It is commonly held that the medieval Muslim exegetes used the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) and other such exegetical tools in order to deal with contradictory Qurʾānic verses on the subject of war and peace. According to the traditional portrayal, the exegete looks to the chronological ordering of the Qurʾānic passages in order to determine which verse was revealed earlier and is thus abrogated and which verse was revealed later and is thus operative. The information utilized to construct this chronology is said to include reports transmitted from the Companions. As such, the interpretative process is portrayed as fairly neutral in that the exegete looks to chronology in order to establish legal or theological doctrine therefrom. However, in this article, I will flip this schema on its head and argue that the medieval exegetes actually start with their theological and legal doctrine, which in turn is used to inform them of which verse should be declared earlier and which later. In the case of jihād, the exegetes are committed to the theological doctrine of salvific exclusivity; connected to this is the legal model of perpetual imperial warfare against unbelievers. These ideas are generated not from the Qurʾān but are instead read into it, thereby necessitating heavy-handed exegetical tools, including abrogation but also interpolation, substitution, superimposition, atomization, and recasting. In this way, the medieval exegetes were able to piously manipulate and theologically militarize the Qurʾān.