This paper examines the semantic shifts associated with the term “khalīfa” in Qurʾānic exegetical literature (tafsīr) from the “Sunni Revival” of the late Abbasid period (fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries) to the early Mamluk period (eighth/fourteenth century). Emphasis is given to Sunni commentaries on verses 2:30 (the “Adam verse”) and 38:26 (the “David verse”), supplemented by commentaries on other verses containing derivatives of the root kh.l.f. (“khulafāʾ,” “khalāʾif,” “khalafa,” and “istakhlafa” among others). I argue that beginning in the late Abbasid period, the Qurʾānic “khalīfa” was increasingly identified with the historico-political caliph, as individual exegetes—al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272), and Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373)—introduced new clusters of political vocabulary associated with the caliphate in legal (fiqh) and theological (uṣūl al-dīn) writings into their commentaries on the term “khalīfa.” Especially with regard to the Adam verse, exegetes also delineated a sacred genealogy for the caliph stretching back to Adam, who figured in medieval exegetical literature not only as first man, but also as God’s first caliph on earth. This is observed when tafsīr literature is placed in conversation with other genres of writing, such as works of fiqh and uṣūl al-dīn, to demonstrate how assertions made in one medium might complement what is unsaid or unsayable in other mediums. Most scholarly works in recent decades on the Qurʾānic term “khalīfa” hardly examine individual exegetes chronologically, and hence derive a homogenous and general meaning of the term which neglects the diverse vocabulary and expressions used by exegetes in their interpretations of the term. Wadad al-Qadi underscores a different approach in her 1988 article, which she describes as “exegetically historical,” to determine how early Muslim exegetes under the Umayyads understood the term “khalīfa” in their own time and place. I apply al-Qadi’s “exegetically historical” approach to a later period from al-Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr, when a more rigid sense of Sunni orthodoxy was being formulated and juridical discourses on the caliphate and public authority were being systematized, by scrutinizing individual exegetes in chronological fashion to examine the semantic and terminological shifts associated with their interpretations of the term over time. Overall, this paper sheds light on how medieval Muslim thinkers attempted to make connections between political reality and the divine word.

This paper builds on the work by contemporary scholars such as Michel Cuypers and Carl Ernst, who highlight the incidence of ring composition in whole Qur’anic suras. As they point out, ring structure serves as guide to meaning, calling attention to especially significant messages in the center. This paper examines Sura 9 (Repentance), one of the very last to be revealed to the Prophet (dating to 9 AH/631 CE) and concerning military confrontation with non-Muslims. The first part of the paper examines the structure of Sura 9. Our analysis shows that it consists of five sections: A – B – C – B’ – A’. Section A (vv. 1-37) calls on the believers to slay those disbelievers who have violated treaties. However, it also leaves open the possibility of repentance. Should they ask for asylum, they are to be granted it, so that they may hear God’s word. Section B (38-57) then reprimands those in Medina who were reluctant to go forth on the Tabuk expedition. True believers, the text points out, do not ask to be excused from striving in God’s cause. In the middle (C, 58-80), the Prophet is commanded to strive against the disbelievers and hypocrites. Yet it is stated likewise that should they repent, then that would be best. Section B’ (81-99) adverts again to the laggards: blame falls not on the weak, ill, or poor who stayed back, but on the rich; their abode will be Hell. Section A’ (100-129) rounds out the sura, urging the believers once more to confront disbelievers and hypocrites, while also mentioning the opportunity of repentance. The paper’s second part concerns implications. Specifically, it contrasts conclusions from chronological and literary approaches to the Qur’an. Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), who takes a chronological approach to this sura, contends that it articulates the relationship between the Islamic state and outsiders in its final form. He finds the Qur’an here urging confrontation, including against People of the Book. On the other hand, the structure of the sura, while calling on believers to fight, also emphasizes the possibility of repentance. Furthermore, we see that this sura is not central. Indeed, within a scheme of Suras 2 – 49 (perhaps part of a larger ring scheme of the whole Qur’an), Sura 9 may well bear a meaningful relationship to Sura 40, The Forgiver. Thus a literary approach—taking into account the Book’s complete form—opens to a more tolerant reading.