The next verse says.
"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.” [Al-Qur’an 9:6]".
Like i said before you have to read the whole Quarn as their is other verses regarding rules of warfare, I can add them tomorrow and look over the other two quotes off to bed.
If your a Pagan, and want to remain a Pagan and the State of the country happily upholds that. What then?
My point here is that, from discussions with a muslim work colleague on the train (usually about life the universe and everything else) - this question above becomes difficult to entertain as a possibility beyond 100% certainty as it starts to question the religion and becomes a question for religious leaders. The definition of semantic starts as "it is that because it is true because it it written/taught" rather than "it could be that and open to personal interpretation or rejection". I think it was good of him to broach the subject because being a naturalised Pakistani that was difficult for him to acknowledge or describe why that is to a self chosen non religious individual - even being an intelligent guy with a young family and kids himself.
The State places equality amongst citizens - Muslim and Pagans. The State is governance over how each member of society is treated - absolute. I think it's those aspects that are difficult for some to accept and leads to the lobbying to change - however it then becomes unfair as a state. Especially as the state is there to uphold basic rights of minorities.... so.. that leads to the circular argument about scripture being fundamentally important to a minority that the state should by it's own decree uphold.
The reality is majority of numbers sets the tone of law making over time. If that majority are religious then a country that does not recognise religion suddenly becomes "religious-iced" and religious tensions and civil war occur (just like Syria).
Governments are therefore in this difficult position. Does the majority that abide and operate as citizens allow this or not? This is the tension that exists within France and other places globally. That is politics and where religion is then driven into politics and where then politics of a nation becomes governed by religion (most extreme extrapolation) that is steered by the religious leader (after [if?!] all the war settles).
However all of this is completely irrelevant - ISIS hate everyone that does not bow down to their self-declared Caliph as regard him as the one true voice.
So that means if ISIS conquered the western hemisphere - then Saudi Arabia's Wabanism would be next as it does not bow down to ISIS' leader.
Lets not lose focus here!