This is not true of Islam. In the case of Islam, the example and precepts of Mohammad himself supported slave-capture, captive-rape, sex with little girls, use of armed force to exterminate Jews and others who do not accept Islam.
Moreover, Shari'a law explicitly calls for many oppressive practices including judicial mutilation, the imposition of dhimmitude and the jizra for resident Jew and Christians, and the death penalty for apostasy; whereas Catholic Canon law calls for nothing even remotely resembling this. You could look it up (Link).
This does not deny historic crimes on the part of any Catholic, including those of the highest hierarchical rank; it only shows that it was a denial of what we have been taught as Moral Law and what we believe de fide.
Little Muslims are taught that those who do suicide bombing, for instance, are shahids (martyrs) and will go to Paradise; little Catholics are taught that such acts are abominable to God and deserving of hell.
And nobody in Catholicism can be classified as a martyr if they died in possession of arms. I know of no Crusader who died in the field of battle, who has ever canonized; but very highly honored is St. Francis of Assisi, who in the midst of war went to talk with the 13th century Islamic leader Sultan Malik al-Kamil--- unarmed.
My example was not about the essence of Islam but to explicate the principle that leads us to reject Imams' defense: we did not sanctify terrorism. The principle is: it's not enough to sanctify; you must punish the transgressors. That was the only point I was trying to make. Again, sorry if I inadvertently gave any other impression.
I would like to thank you for your unambiguous moral clarity: This does not deny historic crimes on the part of any Catholic, including those of the highest hierarchical rank.
That's the only thing we can do from the past, don't we --- look at it honestly, learn and move forward? And, by being honest and responsible about the past, the present Pope has made an enormous step forward. May G-d bless him.