Ahh, but there is a difference.
Muslims are followers. They did not create the religion, they have faith that what they are told is the truth. They will die for their faith because they can believe it is the truth
The apostles were in a very different position. If they were lied, they let themselves be beaten, beheaded, crucified and inprisoned for something they knew was a lie. They are the only people in the history of the world who would not be able to believe if it were not true.
Not really
Muslims are followers. They did not create the religion, they have faith that what they are told is the truth. They will die for their faith because they can believe it is the truth. The apostles were in a very different position. If they were lied, they let themselves be beaten, beheaded, crucified and inprisoned for something they knew was a lie. They are the only people in the history of the world who would not be able to believe if it were not true.
Well for starters, The deaths of the apostles are only known from Christian legend, there's no collaborating evidence of them dying in the way the legends say they did.
The martyrdom of the apostles could simply be a way of making the story more exciting. Heroes should die heroic deaths.
But even it is is true that they did die in the way reported it's still a bad argument, people have died all throughout history for things that were not true and/or lies. For example
Joseph Smith never recanted even when faced with death by an angry mob. So does that prove Mormonism true?
Why did Jim Jones kill himself, when he knew that all he had been preaching was false?
The Waco Branch Davidians died believing David Koresh to be the next Messiah, does this make him so?
What about the early Muslims who volunteered to die in Muhammad's cause (i.e. The Battle of the Trench), according to your logic they wouldn't have if they knew that Muhammad had not been visited by Gabriel, so he must have right?