"Historical circumstance"? You said nothing with those words. Its pretty damn vague.
"It won't always be this way" ? Do you have a crystal ball? How do you know this, and what do you mean by this way? Again, very vague.
"Muslims don't dislike their religion" True, sort of. They just dont know they dont like it, or are very afraid to say they don't. Its funny thing how people are afraid of dying. You quit the religion, you are supposed to die. Fact. The point was that the religion doesnt bring peace to them, that is the reason why they have to leave where they come from. In other words, they dont know what's good for them.
" The west isnt based on Christian values, its the opposite"? What are you talking about? It obviously is, or at least started out that way, and its effects have been long lasting. Of course there is a big push to move away from it, but like Muslim countries the main religion has had profound effects on the laws and customs of the country.
I know I'm wasting my breath, but let me try again.
There is no true Islam or true Christianity. There is the culture that we live in, which is based on our history and our living circumstances. Culture creates religion. Christianity is the traditional religion of the Western culture for the past couple of thousand years. It's always taken the character of the people who believe in it, like every other religion.
Why was Christian Europe so aggressive in the Middle Ages? Surely people didn't suddenly discover that Christianity is not supposed to be violent. Europe's historical and social norms led it to shape religion in a way that reinforces those norms. If a society benefits from slavery, then their version of Christianity becomes tolerant of slavery. If a society does not benefit from it, then their Christianity is all about how bad slavery is.
It is the same with Islam. I won't go into the details of the history of the Middle East. I don't think it would be a fruitful discussion given your starting point (zero knowledge, judging from this thread). Had you possessed knowledge on the subject, then we could discuss the effect of Al-Ghazali on Islamic philosophy, or how the Sykes-Picot agreement helped creat the current cluster****. But I won't. I'd like you to understand my central thesis; the content of a religious book is irrelevant to the conduct of the religious.
If Islam is inherently unworkable, why were Muslims so successful and tolerant in the early Middle Ages? Why was their version of Islam so progressive? Well, the first question is, in fact, partly the answer to the second question. Given that the Muslims found themselves in a good situation, they created a version of the religion that reinforced the status quo. They found science useful, so they built more schools. They had relative safety, prosperity, and stability, so they stopped giving a **** about alternative lifestyles (one of my favorite Arab poets is Abu Nuwwas, who wrote publicly and extensively about his love for teenage boys).
Islam produces more violent sects than in Western societies for the exact same reason black communities suffer more violence than other communities in the US. Poverty? Check. Destruction of historical roots by a foreign power? Check. Barrier to entry into mainstream society? Check. Fragmentation and in-fighting? Check.
Like I said, there are millions of Muslims living peacefully in the US. I know so many, and they all have different views and opinions. Some are conservative, some liberal, some socialists, others free market capitalists, and everything in between. I have yet to meet an American Muslim who is sympathetic to ISIS or radical Islam (although I'm sure they exist). They are not your enemy, unless you continue to insist that they should be.
