THE person speaking had lived through it all. He was from the Moluccas - the Spice Islands of legend - and had been there most of his adult life. He was a Catholic and spoke from experience of people and events known to him at first hand. The tale he told of friends and communities betrayed, and innocents tortured and murdered without qualm or mercy, was heart-rending. All the more so because it need never have happened; and because it reflected badly on those who were obliged to prevent it: the Indonesian government and the International Community, especially the UN and its International Court of Justice.
Read it. It's enough to run you out of your last blood pressure prescription. And it contains something else. I've read the bit about 'there is no compulsion in Islam and how that means real moslems would NEVER try to force someone to convert. There's a very careful note on the background of it, and I'm going to put up a long excerpt:
"Popularly it is translated ‘There is no compulsion in Islam’. But the verse reads din ‘religion,’ not Islam. Also it should be noted [though this is never usually stated when the verse is used as a proof of the peacefulness of Islam] that Sura 2,256 is addressed to Muslims, not non-Muslims. It warns Muslims not to dally with ‘unbelief,’ and implies that belief is easy which is what the reference to ‘no force’ seems to suggest.
The following verse - usually never quoted - is the one that deserves attention. It applies to non-Muslims whom it warns in unambiguous language of the dire consequences of not embracing Islam: ‘[you] are the inmates of hell, and shall dwell there’. There is intimidation and coercion in this verse [Sura 2, 257] and perceptive Muslims would realise that if you can threaten unbelievers with hell fire if they don’t become Muslims, then a fortiori you can use physical force to make them embrace Islam.
There is an even more cogent argument against the ‘tolerance,’ and lack of coercion allegedly preached by Sura 2,256: the behaviour of Muhammad.
‘Then the Apostle [Muhammad] sent Khalid bin al-Walid … to the tribe of Beni Haritha bin Ka‘b in Najran and ordered him to wait three days before attacking them, after inviting them to embrace Islam.. If they agreed then he was to accept their submission from them; and if they refused he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam saying “If you accept Islam you will save your life.” They embraced Islam because of the threat. ….. When they came to the Apostle [Muhammad] and he saw them he asked “Who are these people who look like people from India?” and they replied, “These people are the Beni al-Haritha bin Ka‘b. … The Apostle [Muhammad] said to them: “'Had Khalid not written to me that you had accepted Islam and not resisted, I would have tossed your heads beneath your feet”.’ Despite denial by modern-day Islamic spokesmen, according to Ibn Hisham his biographer, Muhammad not only approved, but commanded the use of force in religion. And Islamic Law, especially the Qur’an, explicitly approves the use of such force.
Some Muslim scholars may grudgingly admit this privately when pushed, but publicly attest the opposite, claiming against all evidence to the contrary that the Qur’an opposes the use of force in spreading Islam.
Sura 2,256 is a trap for unwary non-Muslims. It cannot be taken at face value. The final blow to its credibility comes from the fact that whatever it may originally have meant, informed Muslims consider it to have been abrogated.  The abrogating verse is Sura 9:73 : 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them’."
Interesting reading. If you can keep your head from exploding in the earlier part.