If, however, Islam and Muslims attain such a power and grandeur against which the power and grandeur of disbelievers be subdued or at least it may be unable to create sedition and mischief mentioned above, then, of course, mutual compromise through peace treaties with non-Muslim countries is not against injunctions of Jehad. Likewise as long as the required capabilities for breaking the grandeur of disbelief are not possessed by Muslims, peace agreements with other countries, along with all efforts to accumulate the sources of power, are indeed lawful. In other words, there can be two types of agreement with non-Muslims.
1) Mutual compromise and peace agreements can be made with countries that have no power which could threaten the grandeur and domination of Muslims. This will be enforced as long as they do not become a threat to the Muslims again.
2) If Muslims do not possess the capability of “Jehad with power” agreement may be made till the power is attained.
My article published in March, 1971 as referred to by you pertains to these particular types of agreements. The excerpts of article published in June, 1981 pertain to the state where the grandeur of unbelievers dominates over the Muslims. Hence your expression that, “Aggressive Jehad is obligatory against hostile, and non-compromising non-Muslim states subject to capability, so that their power breaks and they do not form obstacles in the way of Muslim Missionary works. Jehad is not advisable against non-hostile and compromising non-Muslim states who allow freedom of missionary activities” ….. It is correct if it means what I explained above.
But if it means that just by permitting missionary activities a non-Muslim state becomes “non-hostile and compromising” and Jehad against them does not remain lawful or desirable, then in my view this is not correct. Arguments in favour of my view have already been advanced.
As for your deliberation that “… Particularly these days when territorial expansion is generally condemned contrary to the times when conquering the land was common which was regarded as a credit to the attribute of the kings and rulers. The Aggressive Jehads forming the major parts of Islamic history all belong to the same era.” …….. With all the respects for you I strongly condemn it, because, if this is taken to be correct it would mean that Islam does not have a measure to determine a thing as good or bad. If a bad thing is counted as an “essential attribute” at the particular time Islam would begin to march on the footsteps of this practice and when people begin to condemn it at another time Islam would also follow the suit. The question is whether Aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not? If it is, why the Muslims should stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable but deplorable why Islam did not stop it in the past. Did it continue to practice because this was regarded as a creditable attribute of the kings”?