Not to hijack the thread here but apparently you missed history class when they covered the Crusades. Maybe there weren't any planes back then but that didn't stop the Christians from slaughtering Muslims including children.
Just to correct an inaccuracy, unlike most of the Muslim terrorism, the Crusades were not religiously motivated, they were politically motivated. in fact, they originally began as a defense against encroachment into the Middle East and Europe of Islamic conquerors, who had no qualms against slaughtering Christian, Jewish, and Pagan women and children.
Religion merely provided a convenient cover story and method of firing up the serf levies.
The earliest, and indeed a substantial number of later, Crusades didn't involve Islam at all, but were directed primarily at the Cathars and similar heretics and political enemies of the Pope. Even these were not necessarily religiously based, but due more to the fact that they were breakaways who formed a notably opposition to Papal political influence,
The primary motivation for the later Crusades was extending the empire, to increase the wealth and power of the ruling classes; and providing occupation for an increasingly large and restless population of young nobility, in order to prevent them causing trouble at home. Due to Roman secular influence, the Church became involved because it was increasingly becoming a political entity more concerned with temporal power than religious influence; and also saw it as a way to expand their influence and channel some of that wealth to their own coffers. It was a culmination of a trend which started in the early Medieval period and the expansion into western Europe; and which was partially reversed by the Reformation. This melding of Church and State was heavily criticized by many in the Church, particularly after the Great Schism, and was a serious point of contention between East and West.
Islam was in a considerably different positon, in that there was no tradition of seperation of Church and State. In fact, exactly the opposite is true, Islam allows no such seperation, and prescribes a specific theocratic government as the ideal, with the Khalif holding both supreme temporal power, and supreme, or at least co-equal, religious authority. It also promotes forced conversion, enslavement or subjugation of non-Muslims, and violent elimination of any people unwilling to convert or live as subjugated peoples. There has never been the same opposition to violent expansion and conquest in the historical Islamic world as there has among the Christian and Jewish worlds.
I believe it was the Muslim conquerer, Suliman who actually conquered the Christians and then didn't slaughter them all, bucking the centuries of tradition.
I am unable to find any info on a leader called Suliman. The closest I could find were Saladin, the leader of the majority of the Islamic world during the early Crusades; and Suleiman the Magnificent, who was the leader of the later Ottoman empire. Neither one had any qualms about slaughtering women and children during their reign.
Saladin did refrain from such wholesale slaughter on two occasions. The first being during his conquest of Jerusalem, and then only under the threat of wholesale slaughter of Muslims and the destruction of the Jerusalem mosques by Balian of Ibelin, leader of the forces defending the city. The second was the result of a series of "gentleman's agreements" between him and Richard Coeur de Lion, who he greatly respected, and who had manage to successfully stall his advances into Europe.
Suleiman was the leader of the Ottoman Empire well after the end of the Crusades, during the Reformation/Rennaisance period. His conquest of much of Europe was every bit as bloody as any previous war; and it wasn't until later in his rule, when he had consolidated his empire, that he began to institute reforms. And even then, Shari'ah was the dominant ruling code, and all of his civil reforms and legislation were carefully kept from violating Shari'ah principles.
