Classic Islamic Law Also Promotes Violence
All four principal Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools, agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims. These ancient teachings have never been reformed or rejected: Ibn Arafa, a Maliki scholar, explains that jihad is “fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir [unbeliever] (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest.” Ibn Taymiyya, a Hanbali jurist, explained that the aim of jihad was “that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
The Hanafi school stipulates that “if the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them…the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi agrees, saying that if non-believers refuse to accept Islam, “war is waged against them.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
First of all, one of your own sources refutes you making it clear if they have a treaty they cannot be fought. Yes this would apply today as the U.N forbids such conduct and is accepted by Muslim countries. As explained in the article linked on the bottom we are obligated to keep are treaties. Second of all you quote these 4 scholars as if they are representative of their entire legal schools
For example Ibn abd al Barr of the maliki school understood it as only obligatory when Muslims are endanger. He says,"“[Jihad] is an obligation when one is in a state of insecurity and voluntary when one is enjoying security."
As explained by Imam Zaid Shakir,"This position, the permissibility to fight in order to repulse aggression, is the view of the majority of the Sunni Muslim legal schools..."
For a more detailed analysis see
http://www.zaytuna.org/seasons/seasons2/53-64 %20Seasons.pdf