But I'm curious to hear what you think the Western Muslim and eastern Muslim perspectives are said:
Not that I'm wanting to really get anyone fired up, but I'm cool with answering your question. The difference that I see has little to do with the texts, and more to do with the interpretation of the teachings. The basics are all the same, but there has been heated debate even within the different sects as to what is meant. The West (basically North America and most of Europe), don't have generations of Kurd vs. Shiite vs. Sunni vs. whoever. The passages I mentioned before are used to justify the slaughter. Against each other? Yes. All you have to do is declare someone an infidel. Let's say I interpret some part of beliefe differently than you. You can declare me an infidel and unfit to live. Then we rally our families, villages, etc. and try to take control of the other's land, government, whatever it takes to silence the loser's infidel views. To ensure that the loser's family or tribe does not get payback in the future, some extreme measures will periodically be used. Blah, blah, blah. We've heard about it for thousands of years. The West partook of it and our own bloodbaths as well.
The Eastern ones are willing to die, to throw themselves and their families into a battle (be it modern warfare or guerilla warfare or terrorism) to defend their beliefs, and somewhat more importantly for various groups, their assurance of a good afterlife. To have your people, your religious group be able to take control of a country and make it a haven for your brethren is a prize to be treasured. The West did that before. The Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, even the World Wars are examples of the West dealing with similar issues.
However, today's culture is different for the West. It is taboo to stand for your religious beliefs. It is considered rude to have a debate between different religions. It is unthinkable to kill someone because they worship a different god or don't worship anything. We would call it murder, and our judicial systems would settle it. My family would not take arms to massacre yours. Your mosque would not burn my church and shoot my brethren because we disagree on who Jesus is.
That's the perspectives I see. Someone born and bred into a society where the survival of you, your family and your beliefs are not guaranteed (or sometimes persecuted) by their own government has not tasted the freedom of religion. To that person, allowing a taboo or violation of their beliefs is unforgivable, intolerable, and must be punished. It is seen as an attack. The West makes a huge difference between verbal and physical attacks. Over there, it is almost the same and in many people's eyes (as evident in recent news) it IS the same.
Western perspective vs. Eastern. I may not have explained it very well, but you should get the idea.
Thanks BC.