I was genuinely interested in knowing your reasoning and it's a real shame that you thought i had other intentions. I find your stand inconsistent with your previous stands on (in my opinion) a similar issue. Your contradicting yourself doesn't take away from the points you made, but it questions the way you read and interpret them to draw a conclusion. I don't disagree with the points you made (my comparison reaffirms them in fact), what I disagree with is your conclusion that blames a community for their lack of success as a result of those characteristics because i personally think all those characteristics are exogenous.
Instead of US muslim versus Europe muslim comparison, take north-african muslims in Europe (Belgium, France) and other immigrants in those same countries. If Europe's nationalism is to blame, why does it make it the hardest for north-african muslims? Didn't you say a few pages back that if the system was to blame in the US, why indians (i don't remember what example you used) are doing just fine but african americans are not?
I'm not looking for contradictions, I'm saying you have two similar sets of problems with similar comparison bases, but you draw two strikingly different conclusions. In my opinion, the reason why a community excels while the other fails in the same environment has to do with the unique interaction between the system's characteristics and those of each particular community. If a community fails, it's on the system for the most part to realize why (because it has the required power to initiate a change) instead of attributing the problem to that community, which is, ironically enough, perceived to be screwed and expected to start a change from within all at the same time.