What if I told you that right now, as you read this post, there is a Christian majority country in which religious freedom is severely limited? What if I told you that everyone born in that country is automatically considered a Christian by law, and that they cannot legally change their religion? What if I told you that anyone wishing to marry a citizen of that country must automatically convert to Christianity, and that converts to Christianity must appeal to a court for a certificate of apostasy if they wish to change their religion? What would you think of such a country? If you think such a country is repugnant, good. Christianity is supposed to be a free religion. It's a gift to be accepted, not a burden to be thrust upon us. Thankfully, such a country has never existed. Replace every instance of the word "Christianity" in the description with Islam, however, and you have an accurate description of Malaysia.
Because Muhammad was a terrible man, countries affected by his religion are terrible places. While you see thousands of people fleeing from Muslim majority countries, you don't see many people queuing up to move to them. When Islam begins to dominate a country, that country slowly declines into a swamp, to put it in as polite a manner as possible. So, safe to say, most people don't want to live in a Muslim majority country. Not even Muslims.
Now pick a country that has been strongly influenced by Christianity. The U.S. is a good start. Seems like a pretty good place to live right now, doesn't it? There are obviously some improvements that need to be made (ironically, many of which have been caused by anti-Christian politics), but it's doing pretty well right now. Freedom of expression, equality of the sexes, racial equality, a relatively free market, these are all things that swiftly decline in Islamic countries, yet all sprung directly from a Christian worldview.
[Post publication note: This article was originally published July 22nd 2018, before both the Covid 19 pandemic, and The Steal. I have decided to leave the above paragraph unedited, as it still makes the point it was intended to make.]
There are a few questions that must be asked. First, why is it that when Islam dominates a country, living standards decline, but when Christianity dominates a country, things tend to improve? Second, if this is the case, why do unbelievers tend to treat both faiths as if the opposite was true?
The answer to the first is fairly obvious. Both faiths hold what are known as "scriptures". That is, texts which are considered Holy, and intended to dictate how individual believers are to live, including in their interactions with unbelievers. The Muslim scriptures are the Qur'an and, to a lesser extent (or none, in the case of Qur'an-only Muslims), the Haddith. The Qur'an contains the sayings of Muhammad, which he claimed were revelations from Allah. The Haddith contain traditions of his life (which Qur'an 33:21 tells Muslims to copy). So, assuming the majority of Muslims take their scriptures seriously, any country dominated by Islam should look a lot like the Muslim scriptures' description of an ideal country. What we find in both the Qur'an and the Haddith is that Muhammad, this "beautiful pattern of conduct", was an aggressive, sexist, vengeful, intolerant, thieving, murderous paedophile. A conquering warlord who gained power, territory and wealth through all kinds of deception and violence. He broke peace treaties, he killed people for making fun of him, he tortured people until they gave up the location of their wealth, he allowed his followers to rape their captives, and that's just a short list. It makes sense, therefore, that a country dominated by the religion of such a terrible man would become a terrible country.
But what of the Bible? Unlike the Muslim scriptures, the Bible isn't overly political. There's certainly a place for politics in a Christian's life, and a Christian can form well-developed political views from its teachings, but ultimately, the Bible focuses more on changing society from the inside of each individual rather than by force of government. Even when Jesus was being arrested, He said His followers would not fight for Him because His kingdom is "not of this world" (John 18:36). Long story short, Jesus prefers to conquer hearts rather than lands.
That being said, religious freedom is on the table. When an unbeliever rejects Jesus, He doesn't command us to punish them, but to leave them alone (Matthew 10:14). We convert people through sound reasoning (2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Peter 3:15), not violence. Equality of all people is found in Galatians 3:28 where racial, economic, and sexual barriers are all broken down. Slavery is seen as an evil which shouldn't affect our walk with God, but we should escape when we can (1 Corinthians 7:21). The Bible is filled with excellent guidance which, when the majority of people follow, and especially when it is incorporated by the government, will inevitably lead to a free, civilised and equal society, even for unbelievers. There is a place for politics in the Bible, but a mature Christian knows that a true Theocracy cannot happen until God is physically present, and when sinful men attempt to take His place, we tend to make a dog's dinner out of it.
So, for the second question: Why do unbelievers treat it as if the opposite were the case? There are a variety of reasons, but I'm going to leave you to figure them out.