A great question. It reminds me of how many times we hear the left sling around the canard, "but the Crusades!" when actually the Crusades were few in number and largely failures at that; while Islamic incursions and occupations throughout southern Europe, northern Africa and the middle east were thousands in number.
Dr. Bill Warner, of Center for the Study of Political Islam, explains it so much better than I can:
`
Keep in mind that the Islamic onslaught against Christians began in the 7th century and succeeded in conquering 2/3 of Christendom --- northern Africa, the Middle East, and SW Asia--- before the Western Christians began to fight back to regain the Holy Land (late 11th century.).
In intent, the Crusades were no more a campaign of aggression than the Allies landing at Normandy. They were trying to regain and hold what had been taken by Islamic fire and sword.
Here's a fascinating book, endorsed by anti-jihad activist Robert Spencer, about St. Francis of Assisi's attempt to convert the Sultan to Christianity during the Fourth Crusade --- The Real St. Francis, not the mythical soft-handed eco-hippie.
Aside from St. Francis of Assisi, the Crusaders didn't even try to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Maybe they should have?
We must destroy islam, root and branch. Not "reform", not "make peace with".
Destroy.
By the way, Amazon.com has that St-Francis-and-the-Sultan book for less than $10 including postage/handling. It’s a wonderful story. made 1000% more marvelous because it’s true.