I’ve observed that you seem to be a kind and gentle natured person so I want you to understand that anything I say here is in the interest of discussion and isn’t meant to offend.
I think the difference between conquest in Christianity and conquest with much of Islam is in the details. Yes Christian monarchs like Muslim monarchs have spread their domains and in turn their faith by the sword. I don’t think any Christian would deny that. So in terms of wrongs being committed by Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists no doubt there is a lot of even playing field.
In the past it conquest was more or less considered a right of the strong. This was a universal concept for most nations. Powerful Kings, emperors and warlords stabilized, and protected their realms by crushing all of those in competition with them. Also most monarchs felt it conducive for those beneath them to share in their faith.
That said, the difference between Christ and Mohammed was that Mohammed himself led conquests to spread his religion. While Christ spread a message of forgiveness. Yes forgiveness is an aspect of Islam as well. However, submission to the religion has historically always been seen as more important than a free will decision to convert. In other words, while Christians have done horrible things throughout history they did so in opposition to their founder’s teachings. While conversion by the sword in Islam is in keeping with the practices of its founder.
Which brings us to the modern day. As Christianity developed and continues to develop it moves further away from the violence of its native cultures. Buddhists are the same way. While in Muslim countries and communities this transition is difficult.
I will agree that most Muslims I know are exceptionally kind and generous people. Yet despite this good nature in the average believer they find it hard to effectively dispute the Imams and religious leaders who teach death to other people and religions. This difficulty arises because Mohammed himself practiced violence. So in order to say that the Imams are wrong, Mohammed himself must be condemned. Obviously this is a difficult decision for any Muslim to make as it would call into question the entire religion. If Mohammed was so wrong in this aspect of his life, then what else might he have been wrong about?
In turn the above leads to outrage by non-Muslims when these violent acts are committed but there is no, or very little out cry from average muslim citizens. This is further compounded by the fact that in most non-Muslim’s experience the Muslims who speak against atrocities are the nominal ones. The ones who know very little about their religion and practice it in a more or less vague way. This then leads to a view point from non-Muslims that the further a Muslim is away from his/her religion the more enlightened they are. This isn’t universal of course, but I’m speaking to what we on the outside see.
Further, often it seems that when Muslims are being abused horribly by their own people, it is non-Muslims who often seem to be the only one’s who care. Again, I realize that there are exceptions to everything I’ve said. I don’t deny that. However, I think that for progress to be made it is important that Muslims understand what the rest of the world sees.