When presenting the argument that 'Islam is NOT a religion of peace' most Christian apologists often cite Surah At-Tawbah (9:5) which is often called the 'Sword Verse,' which commands believers to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture and besiege them and sit in waiting for them ar every place of ambush" Along with the historical context of the verses revelation, this verse provides the best justification that Islam is not a religion of peace. 24 verses later in the same chapter of the same Surah, Muslims are instructed to "fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture--[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." Islam, based off of these two verses, highlight how Islam calls for the complete subjugation of the Christians and Jews, viewing them as second-class citizens who must pay a tax (the jizyah) as a sign of their submission. That isn't the religion of peace. A religion of peace is treating all as Children of God. Jesus tells us to "pray for those who persecute you." The differences between Islam and Christianity are clear.

When arguing that Islam is not a "religion of peace," critics often cite specific verses from the Quran to suggest that the text contains explicit directives for violence or intolerance against non-believers. A frequently referenced passage is Surah At-Tawbah (9:5), often called the "Sword Verse," which commands believers to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." Critics argue this verse, particularly when read alongside the historical context of its revelation, provides a theological justification for offensive military action and perpetual conflict against those outside the faith. ​Additionally, critics point to Surah At-Tawbah (9:29), which instructs Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." This verse is frequently highlighted to argue that the religion mandates the subjugation of Christians and Jews, viewing them as second-class citizens who must pay a tax (the jizyah) as a sign of their submission.

Since you won't state the context of Surah 9 I will. The Muslim Community of Medina is at war with the Quraish of Mecca who repeatedly broke peace treaties including the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. You also mentioned that Surah 9 abrogates earlier verses, however its quite the opposite with many modern argue that broad, peaceful verses like "there is no compulsion in religion" remain foundational and are really not abrogated by specific verses that addressed tactical necesities during your prophets time. Second, the Jizyah tax isn't one of submission in the modern sense, but rather a protection tax. In exchange for this tax, non-Muslims, or dhimmis, were historically exempted from mandatory military service and were granted protection, religious freedom, and communal autonomy. Furthermore, most contemporary Muslim nations have abandoned this tax and have adopted modern legal frameworks of citizenship and equality, this actually disproves the wild claim you have brought about. Finally sociologists, when discussing polls regarding punishments for appstasy or other severe legal interpretarions, note the distinction between ones private belief and state policy. Public opinion in any country can be influenced by cultural, political, and socio-economic factors that do not always align perfectly with the diversity of theological interpretations found within the global Muslim population. Islam is also not a monolith. There is a spectrum of thought ranging from traditionalist and literalist to modern, reformist, and progressive schools of thought.

Your Quran has multiple conflicted views as to how it was revealed. One states that it was revealed over 23 years, the verses addressing specific historical challeneges and conflicts between the early Muslim community and the Quraish. Another one argues that later verses, like the "Sword verse" of Surah 9, abrogates earlier, more peaceful commands which presents a more rigid interpretation of the later texts. Second, its the same with the Jizyah tax. Ome perspective frames it as a medieval instrument that provided non-Muslims exemptions from military service and religious autonomy, arguably more progressive than many other system such as the Feudal System. The opposite shows the Jizyah tax as an institutionalized system of "second-class status" that serves as a sign of submission. Ultimately your scholars can't agree on the views of the Quran. Finally, the difference between institurional theology and individual lives is shown in the discussion surrounding modern religious practices and extremism. When a large proportion of a country's, or even groups, population supports extreme interpretations such as harsh punishments for apostasy it indicayes that these views are not merely "fringe" but represent a broader issue withinthe mainstream belief system.

I don't dispute your personal experience, and I'm glad your neighbors treated you and your family with kindness. Christians should recognize that many Muslims are genuinely compassionate, generous people. However, personal anecdotes don't determine whether a religion's teachings are true or what they prescribe. If we're debating Islam as a belief system, the relevant evidence is the Qur'an, Hadith, and the interpretations of Islamic scholars—not the character of individual Muslims. A person's moral behavior may reflect their own conscience or cultural values just as much as their religious convictions. So while your story speaks well of your neighbors, it doesn't answer the question of what Islam itself teaches. It's true that the Bible contains difficult passages, but context matters. Many of the Old Testament commands regarding warfare or capital punishment were given to ancient Israel for specific historical situations and were not universal commands for all believers throughout history. By contrast, critics argue that verses such as Surah 9:5 and 9:29 have been understood by many classical Islamic jurists as having broader legal significance beyond a single historical event. Whether one agrees with that interpretation is open to debate, but simply saying "the Bible has hard verses too" doesn't address the substance of the concern. The discussion should compare how each religion understands those passages in context, not assume they're equivalent. How believers live certainly matters, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful citizens who reject terrorism and simply want to live their lives. However, the behavior of followers cannot be the only standard for evaluating a religion's truth claims or ethical teachings. If a religion's scriptures are being discussed, then those texts deserve examination on their own terms. Likewise, Christians shouldn't be judged solely by the worst Christians, nor should Islam be judged solely by extremists. The fairest approach is to examine both the foundational texts and the mainstream interpretations while also acknowledging how most adherents actually practice their faith. That provides a more balanced and intellectually consistent evaluation than relying exclusively on either anecdotes or extremist examples.