You wrote: “There is no need to bring in so-called history, since the authors of the ‘history’ were not present at the events and they gave such details about the ‘events’ that they could only have been there; or they made it all up!”
Jawaid Bhai, you accept history or you don’t, it will not change the analysis I presented earlier. You yourself agreed that “Pagans had a treaty and violated this:” May I ask you, what was the treaty about? Was the treaty about trade relationships, cultural relationships, etc. or was it about restrictions on fighting with Muslims? Obviously, the latter. If something along similar lines is mentioned in history, would you reject it because it is mentioned in the history?
Second, I did not refer to history for the analysis I presented. I based my conclusions on the verses.
You wrote: “There is no mention in any of the verses that the pagans were to be converted to Islam, so they could 'pray and pay charity'. There is no mention of them converting or accepting Islam, so salat and zakat cannot mean praying and charity giving!”
Let me take your point as well as keep the word Salat as it is without translating it. You agree that there is an exception clause in 9:5 as well as in 9:12 that states “But if they repent and establish Salat …” then let them go freely or they are your brothers in Deen.
Which kind of “Salat” pagans are to establish based on which they become brothers of Muslims in Deen? It could be either (i) they, pagans Establish Salat as pagans used to do or (ii) they do Salat as Muslims were doing. Which Salat (i) or (ii) God is demanding of them? It cannot be (i) because God already informed us:
[8:35]: And their Salat at the House was not except whistling and handclapping. ...
Thus, it is evident that God is asking them to establish Salat as Muslims do. In order to establish Salat of Muslims, they will have to become Muslims first. It is that simple.
You should have rather asked why God did not demand their belief first? In my understanding, belief is an inner conviction not seen and observed by people, whereas Establishing Salat is an overt action, readily observed by Muslims at the time. Thus, this had the potential to separate those who were still fighting and those who had renounced fighting and became Muslims. This is obvious in [9:8] where God is stating “they satisfy you with their mouths…”
You wrote: “Now the pagans are again violating their oaths, taunting, ridiculing Islam so THEY ARE NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN MUSLIM, and they can be fought once more. The pagans had originally violated their oaths and are now doing so again, so they are and always were pagan.”
This is your misunderstanding, you are mixing up two groups. It is the language brother. As the word “THEY” in 9:11 “If THEY repent…” is referring to the pagans who broke the treaty, exactly the same way the word “THEY” in 9:12 “If THEY break their oaths….” is referring to pagans who may go back after promising through their mouths to adhere to the treaty [9:8]. The word “THEY” in 9:12 is not referring to the ones in [9:11] who are doing Salat...
Please show me a hadith or history I quoted above to arrive at my conclusions?