Stone 1

Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and the Islamic Tradition

Duncan Stone

Within any religion there are often two or more groups, one of which represents

the mainstream version of the religion, and others which represent minority beliefs or

opinions that while similar to those of the mainstream are none the less fundamentally

different. In Islam there are two primary branches: Sunni and Shiite. Sunni is the larger

of the two and is often portrayed as the orthodox version of the religion due to its size

and political power, while the Shiite religion is considered heterodox due to its smaller

size and regional scope. However, since there is no centralized church hierarchy in the

Islamic faith to interpret which version of Islam is most in line with the teaching of

Muhammed, it has been argued that labeling one branch as orthodox and the other as

heterodox is problematic. This difficulty in determining the true version of Islam is

further compounded by the many different schools and religious leaders, such as the

Caliph and Imam, within Sunni and Shiite communities. These schools and leaders

have different jurisprudence and interpretations of the Koran and Hadith, which only

increases the already fractured nature of Islam. Consequently, it seems difficult to

describe any one sect of Islam as orthodox or heterodox due not only to the division

between Sunni and Shiite, but also as a result of these groups own internal splits and

factions.

While he was alive, the prophet Muhammed was recognized as the only

authoritative leader of the Islamic faith. However, when he died in 632 AD a conflict
Stone 2

broke out between his subordinates over who would succeed him as both the political

and spiritual leader of the Muslim people. The majority wanted the Muslim community to

decide who would be the caliph. They supported, Abu Bakr, who was elected from a

group of Muhammeds lieutenants. Yet some felt that leadership should stay within the

family of the Prophet. This faction wanted, Ali, Muhammeds cousin and son-in-law,

selected as leader. The followers of Ali claimed that Muhammed had chosen him as the

successor. The majority that supported Abu Bakr prevailed and become known as

Sunnis, while the minority that supported Ali were termed Shia. Ali eventually became

the fourth caliph, but after he was killed the split between Sunni and Shia was

irrevocable.

Consequently, from its origin Islam consisted of two branches that each claimed

legitimate succession from Muhammed. Since there was no separation of church and

state in Muslim society, these divisions hardened over time into political boundaries as

Islam spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Broadly speaking, the

Ottoman Empire and Mughal India were Sunni, while Persia and its allies held the Shia

faith. Each believes themselves to be the orthodox version of the religion and condemns

certain practices of the other branches.

A counter argument for Islamic orthodox is often advanced on the basis of the

four major caliphates. The first of these was the Rashidun caliphate that was

established when Abu Bakr became leader in 632. It lasted until the death of Ali and

was succeeded by the Sunni Umayyad caliphate. During this time Islam expanded

enormously, and the Abbasid Caliphate that followed was also Sunni. The Ottoman
Stone 3

Caliphate was the fourth and final caliphate, and although Sunni portrayed itself as the

protector of the entire Islamic world.

Yet the Shia continued to exist during this period as distinct religious and political

entities. And within both Sunni and Shia spheres there are an enormous number of

school and sects. For example, in Sunni religious jurisprudence there are five different

schools of jurisprudence (madhhab) and further subgroups with their own interpretation

of Islamic legal texts. There are also at least twenty different schools of Islamic theology

in Sunnism that have different beliefs and opinions on matters such as predestination

and the proper interpretation of the Koran. Some of these schools have only small

followings and have waned in influence and power over the years, but others such as

Wahhabism have grown and gained many adherents. This diversity of opinions in law

and theology highlights the deep divides that exists not only between Sunni and Shia

but different communities within these two primary branches. The absence of

centralization and hierarchy, such as exists in the Roman Catholic Church, allows these

schools to contribute to a fractured and regional interpretation of Islam texts and

scriptures.

The fractured nature of Islam is even more evident today when there is no

acknowledged caliphate except for a few that are small in size or notorious as a terrorist

state (ISIS). The religious authority of the caliph is held now by regional councils and

national groups that interpret and administer Islam on a country by country basis. These

groups are often not cooperative with one another, and in fact much of the conflict of the

last years in the Middle East has seen Sunni and Shia countries on different sides. (In

Syria, for example, Sunni Saudi Arabia is against the government while Shia Iran
Stone 4

supports it.) Thus what the Iranian Supreme Leader thinks is the correct interpretation of

the Koran and Hadith would have little sway with Saudia Arabian Wahhabist clerics.

Each would consider themselves to be orthodox and the other as heretics.

Consequently, it can be argued that orthodoxy and heterodoxy in Islam are primarily a

matter of perspective. Usually no one considers themselves to be heterodox. It is the

other who has deviated from the true path.

Given its history, it seems there is no way to make a definitive interpretation of

Islam. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites has existed for centuries. Each has

always sought to eradicate the other when in power. While there was a centralized

leader in Islam during the four caliphates, this centralization did not lead to a narrow

channeling of interpretation as is seen in the many different schools of jurisprudence

and theology. Yet even at the beginning of the split it is difficult to determine whether it

was the followers of Abu Bakr or Ali who were orthodox. Each has arguments showing

their leader was the founder appointed by Muhammed after his death, and since that

time the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) has become increasingly fractured. Perhaps that

is why the practice of Islam is increasingly a matter of individual faith and devotion.