Your point about asymmetry it well taken, and I like it better as the basis for a response. Some of us do understand their narrative. We should make that clear and insist on questioning it, rather than being cowed by these claims that we “don’t understand.”

There are lots of historical reasons the Crusader and Tatar comparisons are wrong. For example, unlike the Crusades our actions were not ordered by the Pope and are not aimed at liberating Jerusalem from the Muslims. We are actually allied with Muslim governments in Iraq and SW Asia. How exactly is this a Crusade?

Did Hugalu Khan help rebuild Baghdad and then withdraw from Iraq after his invasion? We are doing just that.

In effect non-believers are excluded from then becomes a closed debate. However such exclusivity does not apply the other way round, so we are left in a situation where OUR narratives can be debated and challenged by anyone, but theirs cannot.

In that sense the problem is it that it doesn’t matter how good the story is if it’s the wrong storyteller. That means Friedman does have a fundamental point – if non-believers are going to be excluded then those within Islam must take up the challenge of confronting the distortions of their narratives.

He is right to ask the question, and it deserves an answer. We certainly do need to work on our narrative, but we spend too long allowing others to evade dealing with their problems and responsibilities through the rhetorical device of pointing out ours.