I've offered several rebuttals. the first is that in Islamic theology anyone who refuses islam is committing sin. people of the Book may be subjugated rather than killed, but others, as your texts show, are subject to death. I have also indicated, and do again below, where mohammed nonetheless killed jews and Christians.
Moreover, what you present is by no means an absolute or anythkng close ot it. it is an entirely subjective interpretation. Most Madrassahs teach other than what you see - a reference to which i make below. And the Islamists, that huge global maovement, disagree with you, which is why they are killing people in something like 26 countries of many faiths.
Then there's that the koran has many contradictions. That too I address below with respect to "abrogration."
Thus, all needs to be addressed as a whole, not through selective passages and selective subjectivity. We need to consider why the Islamists disagree with you. And that they do for many reasons, beginning with the example mohammed set, and how they deal with the contradictions in the Koran and hadith, versus how peaceful Muslims deal with them.
Finally, before my quotes below, you simply must bear in mind that I am saying that either interpretion can be valid. Therefore I amnot actually disagreeing with you, only pointing out that your view is not necessarily correct, while, ironically, not necessarily being wrong either. Both are justifiable.
Let's consider several contradictions. First, we are told that the people of the book should not be forced to convert or face violence (only subjugation).
"Unfortunately, there are other stories of Muhammad -- particularly his notorious treatment of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe of Arabia. After they were captured, Muhammad executed them. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq: "The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." One of the Prophet’s fiercest enemies among the Banu Qurayza, Huyayy, proclaimed: "God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel." Then Muhammad struck off his head."
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"There is more: Akyol (a democratically-minded moderate Turk Muslim and scholar) asserts that "in the Koran Jews and Christians are called 'The People of the Book,' and salvation is promised to them if they worship God sincerely (2:62). True, but the Qur'an also says of both Jews and Christians: "Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" (9:30)."
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
"Bell, in his authoritative1937 translation and exegesis of the Koran, demonstrates “ . is a chapter of war proclamations . ”, verses Q.9.29 to Q.9-35, for example, being
“ . in effect a proclamation of war against Jews and Christians, and probably belong to the year IX [9-years after the Hijra] when an expedition was designed for the North which would involve war with Christians and possibly also with Jews.” 1"
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
"Moreover in classical exegesis, sura 9, both its individual verses, and as an overall chapter, abrogates the pacific Koranic verses like those Akyol cites in his article section subtitled, Discovering the Good Unbelievers. Ibn Warraq summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation:
“Contradictions do abound in the Koran, and the early Muslims were perfectly well aware of them; indeed they devised the science of abrogation to deal with them. It is a very convenient doctrine that, as one Christian unkindly put it, ”fell in with that law of expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muhammad’s prophetic career’. According to this doctrine, certain passages of the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' . Now we can see how useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing scholars out of difficulties- though, of course, it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later); ”tolerance’ has been abrogated by ”intolerance’. For , the famous Sword verse, Sura 9, verse 5, 'Slay the idolators wherever you find them,' is claimed to have canceled 124 verses that promote tolerance and patience.” 2"
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
"Within several centuries of Muhammad’s death, Muslim theologians and jurists, Sunni (including all four main schools of jurisprudence), Shi’ite, and Sufi (both Sunni and Shi’ite), constructed from Koranic verses, the hadith collections, and the sacralized biographies (sira) of Muhammad, a remarkably consistent body of law describing jihad war as a permanent institution to Islamize the known world. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war:
“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” 4"
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
"[the] concept of jihad is interpreted in the Egyptian school curriculum almost exclusively as a military endeavor . it is war against God's enemies, i.e., the infidels . it is war against the homeland's enemies and a means to strengthening the Muslim states in the world. In both cases, jihad is encouraged, and those who refrain from participating in it are denounced."
same source
"Ibn Hudayl, a 14th century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, explained forthrightly, sanctioned procedures and methods which contradict Bernard Lewis’ categorical, but erroneous assertion:
“It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden - if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them - as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him, provided that the imam (i.e. the religious “guide” of the community of believers) deems these measures appropriate, suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate."
same source
™ Version 4.2