Christians attending a funeral in the DRC. I'm a bit late on reporting since the story mostly seems to have broken in the United States this week.

Basically, Islamism is still a bad ideology.

[Reddit Atheism]

In Western discourse, the term Islamism is almost always equated with terrorism, security threats, and anti-democracy. Yet an honest academic analysis reveals that Islamism is not a single entity. It manifests in diverse forms: from armed radical groups to political parties that contest elections. Ennahda in Tunisia, for instance, not only participated in elections but even voluntarily stepped down from power to preserve political stability – a move rarely seen among political parties in Europe or the United States.

Here lies the hypocrisy of the West. Christian Democrats in Europe are accepted as normal, as if Christianity poses no threat to democracy. But when Muslims form political parties based on Islam, they are instantly branded as a “creeping sharia” threat. Why does this double standard exist? Is democracy only legitimate when it aligns with Western values, yet suddenly “dangerous” when Muslims demand the same right?

Worse still, the secularism glorified as the “guarantor of freedom” has repeatedly failed. Iraq after the U.S. invasion is no beacon of democracy, but a fractured state rife with corruption and violence. Afghanistan, after 20 years of a Western “democracy project,” ended with the Taliban back in power – a total failure. Libya, after NATO “saved” it, has become a hub for human trafficking. Palestine continues to suffer under an occupation shielded by Western democracies themselves. If this is the true face of secularism and liberalism, then who is actually more dangerous to the world?

At its core, Islamism is not merely about political power. It offers an alternative ethical vision: social justice, zakat to protect the poor, rejection of usury, and the integration of religion with political morality. If the West truly believes in freedom of choice, why are Muslims not allowed to choose political Islam as their path?

The truth is simple: the problem is not Islamism. The problem is the West’s fear. Fear that Islamism might dismantle the Western monopoly over defining democracy, human rights, and moral values. The West may continue to control the narrative, but history is moving forward. And when Muslims begin defining democracy on their own terms, the real question becomes: which is truly “not that bad” – Islamism, or the West’s failing secularism?

I fully agree with the argument above. For too long, the West has portrayed Islamism as a threat, when in fact historical and political evidence shows that Islamism can operate democratically, compromise when needed, and even provide a clearer ethical vision compared to Western secularism, which has repeatedly failed. I agree that the real problem is not Islamism itself, but the West’s fear of losing its monopoly over the definition of democracy, human rights, and morality. Democracy is not an exclusive right of the West – Muslims have the right to shape it on their own terms. That is why I support the view that Islamism is not a threat, but a legitimate, just, and more authentic alternative to the West’s hypocritical secularism.

More authentic alternative? You all must be joking. Islamism is a big group of failed ideologies just like liberalism, fascism and Marxism.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

Many countries like Pakistan and Yemen had high cases of rape. In Iran, the victims of the bad regime suffered the fate as you described when fighting back.

[Europa Undivided]

A country and its interests that would not have existed without Anglo-French meddling and occupation of Ottoman land.

Correct; at least Muslim countries permit you to resist a thief, r*pist, or other criminal. In the U.K. [and Christian world at large] the victim is the one that gets punished for fighting back.

Many countries like Pakistan and Yemen had high cases of rape. In Iran, the victims of the bad regime suffered the fate as you described when fighting back.

Remember that he only says this because he has never lived in the places he so loves.