You have to be asleep to not notice the rethoric behind OPs post.

This is beyond plausible deniability. He claims to have a Muslims background yet his justification of adhering to Buddhism is his SE-Asian heritage. (muslims engaged in persecution of buddhists constatly same as colonists) Meanwhile he calls is ironic that westerners in general, not seculars as he initally tries to spin his narrative, present interest in Buddhism since their ancestors were trying to eradicate it. This all in an amalgam of unfounded claims and biased opinions.

His comment about Zen was the same. A thai approaching zen is nothing wrong whereas a western approaching zen is actually because in its nature the westerner needs to have something changed from the original, be it name only, because he considers it to be "animalistic" for being foreign.

I wont spend more time digging through his post, you can see it for yourself or check my other comment where I quote his inconsistencies and obvious bias against one group of people that is arguibly as guilty of said accusations as other groups he chooses to "forgive".