Muslims defend violence as if it was a mean to fight the oppression

But, what exactly oppression are we talking about? In the Middle East?
It’s been a century since the Europeans went to the Arab nations to help them fight against the Islamic government, at the time situated in Turkey. However, was it really the nationalism that helped the “westerners” to persuade the Arabs to fight the Turks? Weren’t Muslims united then, if they’re not united today?



No, the Muslims were never united. Actually, when the Prophet of Islam passed away, and the word about it was public, the next minute the Islamic world, headquartered in Medina, split. The group of domicile Medinians argued they should lead the Islamic nation, the Meccan, refugees, claimed – since the Prophet himself is a Meccan – that they should elect a leader. One guy suggested that the leader should be picked from both groups, and the leading role should shift per certain period of time.
The Meccan group, led by Umar and Abu Bakr managed to persuade others to appoint a leader from the Meccan group, which turned out to be Abu Bakr.
I read recently that the Muslims agreed to have “democratically elected ruler”, but that’s an illusion, because the first ruler was appointed by the stronger group, with no electing, no candidacy. Even the second Caliph was kinda appointed, as it was suggested by the Caliph, and the third caliph was chosen among candidates appointed by the second Caliph. The fourth Caliph wasn’t even accepted by everybody. One person who was against the fourth Caliph’s government was a wife of the Prophet. She even took a part in a skirmish, or a battle, against the Caliph. The governer of the northern lands of Islamic state, Muawya, a son of the Prophets fiercest enemy, fought against the fourth Caliph, who happened to be a son in law of the Prophet, and the father of the Prophet’s only progeny. Muawya’s son, appointed by his father to rule the nation, murdered the Prophet’s grandson in years to come, as the grandson didn’t want to accept the reign of a corrupt person.
So, the Muslims were never united, and 13 centuries after the prophet, it was easy to persuade the Arab Muslims to fight one another.
However, they are not the majority of the Muslims. Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Europe, have more Muslims than the Middle East. It saddens us to see that the southeast Asian Muslim countries are turning Wahhabi. Probably because of the schools sponsored by the oil-rich Arab countries are teaching Wahhabism.
The Wahhabis are killing cultures of the countries wherever they come. They only tend to leave primitive customs alive, in places like India and Africa. How come they don’t change those primitive “honour-killings”? Because they also propagate that.
And, how is it now possible for an American Muslim to blame Americans for attacking a country in the Middle East, and to use that to justify a random terrorist attack, as if the terrorist has had it, and snapped, because of what?
The terrorists are usually people born and raised in Europe, where they don’t lack anything to have a normal life. However, they tend to listen to the Wahhabi preacehers, who falsly accuse the west for bringing corruption to the Middle East – again, as if the ME is a holy place of Islam.