Despite how bad a few modern Islamist societies may be, it is very wrong to write sentences like "Islam started as an imperialist death cult", like they would be true and universally applicable.
While after conversion to Islam the Arabs had a few centuries of great territorial expansion, when they have conquered not only their neighbors in Asia, but also the North of Africa and a part of the Iberian Peninsula, this was the standard behavior at that time for any population that was strong enough to be able to do this. It does not make the Arabs more "imperialist" than any other of their contemporaneous nations, e.g. when compared with Charlemagne.
Moreover, for many centuries, until relatively recently, most conflicts in Islamic countries, such as the Turkish Empire, were more likely to be settled by judges according to the law and without making discrimination based on religion, nationality or wealth, than in the contemporaneous European countries, where the enforcement of the laws was frequently arbitrary and biased.
The Europeans who have lived in countries occupied by Islamic Turks or Arabs have survived many centuries without losing their religion or traditions, in contrast with what happened with those that have been occupied by European empires, like the Russian Empire (or its Soviet descendant) or by the Austrian Empire (or its Austria-Hungary successor), where complete denationalization has frequently happened, due to intense discrimination.
Anti-scientific interpretations of the Islamic religion rules have prevailed only many centuries after its appearance. Only then claims like "there is no need to read any books but the Holy Book, as it contains all truth that has to be known by humans" began to have supporters and enforcers. Moreover, taking into consideration the recent history, the US citizens are the last who should be mocking this kind of ideas, because many of them appear to think in the same way.