British politician Jacob William Rees-Mogg recently made some outlandish remarks that in many ways betray why formerly “great” Britain has fallen prey to Islam—that is, because its “bright men” believe in and promote fairy tales disguised as “history.”

Mogg appeared in an Oxford Union Debate on Islam, where he argued on the “pro-Islam” side, saying that the West has no right to be suspicious of Islam, or see it as different than any other religion.

As proof of this, Mogg pretended to be a historian—including by making “historical comparisons,” because “they matter,” because “we learn from our history,” he insisted. He then offered the following comparison (click here to watch rather than read him):

The Christians, in 1204, sacked, pillaged, and destroyed Constantinople. They stole things, they took things; some of them you can still see in Venice today. But in 1453, the 21-year-old Mehmet II took Constantinople—do you know what he did? He wrote down some of the great works of Western literature, scholarship, and philosophy, so they were preserved. He had ancient manuscripts copied for preservation. These are documents that might otherwise have been lost to us, and to Western civilization.

Mogg’s point was that, if Muslims were historically more advanced, civilized, and tolerant than Medieval Christians, then clearly Islam is not inherently backwards, savage, and intolerant. Clearly shifting circumstances—which currently seem favorable to the West, and not to Muslims—explain modern day Muslim angst and frustration. In short, it’s not Islam itself, but all sorts of other factors surrounding it—factors which would no doubt cause modern Western people to behave just like the worst of modern-day Muslims if the former experienced them.

Of course, this entire point crumbles if Mogg’s historical example is false or misleading in any way. And as it happens, it most certainly is—and not just in one but two ways: 1) it’s engaged in what is known as “lies by omission,” and 2) it is built on a false but widely believed assumption.

In this article, we will deal with the first deception—the many lies by omission. Mogg’s claims about the Crusader sack of Constantinople in 1204 are accurate. Note, however, how the transition to Mehmet begins with a “but”—implying that the Muslims behaved more nobly than the crusaders.

Note, too, how, whereas Mogg forthrightly declares that the crusaders “sacked, pillaged, and destroyed Constantinople,” Mehmet merely “took” it. Here’s Mogg’s assertion again, in all its glory:

The Christians, in 1204, sacked, pillaged, and destroyed Constantinople… But in 1453, the 21-year-old Mehmet II took Constantinople—do you know what he did?

Actually, we do know what Mehmet did, thanks to numerous contemporary and eyewitness accounts—and it wasn’t to write down “some of the great works of Western literature, scholarship, and philosophy, so they were preserved,” as Mogg would mog us into believing.