Sufism is incredibly diverse. Various sects incorporated Hindu, Buddhist (most common), Manichean and even Zoroastrian attitudes and practices.
I do think it is relevant that the Koran orders Moslems to subdue everyone, not kill everyone. This is perhaps a fine point, but I think it is an important one.
Under sharia, conquered People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who are unwilling to convert are to be given freedom of religion on payment of tribute. Pagans who don’t convert are to be killed. In practice, Zoroastrians and even Hindus have been given People of the Book status for most of Moslem history.
It is equally relevant that the dhimmi status given to “protected” peoples is most easily compared to the status of American blacks under the worst of Jim Crow. They’re left alone most of the time, except when the masters get excited or in an ugly mood, as long as they “know their place.”
If they get uppity, bad things happen so they can be taught their place.
As under Jim Crow, crimes against dhimmi are seldom punished, certainly not equally to crimes against Muslims.
You are also partially correct about the point of subduing - but that is only in one part of the Koran. Another part says "Kill the infidel if they do not submit to Allah". The Koran is a highly contradictory book.
Dhimmi status is somewhat related to what you compared it to with the exception that the aim was for Dhimmis to convert. In fact the prophet mandated at the end of his days that Arabia was to be cleared of infidels.