It’s not the individual here who matters, but the official reactions by both the Olympic Committee and the Egyptians who would not accept such behaviour:

Olympic officials say an Egyptian judo athlete has been reprimanded and sent home after refusing to shake his Israeli opponent’s hand.

The International Olympic Committee says Islam El Shehaby received a “severe reprimand” for his behaviour following his first-round heavyweight bout loss to Or Sasson on Friday.

When Sasson extended his hand, El Shehaby backed away, shaking his head.

The referee called the 34-year-old El Shehaby back to the mat and obliged him to bow. He gave a quick nod and was loudly booed as he exited.

Olympic action from day 7 of the Rio games

The IOC says the Egyptian’s conduct “was contrary to the rules of fair play and against the spirit of friendship embodied in the Olympic values.”

The IOC says the Egyptian Olympic Committee also “strongly condemned” El Shehaby’s actions “and has sent him home.”

You may be sure no leader in a Western democracy, home of free speech etc, would be allowed to say any of this. But the President of Kyrgystan can:

“Terrorists are insane people. . . .

“If you do not like Kyrgyzstan you can leave our country and go wherever you want.

“We can pay your travel expenses, even to Syria.”

The final comment is a reference to claims around 350 Kyrgyz citizens our fighting with jihadi groups in the country.

In 2014 President Atambayev said that it was not the Islamic traditions he had a problem with but more “Arabisation of society [and the] deprivation of the Kyrgyz nation of its language and traditions”.

Here’s the final para in an article at Quadrant Online on: Let’s Lift the Veil on Asylum Seekers

For a host nation to naively infect itself with a metastasising societal malignancy through mindless adherence to ill-conceived notions of political correctness affords an excellent prospect for a Darwin Award on a national level. If ever there has been the need for the precautionary approach this must surely be it.

Read the whole article, but let me supplement with this comment from “Jody”:

The people in Melbourne know all too well about crime gangs and anti-social behaviour, all started by sub-Saharan African ‘migrants’. There’s the cone of silence over all of this and the people going on suffering and watching the value of their real estate decline. The bien pensant have this attitude: “Don’t discuss race because that makes you a racist; we must work out what is wrong with AUSTRALIAN society that criminal gangs can run rampant. We want an immigration policy which is non-discriminatory and if you oppose that you are xenophobic and racist. Also, we have obligations to these refugees and we think it’s a good idea to take them – and they need to go to YOUR area”.

Then when you’ve read that, you can read this from the same source: The Illiberal Left and Political Islam. Towards the end you come to this para, but again it is worth reading it all, though it is much darker and fills you with a deep pessimism about where all of this will end up:

The rising price of political freedom, it seems, is too high for many Western governments to pay. The long war for cultural freedom which began in 1989 is in serious danger of being lost. As Karl Popper observed of an earlier totalitarian threat to the open society, “If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” We should therefore claim “in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant”. Unfortunately, this argument does not gets much air-time, let alone political support.

How extreme is this?

The standard rebuttal that all faiths have at one time or another shown themselves prone to violence and repression misses the essential point. All the major religions have reformed themselves, reducing or eliminating the all-too-human tendency to sanctimonious oppression—and none of these faiths, let us remember, endorsed oppression as a universal creedal or Divine imperative. Such is not the case with Islam, a communion that since its inception in the 7th century has seldom strayed from its sanguinary path of carnage and subdual. Its incendiary prescriptions and commands, as many scholars have noted, are open-ended and contain no “sunset clause.” They are perpetual and mandatory, feeding what essayist Bill Kassel calls “religious-themed barbarism.”

Not extreme at all. Read it through. And read the comments too.