Originally Posted by bhiems
As far as ayat 9:29 is concerned, then it has been explained in detail in the following article:
The following fatwâ is also relevant:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court
If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.
The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.
May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.
Lastly, with regard to Umdat al-Salik
(Reliance of the Traveller), the quote is found on page 602 of the translation and simply repeats what is said in the verse. However, the quote also states that such warfare can only take place after the Muslim caliph has first extended the invitation of peace and order with them.