I don’t believe that conversion is the solution, and it is hardly realistic. If Islam were open to reforms and the position of intellectual Muslims were widely accepted, there would be less problems. The problem is that Islam in itself is conflict-ridden. The Sunnis and the Shiites even massacre each other in their mosques. Secondly, they see the West as actively trying to destroy their culture, which is rich, despite the historical turbulence that blew some of it out of sight. Karen Armstrong wrote a very good book about Mohammed.
Christianity is, having gone through much of the problems of Islam early on, largely in agreement about main points, although the West/East divide has left these schisms each with a different emphasis. The Reformation has been a very bad thing for millions of people, and even today, Protestant Churches sprout up all over believing that they can all read the Bible adequately. I don’t believe they can in many cases. Added to this, the problem with sexuality and abuse has arisen out of the catholic western churches due to celibacy, which is a relatively new idea (from about 1100 I believe) and has gone terribly wrong.
The main lesson of all this is that all Christians are human, just as all Buddhists are, and these movements suffer human problems. The teachings arise out of experience of the world, from observations and clearly a lot of thinking. Our problems today arise out of the fact that about 500 years ago, philosophers started thinking differently and since then a materialistic view has become overbearing and very dogmatic (the very thing they criticised) and we have lost our readiness to read the Bible as it was meant. We still have the capacity, which we show elsewhere, but with regard to the church it has been thrown out.
The immutability of scripture is not only something that Christians struggle with, it is also the same with Buddhist texts, which may have new translations but Buddhists want the original meaning. The Dhammapada is one example which is lying here on my desk. As I said above, it is the readiness to understand Judaeo-Christian texts that has been reduced. We use the same yardstick as with Literature or even Science, but the Bible has its own method of exegesis. It is also holistic in its approach to telling stories. The Bible texts don’t leave out the down-side, the shadow that accompanies us, and is criticised for that, although it is very realistic. Some of the consequences of human behaviour are attributed to God, but often, it is just the way it is, given the deeds done. At least Christ plays with these consequences when he asks “if you know these things, what tells you that you will be spared?”
It’s funny that you should say this, but I also believe that Christianity has become too advanced for many Christians. We need to accept that Christianity, as well as Buddhism is very much a monastic tradition, which has all but disappeared in the West. When you look at the Temple in the Bible, there is an area for the high priest, an area for the other priests, an area for lay people and a very large area for everyone else. This areas move outwards. That is to say that those on the fringe have no idea, those in the next area are at least nominally believers, the priests have access to scripture and the high priest access to God. We believe as Christians that this was pushed aside on the cross at Calvary and the faithful had the Holy Spirit as a guide, but effectively, the same order has remained in Cathedrals and Churches except that the high priest is Christ.
Having been in Buddhist temples where people encouraged us to come in and take part, there remains a lay-folk who are just nominally Buddhists, a group who are more informed etc. A Buddhist monk gave my wife and I a “blessing” whether or not we were Buddhists. That is where Buddhism is very open but you will have to agree, there are aspects of Buddhism in the East that we do not entertain in the West.