Sadly, we have to go back to the 19th century for that. Dr. Andrew Bostom provides this quote from US diplomat Edward A . van Dyck, who was at the time stationed in Cairo:
In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. “Fiqh,” as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; …with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts—“the House of Islam,” and “the House of War;” out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammedans that “all kinds of unbelievers from but one people.”
In other words, if you’re not Muslim, you’re a target.
I disagree with van Dyck a bit; Islamic law also deals with treaties between believers and, well, everyone else. As in the treaty of Hudaybiyya, such agreements for peace are really cease-fires while the Muslims build their strength. The diplomacy itself is servant to the cause of conquest.
This quote is part of a larger article by Bostom recounting a debate between the courageous Wafa Sultan, a psychologist unafraid to challenge Islamic tyranny, and Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, a leading jihadist cleric. Well worth watching.