I think a lot of problems around this issue is that some people take “the sword” to only be a part of Islam when people are actively being massacred for refusing to convert. I think that this is wrong. While there are many, many, many examples of such behavior in Islam (both historically and in the contemporary world), forcing conversions is a much more complicated matter than simply saying “we will kill you if you don’t accept Islam”. For example, the devshirme I referenced earlier involved the taking of Christian children, prior to adolescence, to be raised as Muslims and used as military or in high positions. Is this forced conversion? Yes. Does it necessarily involve violence? No, but just the same it could not be refused.
So I take “the sword” to be more a metaphorical (and, unfortunately, often literal) idea: Force may be resorted to, but before that there are many steps that can be taken. This was part of Islam’s sophistication, if you will, upon being integrated into non-Arab societies, such that the Berbers and other earlier converts very much were put to the literal sword, while later converts like the Indonesians were ensnared by economic incentive.
It is all the same garbage, as it all results in Islam overtaking everything.