You neatly illustrate the distortion that arises from quoting verses out of context.
You don’t understand the teaching is prophetic of the division that comes from following Christ.
The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament make it clear this isn’t a literal command to kill but that the sword represents division.
Christian martyrdom means being killed for your faith (e.g. Stephen), not to fight physically and to kill for your faith. The latter is Muslim martyrdom, a perversion of true martyrdom.
Therefore note Jesus’ instruction in the garden of Gethsemane to see what Jesus thinks of the sword. Also the teachings on loving your enemies, (Matt 5) and turning the other cheek.
He clearly teaches the sword is not the Christian way. This is obvious when you read Matt chapter 26 ( cf Mohammad and Islam).
The way I interpret that text is Jesus is basically saying: everyone around us is a Jew. If you accept me as the Messiah there is going to be problems with those around you who do not accept me. Those people will be your mothers, fathers, sister, brothers, friends etc.
In no way do I conclude there is a suggestion of violence or aggression against anyone from that text,or anyplace else in the New Testament for that matter.
I was giving an illustration to the author of the article that religions don't necessarily result in peace. I was responding to this statement in the article.
And, most of all, it would be necessary to no longer call it (Islam) a religion, a spiritual movement that helps man to create peace. The author seems to think for Islam to qualify as a religion it has to help man create peace. I don't agree with that statement.