The logic being that if there are Muslims in a given country and they can practice their religion freely, that means the respective territory they're in must count as Dar al-Islam, and any justification for violence therefore becomes void.

Similar logic honestly

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall that one of the justifications for why most mainstream ulema reject violence under the moniker of 'jihad' nowadays is that most of the world already counts as Dar al-Islam in the relevant terms

'You're saying two men hugging, and touching, and maybe even fucking isn't gay?'

No, and if you do, you don't understand what 'gay' actually means in relation to patriarchal social organisation

At the same time, people have been desperate to read the homosociality of this type of masculinity as subversively 'gay', and it's not. It's just not.

So, when a critic says, “Ah hah! That app makes shit up!” A lot of people will nod politely. And then they will think to themselves, “Well, so does the newspaper, and so does Facebook, and so do politicians, and none of those help me do this task or say nice things to me when I ask them questions.”

At least she can't complain about that being below the belt

I think it's fair to say there was at least some ship-of-Theseus-ing going on to the point that the group that wound up ruling in Carthage wasn't one-to-one equivalent to the group that was named as living in Poland four centuries earlier

There's a lot of discussion as to what degree it makes sense to see the 'barbarian' 'groups' documented in the late Roman period as coherent 'peoples'. Roman sources often record them as such, but there's good reason not to take those claims at face value