<![CDATA[Few questions in contemporary Islamic thought are as consequential as the invocation of Q. 9:5 and the doctrine of naskh to frame Muslim–non-Muslim relations. The issue is not simply whether particular verses were historically abrogated, but how naskh became a privileged grammar through which ethical hierarchy was constructed within the Qur’anic corpus. Rather than treating the Sword Verse as an isolated legal command, this study approaches it as a nodal point in a broader discursive struggle over authority, normativity, and communal boundaries. Based on qualitative library research and close textual engagement with major classical naskh works and Qur’anic exegesis alongside selected modern jihadist writings, the study employs Foucauldian genealogy, informed by the concept of power–knowledge, with Teun A. van Dijk’s Critical Discourse Analysis to trace the historical construction of the Sword Verse’s abrogative authority and its subsequent mobilization within extremist discourse. The analysis demonstrates that portraying Q. 9:5 as nullifying a broad constellation of peace-oriented verses reflects neither textual necessity nor a stable exegetical consensus. Rather, it represents a historically contingent reordering of normative authority within the Qur’anic corpus. Reconsidering naskh in these terms opens space for rearticulating a Qur’anic ethic of interreligious coexistence that resists reduction to a single, exclusionary hermeneutic.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
