I very specifically and deliberately said "muslim leaders" and said that for a reason. What, did you think that muslim worshippers voted them in or something? Those leaders take control.
Is it a broad brush? No, it's not. It's extremely specific and limited to an extremely small percentage of muslims. But history has shown that this is exactly what muslim leaders do when they take over a country. This is actually on historical record. Why is this even a debate?
Can I not make broad statements about muslim leaders the way we make broad statements about republican leaders who claim to be the Christian party? Or broad statements about how republicans always seem to point to the bible for some reason or another? Or should those comments all be deleted too?
We would not have be having this discussion if it wasn't about a theocracy or about literally any other religion (except maybe one other).
And if you had stuck to calling the Taliban liars that might not have ruffled feathers. It might be fine to point out that claiming women will have all the rights and privileges their religion allows is actually kinda ominous in light of how their sect seems to interpret the texts. But you painted with a broader brush than that, expanding your claims to encompass muslims as a whole. I'm not inclined to optimism about Islamic culture either, but I certainly understand unruly's objection.