@v_e
I followed the link to Sura 2 and continued reading. The segment I quote (Overquote? ABEd?) is more apropos of another thread I posted to but it was perilously close to being spiked so I've put it here
//
Some state that these verses teach compulsion, and contradict the "there is no compulsion" interpretation in verse Q.2:256[62][63] However, traditionally, these verses were understood differently: Qur'anic exegetes al-Baydawi and al-Alusi conclude that Q.9:5 refers to those pagan Arabs who violated their peace treaties by waging war against the Muslims,[64][65] while Ahmad Al-Maraghī explains that Q.9:29 means:
[i] "fight those mentioned when the conditions which necessitate fighting are present, namely, aggression against you or your country, oppression and persecution against you on account of your faith, [i] or threatening your safety and security, as was committed against you by the Byzantines, which was what lead to Tabuk.",[66] and therefore these verses don't teach compulsion.[67] While Muslims are obliged to spread the message, non-Muslims are not obliged to accept.[23][68][69][70] In general, war in Islam is not to coerce people into accepting faith, but rather to remove disorder, conflicts or oppression in the world,[71] as it hopes to establish justice, equity, peace and security.[56]
//
Italics = my emphasis
So, my point there is that some Muslims are re-living an ongoing 7th century war. Imagine a British person from 3416, still banging on about WWII, like fascism was still a threat to our survival!
(Cautiously steering clear of invoking Godwin's law, there, even though you can tell the sentence was structured to name-drop).