Now where have I heard that before? 
Islam conquered more territory during its height than the roman empire.
If you really want to play that game, they pale in comparison to the Brits, Mongols and Russians.
Did they? I barely noticed.
Maybe the reason why I barely noticed is because they didn’t penetrate the city walls (and possibly didn’t even try), unlike the Gauls (aka French pagans), the Visigoths (aka German pagans), the Vandals (aka more German pagans), the Ostrogoths (aka still more German pagans), the Normans (aka French Christians of Scandinavian ancestry), and the Holy Romans (aka various European Catholics and Protestants).
If we replace sack with sack or conquer, then we need to add the ancient Roman pagans themselves, French Catholics under Napoleon, Italian Catholics who took Rome from the Pope, and of course Americans who were also mostly Christian. 
But yeah, we should totally fear Muslims because a bunch of North Africans stole some treasure from churches on the outskirts of Rome in 846. Absolutely terrifying!!! 
There are things you can be ostracized or even arrested for saying in western countries, and whether or not the existing laws against blasphemy (yes in western countries), defamation and hate speech strike the right balance between freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination is always going to be in question. But where is the evidence that Muslims are afforded greater protection than any other group?
I did read your words. If you want to acknowledge that exceptions exist, don’t make unqualified absolute statements. “Muslims can’t integrate well” is an unqualified absolute statement. “Chinese can’t integrate well, Asians can’t integrate well, Catholics can’t set aside their loyalty to the Pope, white men can’t jump…”
A: Muslims can’t integrate well because they come from countries where apostasy is illegal.
Y: Lots of them come from countries where it’s not illegal. Do we need to make a list?
A: I’m only talking about countries with Islamic governments.
Y: Then you’re only talking about some Muslims, not all Muslims as a gigantic, homogeneous, swirling mass of terror, right?
I said mudslinging because, time and again, it turns into a petty contest of grievances, or as some would say, whataboutery. For one example, see the sack/conquest of Rome. Then there’s this:
Now where have I heard that phrase before?
You didn’t say extremely difficult. You said “legal and public backlash in their home country and community”. Public backlash for (perceived) betrayal of one’s community is not specific to Muslims. Legal backlash i.e. legal punishment for apostasy does exist in some Islamic countries, but not in the country with the largest Muslim population, nor in many other countries with majority or significant Muslim populations.
If you really care about freedom of religion, please get your facts straight.
I would say then why are you living in Malaysia? But…
It’s strange not to see a woman’s face in Malaysia (and many other countries). The degree of strangeness varies by region. The US has its Bible Belt, and Malaysia has its East Coast…
Btw do they ask for your marriage license when you check into a hotel?
How long have you been there? Yes, they have “boot camps” that promise to beat the fairy out of your troubled teens, just like they do in the USA. The difference is that “sodomy” is still illegal in Malaysia (same as Singapore and, until a few days ago, India – oh and Texas and 12 other US states until 2003). Now show me the number of convictions in the last, say, twenty years. And ask around. “Where can I see a ladyboy cabaret show?” It won’t be out in the open like Thailand. It will be down some dingy back alley, but everyone knows it’s there, including the police.
Oh my. What has our Andrew been up to? 
I honestly can’t relate and don’t even want to. You would need to spell it out – what exactly did you say? – and then let us try to find the cultural equivalents. But I would have zero interest in testing your theory.
Fwiw, I have had very civil discussions with Muslims at mosques in both Malaysia and Singapore (and would have in China when they invited me in and told me to ignore the “Muslims only” sign that was probably put up by the government, but I declined the invitation). I sensed that they hoped I would convert, but if anything they gave off less of a vibe of desperation than some of the Christians, Buddhists and Hindus I’ve met in churches and temples in various countries, and that’s not even much desperation to start with. No, I didn’t ask them what they thought of Aisha, or the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or anything like that. I visit other people’s places of worship mostly for the art and architecture, not to start arguments with strangers.
True. The “Allah” controversy always makes me chuckle.
They do.
They just don’t do it with an absolute oh you’re a Muslim sure no problem here’s your new passport attitude. That’s also true in the West. We could compare the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey (over 3.5 million registered) and Lebanon (over 1 million registered, probably over 2 million total) etc. with those in the West. They may receive worse treatment in Turkey and Lebanon, on average, but Turkey is just barely in the first world (or still an “emerging market” according to some), and Lebanon is a war-torn second world country.
Right now Bangladesh is tolerating an extremely large Rohingya refugee camp near the border with Myanmar. Why does it refuse to take them in permanently? You might as well ask why the US refuses to take in its fellow Christians from Latin America…
And in addition to the extreme poverty in Bangladesh (i.e. the government can barely take care of its own people), accepting the Rohingya refugees would would create a perception of legitimacy for the Burmese government’s position (which allegedly meets the legal definition of genocide) i.e. that they were Bangladeshi immigrants all along, not true Burmese, no matter how many centuries ago they arrived. Sound familiar, Europeans?
On a related note, going back to the apostasy/ostracism question, we could ask why the US asks Iraqis to risk their lives by working for the US military, offering to help them immigrate to the US in return, and then turns around and says your visas are no longer valid because you must be terrorists, but I think that discussion belongs in IP.
I haven’t lived those experiences (have you?), but I do know what hate is.
We’ve seen this before. Andrew wants to tell a very large percentage of Christians that they can’t possibly be Christians because they don’t agree with him about the nature of the Resurrection. Bojack (iirc) wants to tell Bush family supporters they can’t possibly be Republicans if they don’t support Trump. At least in both of those cases, the person making the accusation of blasphemy/apostasy is a member of the group.
Yet despite these complaints about how Muslims can’t be trusted because of Islamic theology, the moment a Muslim disagrees with those very same theological matters that get Andrew, Nacho et al. so worked up, they say you can’t possibly be a Muslim, or else you’re lying!
So much for freedom of religion. 
Enjoy! 
(Again, I do not actually recommend this, for reasons other than religion.)