>One shouldn’t dismiss the Arab conservatives influence on Islamic resurgence otherwise you wouldn’t be able to explain away the Saudi and Qatari influence

Arabs simply provided money, ideologically they aren't behind the Islamic resurgence; Most Muslims are Asians and have their own distinct ideological movements e.g. despite what most westerners claim the Taliban are neither Wahhabi nor Salafi, they are Deobandi and the influence of Salafism is highly overstated. This misunderstanding is also why the West heavily funded Sufi movements post 9/11 in countries like Pakistan and they are now even more problematic (with most of the recent attacks on minorities being initiated by Sufi groups like Barelvis)

>As for moral outrage, it’s subjective and not universal.

Maybe not to you because you live in the west and think like they do, most of us really hate these people though for what they have done to our countries and the region at large; As Malcom X would say, there are two types of Negroes.

​

>As for your last paragraph, those aren’t the only two options available

Largely does seem to be the case presently

​

>A secular led government can still have the indigenous interests in mind while still being a productive and independent member on the world stage; Indonesia or Malaysia comes to mind.

So what exactly is the distinction between an "Islamist" government in your mind and a supposedly secular government like Indonesia which imposes conservative laws (e.g. banning sex outside of marriage, blasphemy provisions etc) ; Indonesia is one of the countries leading the Islamic resurgence but it is never outright called an "Islamist" country by Westerners.