"You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog. I am proud to be called a radical Buddhist." said Ashin Wirathu, the leader of Burma’s 969 movement..."This is the case, empirically speaking. It is even worse than that, because the Muslim-on-Muslim violence is as common as Muslim violence on the other. The prophet engaged in willful and spontaneous violence against the Other with abandon and celebration. To be violent is to follow the lead of the prophet. The attraction of Islam is the attraction of the moral justification of violence against anyone who disagrees with your position, on anything. Violent jihad is moral, and it's up to the jihadi to decide who needs to be raped, tortured and killed. That's why the psychopaths from the west are attracted to Islam, some convert in prison, some convert over the web and migrate to ISIS.
"Islam has bloody borders. Wherever Muslims live near Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists (and even other types of Muslims), there is violence. If it was only Muslims and a single other religion, there might be room for doubt as to who the troublemakers are, but when it's Muslims and anyone they come into contact with, well, there's no longer any room for doubt. A wise society would see that the undesirable effects of inviting Muslims into their midst (terrorism, etc.) far outweigh any so-called advantages brought about by "diversity."
If a civilization is defined by diversity, Islam is uncivilized, maximally. Islam is marked by sectarian cults which are slaughtering each other in the name of morality and the prophet. So Islam must be considered a collection of monolithic, uncivilized cultures, because it uses its own license to kill on each other. It is likely that every segment, every sect of Islam will grow violent jihadis who will follow the example of their prophet in order to pursue total morality within a dictated world-wide caliphate. Denial of that is a mark of irrationality.