Hard-core muslims just don't assimilate well into other cultures, and that, along with blowing shit up and limiting women and threatening violence when cartoons want to depict their religious leader is where the problem stems from.
A hardcore
anybody wouldn't assimilate well. The odd thing about Islam (as I was trying to argue earlier) is that its core beliefs are virtually identical to Judaism. Yet the radicals have a huge chip on their shoulder about non-Muslims in general, and about Jews specifically. All that stuff about slaughtering the infidel is just one aspect, and, as other people have noted, it's something the average guy in the street is going to play down, just as the average (religious) Jew or Christian probably isn't especially proud of his distant ancestors' penchant for genocide.
The specific problem that Islam has is that the Koran is considered the literal, complete word of God. There is no room for interpretation. One can't say, well, yeah, that bit
there (as I was arguing re. Jewish Law) was almost certainly added later by vested interests. Couple that with the fact that Islam is prevalent in repressive societies, and Islam itself becomes a tool of repression. When people can't go home and watch TVBS to unwind, they might be inclined to listen to TBTB telling them everything is (a) God's punishment for not obeying your leaders or (b) everyone else's fault for not being Muslims. Christianity was used in
precisely the same way not so long ago. It just so happens that the English (for example) were a lot more ready to lop off their leader's heads if they thought they were talking shite.
The upshot is that it's harder for a Muslim to say "no, that's just sooo 6th century - we've moved on since then" than for a Christian.
I also think Islam - paradoxically, given the above - has become more perverted from its original intent than has Christianity. For example, the idea of religious leaders (who seem to cause most of the trouble) is not a core concept. It apparently arose later.
The ONLY (asfik) Roman (non-xian) reference to Jesus being crucified was one of heresay (ie not an historical account or eyewitness.
That ever-reliable source, Wikipedia, has this to say: "Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire". Obviously there's always room for argument.
In the Talmud it actually says he was hanged, not crucified.
I think you're nit-picking a bit here, especially since it's notoriously hard to translate old languages - some of the words have no exact modern equivalent, express very broad concepts, or we simply don't
know what they meant. And why do you have a thing about not writing 'Christ-' out in full? He's not Voldemort, you know.
