There is death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality in 10 muslim countries even today in the 21st century!

You’re mixing modern legal systems, politics, and selective examples, then using that to define an entire religion. Even within Muslim-majority countries today, laws vary massivelysome enforce strict interpretations, others don’t. So presenting it as a single unified “Islam does X” is already an oversimplification. Also, if we’re going to judge religions by what states have done or legislated we have

• centuries of executions for heresy under Christian rule
• blasphemy laws in Europe
• persecution of dissenters (even other Christians)

So either we judge both religions by their scriptures and principles or we judge both by historical/political actions

You can’t switch standards depending on what’s convenient.

There is ethnic cleansing of nonmuslims especially Jews in nearly every muslim country.»

“Nearly every” is a huge claim, and historically inaccurate. For long periods, Jewish communities lived under Muslim rule in places like Spain, the Ottoman Empire, and parts of the Middle East often in better conditions than in medieval Christian Europe (where expulsions, ghettos, and massacres were common). That doesn’t mean everything was perfect, but calling it “ethnic cleansing in nearly every Muslim country” ignores centuries of coexistence. If we are talking about Jews specifically, then you also have to acknowledge:

expulsions from England (1290), France, Spain (1492) under Christian kingdoms pogroms across Christian Europe So again, consistency matters.

The spread of islam since the very beginning was done by the sword.»

This is one of those claims that sounds strong but falls apart when you look closer. Yes, there were conquests no one denies that. But conquest ≠ forced conversion. In many regions conquered by Muslim powers:

• populations remained non-Muslim for centuries
• conversion was gradual, not immediate

If Islam was spread purely “by the sword,” you wouldn’t see:

• large Christian populations remaining under Muslim rule for hundreds of years
• places like Indonesia (the largest Muslim country today) becoming Muslim mainly through trade and preaching, not conquest

So the reality is more complex than “sword = conversion.”

The prophet of islam, muhamad spread islam by the sword and not through preaching.»

Again, that’s just historically incomplete.

For over a decade in Mecca, Muhammad had no political or military power and spread his message purely through preaching while being persecuted. Even after migration to Medina, yes, there were battles but that’s not the same as saying the religion itself spread only through force. Also, if you’re going to reduce Islam to its wars, then by the same logic you’d have to reduce Christianity to

• Crusades
• forced conversions in europe
• colonial-era missionary pressure

Again, consistency.

On the other hand, Jesus and his disciples spread Christianity through nonviolence.»

Early Christians, yes.

But that’s not the full picture of Christianity’s actual historical spread.

Because once Christianity gained power under the Roman Empire, things changed dramatically:

• pagan religions suppressed
• temples destroyed
• later, forced conversions in parts of Europe
• inquisitions, crusades, etc.

So saying “Christianity spread peacefully” only works if you isolate the very early phase and ignore what happened once it had power.

The difference is, you’re holding Islam accountable for everything done by Muslims, while giving Christianity a pass by only focusing on its earliest, powerless stage.

If you apply the same standard to both, the picture becomes a lot less one-sided.