How does it prove anything u have said?
The self destructive tendencies of Islamists has been a major part of your posts on this forum. For instance, on this very thread you have differentiated between Muslims, those that are 'righteous' and those that you deem morally corrupt who hold liberal views or values and believe secular principles should be applied to governance.
This stems from a belief that it is those people who hold these values that hold the Muslim world back due to them being 'colonized' as you have referred and thus do not wish to progress, which you believe means being free of man made constructs and completely enveloping themselves to the ideas of Islam, the Sharia, and the Caliphate.
This divisiveness in reality is self destructive and is born out of a feeling of inferiority or as the quote argued a feeling of weakness. As a result you continue to rile against western values, governments, and schools of thought, in essence you believe that there is a clash of civilasations between the western world and the Muslim world and this is characterized in your incessant need to find works, views, or characters from a century (or half) ago that were outright racist, islamophobic, and generally nasty people and attach their views with current day western politcal or social thought when in reality they are often the antithesis, for instance, do you think Winston Churchill would have been in favour of gay marriage? No.
Btw the term islamism is a western coined term and far from considering it weak, west always considered it as a threat that just keeps on coming.
It is, however, when it was first coined it did not have the same meaning it does today. It was used as a substitute for the all more offensive Mohemedniasm, however, it fell out of favour and only resurfaced in the 80s. However, political Islam as term was around in Egypt for instance before the term Islamism resurfaced in the 80s.
This is what ideological mentor of sisi Winston churchill had to say abt Islam:
The assertion that the ideological mentor of Elsisi is Winston Churchill is simply ridiculous. Ignoring Churchill's more controversial views on Islam, race, and security (which he does not share with Elsisi) Winston was a great advocate of the European Court of Human Rights after WW2 (and can be seen as its founding father). Elsisi has no regard for any rights nor does he believe they are universal (a bit like you).
Not that a bloke who was politically active 60 years ago is relevant to this debate.
Its beyond ludicurous that a follower of a man-mde fallacy i.e secularism , such as u , thinks his/her values r universal and strong.
I have never argued that my views are universal, you on the other hand believe those that do not share the same views as you are morally corrupt or 'colonised'. Some secular principles were implemented in Muslim Caliphates near the 13th century (usually when the Caliph was more of a figurehead than a ruler), but don't let that get in your way.
You are welcome to keep on pushing the divine right to rule in a Muslim garb btw.