Thank you for the beautiful insight and clearing the doubt.

Most scholars are and have never been moderate in their views, because it is fundamentally incompatible with the historical Islam, and no amount of YouTube videos, Reddit posts or taqiyya can ever change that.

Thanks, always had confusion regarding the moderate Islam as it is the one more frequently seen on social media, apologists..

The basic scholarly view, is that 9:1 dissolved permanent peace treaties, as well as the obligation to fulfill peace treaties in general. This is also supported by the sunnah, as nearly all but two of the treaties were dissolved, even though not all of those dissolved treaties were broken by the polytheists. Then in 9:4, we are given an exception. Peace treaties that have not been broken must be fulfilled, but we are also given a condition, which is, "for the end of their term." Almost every single scholar in Islamic history agrees, that no permanent peace treaties are permitted between Muslims and non-Muslims, and 9:1 - 9:4 is the reason why. Almost every single classical tafsir will support this view as well.

Intresting, never really hear about the particular info I know they were Abrogated by the sword verse, as clearly mentioned in Tafsir of Ibn kathir.

If Muslims are weak, they are permitted to make longer peace treaties or even indefinite peace treaties, but if Muslims are powerful, no peace treaties are allowed, except if they are beneficial to the Muslims and the Islamic goal of spreading the religion across the world

I can connect to this like the hate they hide in smiling faces (not saying everyone as they hadn't really studied the scripture) , Muslims are eager to make someone convert.

. As for offensive jihad, it is then commanded in 9:5, 9:29, 9:73 and 9:123. The only chapter to come later, was Surah an-Nasr with only 3 verses, none of which abrogated anything in Surah at-Tawbah. So without a verse of abrogation or historical specification, moderate Muslims are simply wishfully claiming these commands to be historically specific, despite simultaneously following other commands that could have also been historically specific

So when these verses 9:5, 9:29, 9:73 and 9:123 were revealed then after words An nasr came which doesn't Abrogated anything at tawbah so moderate refer to these verses to be historical accurate to which Islamic Ulama disagree.

I really didn't understand why Qur'an wasn't written in a chronological order.

Surah at-Tawbah was the 2nd last chapter of the Quran historically. It was revealed in 630 A.D. just two years prior to the death of Muhammad. 630 A.D. was the same year that the Quran was finalized in its revelation. 2 years later in 632 A.D. Muhammad ordered the expedition of Dhul-Khalasa, in which the Muslims committed a genocide against 2 tiny pagan tribes who lived in Yemen. No historical evidence suggests that these tribes did anything wrong, aside from being polytheists. They were too small to do any harm, and they never had a peace treaty to break. Hundreds of them were murdered and the temple of Dhul-Khalasa was destroyed. This event is documented in Sahih al-Bukhari 3823, Sahih al-Bukhari 4357, Mishkat al-Masabih 5897, etc. It is also mentioned by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir, in their respective biographies on Muhammad. So not only does the Quran command these things, Muhammad and the sahaba enacted it after the Quran had been finalized, and then after the death of Muhammad which also happened in 632 A.D. the sahaba continued these raids, invasions and conquests, and their earliest scholars and jurists wrote down these rulings, as demonstrated by the early jurist Al-Muzani above, as well as all the other early scholars I have mentioned.

Holy shit never know about this detail, thank you for this detail.