the massacres of Jews and heretics diirirrg the crusading era, andrnespcciallx’ the great pogroms during the Black Death. Presumabl’,rnscientificall’ adanccd Muslims did not need to findrnscapegoats for the plague. Chrishan Europe is equally condemnedrnby its invoK ement in the Crusades, those acts of religious-rnbased militarism that foreshadowed the worst brutalitiesrnof later imperialism. Tlie contrast between the two religions isrnsimpK’ good and evil, night and day.rnUnfortunately, the conventional image is also utterly wrongrnat c erv point. Certainly, some Muslim societies were tolerant,rnfor the simple reason that, for most of the Middle Ages,rntlicv were ruling over vast Christian majorities (not minorities)rnand simply could not suppress or massacre all their subjects.rnSomebod had to pav taxes and build roads. In countries likernF,gpt, therefore, the new Muslim rulers contented themselvesrnwith persecuting the tens of thousands of monks and clergy.rnKach was required to have the name of his church or monasticrnhouse branded on his hand, and if he failed to do so, the handrn\ ould be cut off. Christian lainen generalK’ escaped these tormentsrnuntil the 14th century, when, during the Black Death,rnMuslim authorities launched a wave of massacres and forcedrnconversions on a a.st scale. Yes, Muslims did launch pogroms,rntiiough commonlv against Cliristians rather than Jews. Accordingrnto the World Christian Encyclopedia, the number of Christiansrnliing in Asia fell from perhaps 21 million in 1200 to justrnx5 million bv 1500. Generally, Islamic tolerance is an historicalrnnnth. ^hlslims were not mon.stcrs, but—contrar- to legendrn—they did not rise above the prejudices of their age anyrnmore tiian their Christian contemporaries.rnFrom tiie 14th century on, the fate of Christians living underrnMuslim rule is veiy much the same as that of Jews in mediexalrnEurope. I his parallel has continued into modern times, andrnfor both minorities, the last century or so has been truly appalling.rnThough Chri.stian coninrunitics snr’ive across the region,rntheir numbers are a pathetic shadow of what the) wererneven in 1850, and entire peoples have been obliterated sincernthat time. The Armenian genocide of 1915 is well known, butrncqualK’ devastating were the massacres of tens of thousands ofrnLebanese and Syrian Christians in 1860. In 1915, tire OttomanrnTurks slaughtered and e.xpelled hmidreds of thousands ofrnChristians of all sects, not just Armenians. A famine deliberate-rn1- induced by die Turkish military claimed tiie lives of 100,000rnLebanese Maronite Christians. Across the Middle East, thernbloodshed of 1915 destroyed ancient Christian cultures thatrnhad survived since Roman times —groups like the Jacobites,rnNestorians, and Chaldaeans. And the carnage continued afterrnWorld War I ended. Between 1919 and 1925, hundreds ofrnriiousands of Creek Christians were expelled en masse from thernnew Kemalist state of Turkey. As late as 1955, Istanbul’s Christiansrnsuffered what William Dalrvmple called “the worst race riotrnin Europe since Kristallnacht.” Wliy do w c never hear aboutrnsuch things? LOo not expect them to form tiie subject of any futurernPBS documentars’, widi a tide like Empire of Blood or EorgottenrnHolocaust. Such programs are about as improbable asrnstudies publicizing the millennium-long Muslim hegemonyrnoer the .African skne trade.rnThe long persistence of Christian comnumities under Islamrnchallenges contemporar}’ attitudes toward historical conflictsrnbetween the h’o friths, particularly the monopoly of righteousnessrnclaimed by tlic defenders of Islam. In recent cars, a powerfulrnsocial movement has demanded that the West—specificallyrnthe churches—apologize for the Crusades. In this view,rnthe Crusades represented aggression, pure and simple, againstrnthe Muslim world, and nobody can den’ the resulting wars insolvedrntheir share of atrocities. Underlying the movement forrnapology, though, is the assumption that religious frontiers arernsomehow carved in stone, and that the Muslim-ruled states ofrnthe Near East were destined to form part of the world of Islam.rnAn equally good case can be made that the medieval MiddlernEast was no more inevitably Muslim than other regions conqueredrnby Islam and subsequentiy liberated, like Spain andrnHungary. Should the West also apologize for those successfulrnreconquests, or perhaps for failing to let Muslim forces roll overrnAustria and Germany? Curiously, Westerners do not suggestrnthat Muslims apologize for the aggressive acts that gave themrnpower over these various lands in the first place. If seizing Syriarnand Palestine by the Muslim sword was acceptable in the seventhrncentury, it is difficult to see why reclaiming it with thernChristian lance 400 years later was somehow a war crime equivalentrnto the holocaust.rnI have suggested that liberal academics and opinion-makersrnsiupathize with Islam partly because it is a leading historical rivalrnof the Western civilization they hate. But there is somethingrnmore to it than that, since the picture of Islam that emergesrnfrom recent writing looks suspiciously like the kind of historyrnthat liberals would like to have if the’ were to invent it afresh —rnwliich is, in fact, what the}’ are doing. Just as Victorians createdrna romantic cult of the Christian Middle Ages as an intellectualrnrefuge from the industrial society the loathed, so modern liberalsrnare supplying themselves with a romanticized and sanitizedrnMuslim past that substitutes for the authentic Westernrnand Christian roots they have rejected. Accordingly, Islam isrnportra} ed as eventhing that should hae been: a glorious worldrnof knights and casties blessed with a civilized, tolerant, and rationalrnreligion (a superior version of Unitarianism, perhaps); arnsane mysticism, represented by the Sufis; sophisticated sciencernand flourishing universities; and even signs of sexual equality. Itrnsounds too good to be t r u e – a s , of course, it is. It is so inaccuraternthat, as time goes by, scholars will be forced to realize therngulf that separates their ideal Islam from the painful reality. Atrnthat point, tastes in invented histon’ will shift once more, fromrnIslam to some otiier cis’ilization, preferably to one far enoughrnaway not to have too many embarrassing facts surrounding itrn(which is a leading reason why Tibet always appeals to Westernrndreamers). What we can sa- with confidence is that this questrnfor a usable past will not lead to a renewed taste for the ChristianrnWest. That societ)’ is too violent, too intolerant, too . . . real.rnI began with the British Foreign Office, so let me end there.rnIn die 1930’s, a novice reporter assigned to the F”0 found, to hisrnhorror, that the daily press briefings were held at 6:00 P.M., butrnhis newspaper had a deadline of 4:00 P.M. Flow could he possiblyrnkeep his readers informed of daily developments in foreignrnpolicy? Not to worry, chuckled the old hands from the pressrncorps. In an- given situation, just assume that the British goyernmentrnhas decided to do the most craven and sickeningly dishonorablernthing possible, and write your stor)’ as if that is thernpolicy they hae just announced. You will never go wrong.rnThe same principle applies when v’e try to understand howrnWestern academics study their own culture in relationship tornothers. Just assunre that the fashionable interpretation of thernday will be uncritically obsequious to all other cultures, whilernscoffing at Western or Christian achievements at every possiblernopportunity, and you will never be far off the mark. crnSEPTEMBER 2001/19rnrnrn