[1] They intentionally disabled suggestions on "islam is" because they were afraid that the suggestions would offend Muslims.
[2] They f*ed up their search suggestion software.
Now, try typing 'muhammad is'. What do you see?
Then, try 'islam will'. What do you see?
google said that it's a bug. A blog pointed out that unlike other "is" phrases, "islam is" begins with, well, "is". But I tried typing 'israel is', and got suggestions. I guess that [1] is true, in which case I would be disgusted with google. But if they made such a cowardly dodge, they didn't do it very well.
Our brains evolved for life as hunter-gatherers, not the modern world. We naturally suffer from 'confirmation bias' -- we tend to interpret new data as confirming what we already believe or suspect. Because I am so damn curious to learn the truth, I try to fight against my own biases, to turn the rocks over and look underneath, to be careful about reaching conclusions, to be open that what I am 99.9% sure is true, could be mistaken.
No, I haven't been to any majority-Muslim country. Few of them are high on my tourism list, though I suppose that someday I might go to one of the former Soviet stans, or Egypt. The one I would most like to visit is Turkey.
You asked a fascinating question about Iran, "how did this happen in a years time?" The way people answer such questions tells you a lot about their thinking process. To me, the development of Iran is the most interesting political story in the world today. Answers to your question might consider:
* the deposition of the Shah, and the election of Mossadegh in the 50s
* the overthrow of Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the Shah by the USA
* how the Shah dealt with dissent (maybe you've heard of Savak)
* the perception of Iranians that the Shah was an evil crook backed by the USA
* Khomeini's years of exile
* President Carter's loyalty to a long-time US protege when the Shah was dying
* the many different currents of thought in Iran (not just conservative Islamism) about what post-revolution Iran should become
* the process by which the religious fanatics came to dominate the outcome
* what the Iranian people expected it to mean, when they voted to establish an Islamic Republic
It's easy to make a grotesquely over-simplified comic-book story, which teaches nothing. That they traded one repressive regime for another was the tragically frequent outcome of their revolution, but perhaps the revolution would never have happened without the first repressive regime. And some people would rather have their own dictator, than one they see as the puppet of a foreign power.
Then the United States, in an absolutely illegal and immoral policy, supported Saddam Hussein's unprovoked and piratical invasion of Iran. In my opinion, the people who ordered this policy (Reagan included) deserved to be convicted of murder. But if you accept the comic-book story, that Iran has become a nation of America-hating devils, I suppose their policy seemed justifiable.
What the American policy actually did was to help enlarge and prolong the bloody slaughter, to undermine the principle that no state has the right to make a war of aggression against another state, and most of all, to inflate Saddam into the dangerous monster he became. Maybe you don't know that at the time of the first Gulf war, when the question came up, "does Saddam have the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons?", the insider joke in Washington DC was "sure he has the equipment to make chemical weapons, we still have the receipts." (We really did supply it to him.)
You wrote that the Iranians "were affable enough people." According to what I read, they continued to be, and still are. Only a very small percentage (reportedly, less than 10%) share the views of their religious tyrants. Despite years of constant indoctrination that the USA is the Great Satan, most Iranians reportedly have pro-American attitudes. They would like to have a better relationship with our country, and to enjoy some of our liberty. And like most people in the middle east, and the rest of the Islamic world, they suffer under horrible government.
To me, the demonization of Islam -- the belief system of close to 1.5 billion human beings -- smells a lot like "four legs good, two legs bad." I was very interested to learn that until a couple of hundred years ago, the city that had the world's highest Jewish population was Baghdad -- yes, that Baghdad. For a long time, Jews seem to have fared better under Islam -- which specifically teaches tolerance toward Jews and Christians -- than, say, the horrible bloody pogroms of Christian Russia.
To wrap up my sermon, I DON'T call the killing of uniformed occupation soldiers terrorism -- it's agonizing, but it's not the same thing as blowing up a bus full of Israeli civilians. And if the Chinese People's Liberation Army decided to invade the USA to free us from the Obama regime, and some guys in Texas started blowing up the Chinese soldiers who somehow refused to leave their country, most Americans wouldn't call that terrorism.
That being said, Muslims and Hindus have been making large numbers of attacks on civilians in recent years, more than other groups. It is nauseating, murderous thuggery. The vast majority of victims are Muslims. There is all sorts of festering moral and mental rot and disease going on. An easy explanation is, "it's the religion." If I say, "it's their stupid religion," then I excuse myself from asking, "have I done anything to contribute to this problem? Do I have a duty to contribute to the solution?" Comic-book analysis supports intellectual and moral irresponsibility -- therefore, I reject it.
Interesting about the (ex) Jewish population in Baghdad. It's worth mentioning that Ninevah (as in 'Jonah and the whale') is in Iraq, is still there, and is one of the highest percentage Christian populations anywhere in the world (there are Ninevite settlements around the world that average 80-90% Christian - significantly more than most western nations). The Ninevite representative to the first Iraq parliament is an outspoken Christian, who made a motion for the government to adopt Christianity of the national religion. He didn't get a great deal of agreement.