Islamic Communication Ethics and Online Religious Disagreement: A Discourse Analysis of Respect, Authority, and Verbal Aggression

Abstract

Online religious disagreement raises questions about both the interpretation of religious teachings and the treatment of those who understand them differently. This conceptual article examines how respect, authority, and verbal aggression are expressed in such exchanges. It brings selected Qur’anic passages and authentic hadith into dialogue with scholarship on ethical disagreement, religious authority, and relational work. Five constructed exchanges illustrate the distinction between challenging an argument and discrediting its speaker. The analysis considers the reasons offered, the representation of interlocutors, the use of authority, and opportunities for clarification and correction. It argues that responsible disagreement requires fair representation, claims proportionate to the evidence, restraint in judging motives, and willingness to correct errors. Courteous language alone does not meet these requirements, while a direct objection need not constitute aggression. The article proposes a framework for evaluating these features without treating disagreement as misconduct or respect as unquestioning acceptance. As the examples are illustrative rather than drawn from an empirical corpus, the framework requires further examination through actual online exchanges and participants’ interpretations.