Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are

commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an
interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings.
Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the
People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established
the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are
not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by
force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against
them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs,
however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their
religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace
pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic
State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful
non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring nonMuslim 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 Hn 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.
Jihd 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 Mutah and Tabk during the Prophet's
lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet
Muhammad.
The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet
Muhammad did not initiate aggression against anyone, rather he and his
followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic
state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began
when the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate
of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and
beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a
diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed
force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements
and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut'ah, was a defeat for the
Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the
Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as
mentioned in the above fatwa, hostilities between the Muslims and the
Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor
in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts
were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such
as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite
peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace
pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they
betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites
against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of
A`hzab , then Allah revealed[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu
as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the
verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As
Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29
and similar verses:
All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression
and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish
tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians.

Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims

who commit aggression and not those who are committed to live in peace.
The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was
implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid
Sabiq writes:
What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of
hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3.
deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases,
fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred
ordainments. It is then called, Jihad. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3,
p. 81)
The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state,
and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout
comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:
Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five
pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and
Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for
social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But
they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay
this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the
state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after
the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout,
Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some
people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay
taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim
citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer
to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz AsSaqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:
The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to
pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the
Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar
annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule.
Shaykh Abu'l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the
Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the
Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders
of those being taxed:

The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers
that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight
dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken,
and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the
minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on
behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its
minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should
make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi'i
considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below
this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on
the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to
harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in
accordance with people's means. If he has used his judgement to conclude
the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being
taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants,
generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this
amount, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam asSultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from oppressing non-muslims and
command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the
Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming nonmuslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there
was an agreement of peace, as he said,
"The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or
forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of
Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa'i 25/8 no.
2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).
In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who
initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight
under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful
non-muslim neighbors.