Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Religious identity polarization is a social phenomenon that emerges when differences in religious beliefs and group affiliations develop into prejudice, stigmatization, and antagonism that undermine intergroup relations. This study aims to examine the construction of the ethics of difference in Qur’an 49:10–13 and reconstruct its relevance as a normative framework for critically assessing religious identity polarization. Employing a qualitative library-based approach, the study adopts a textual-hermeneutical research design using the comparative method of Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr muqāran). The analysis integrates linguistic examination, intratextual reading, comparative analysis of classical and modern Qur’anic interpretations, and conceptual engagement with scholarship on social identity and polarization. The findings indicate that these verses establish four interconnected ethical principles: justice-oriented reconciliation (iṣlāḥ), the protection of social dignity, epistemic responsibility in restraining prejudice, and the recognition of human diversity through mutual understanding (taʿāruf). These findings demonstrate that religious solidarity is not inherently incompatible with respect for difference but requires ethical constraints to prevent its transformation into group superiority and social exclusion. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in developing a framework of Qur’anic ethics of difference that distinguishes religious identity and legitimate theological critique from antagonistic practices that undermine the dignity of others. This framework extends Qur’anic exegetical inquiry beyond the identification of individual moral values toward a reconstruction of normative relationships among verses relevant to plural societies. It also provides a conceptual foundation for further scholarship on social reconciliation, religious communication, and education for diversity
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saputra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: