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 main 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 the Sunni and Shiite communities. These schools and leaders

have different jurisprudence and interpretations of the Korean and Sunna, 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 their own internal splits and factions.

The split between the Sunnis and Shiites in the first centuries of Islamic history

highlights how the lack of a rigid hierarchy from the very formation of the Islamic faith

led to the original fracturing of Islam, and underscores just how difficult it is to determine
Stone 2

which group to even consider orthodox or heterodox in their beliefs after only shortly

after the death of the prophet. While he was alive, the prophet Muhammed was

recognized as the only leader of the Islamic faith. However, when he died in 632 AD a

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

political and spiritual leader of the Muslim people. This resulted in the initial spit in the

Muslim faith between those who supported Abu Bakr, the leader elected from a group of

Muhammeds lieutenants and close advisors and those who support Ali, who as

Muhammeds cousin and son-in-law claimed that Muhammed had chosen him as his

successor. Because both sides have scriptures and sources that support both of their

claims as to who is truly following the path of Islam and the succession of power as

Muhammed would have wished it, it becomes difficult to identify just which of the two

groups to consider orthodox and heterodox, and as Islam spread throughout the Middle

East and North Africa, the differences between the beliefs of these two groups became

only more exacerbated as the empire grew, and communication between the leaders of

religious communities either Shiite or Sunni became infrequent.

A counter argument is often put forth that argues that since there is no separation

of church and state in Islam determinations of orthodoxy and heterodoxy do apply. If

one examines the beginnings of Islam during the time of the rightly guided caliphs, it is

seen that the caliph was both a political ruler and the Imam of the ummah. In other

words, he was the chief secular figure and head of the religion. This combination of

political and theological power in one supreme leader was the same in many Muslim

countries. Consequently, even absent a church hierarchy there was already a high
Stone 3

centralized system of secular and religious government focused in the authority of the

caliph. The role that the caliphs played as a spiritual leader in Islam also increased as

their political power waned under the sultans, which allowed determinations of

orthodoxy and heterodoxy to be made purely based on the faith of the caliph.

Yet today the situation is much different. There is no acknowledged caliph within

Islam except for a few that are either small in size or rogue terrorist states (ISIS), and

the religious authority of the caliph has been replaced by councils and national groups

that interpret and administer the Islam on a country by country basis. Within the Sunni

and Shiite branches there are transnational interactions that define the faith, but these

collaborations are a pale shadow of the centralized spiritual authority that was vested in

the office of caliph. Even in Iran which is closest to an Islamic theocracy of all Muslim

countries the ayatollahs have little influence beyond their Shiite allies, and no sway at

all with Sunni Muslims. In addition developments in Islam over time have placed

emphasis on serving Allah directly without any intermediaries making the believer

responsible for their spiritual lives.

The disconnect in beliefs between various Islamic groups also led to different

interpretations of Islamic theology and law on the part of Imams, jurists, and

theologians. In the Sunni sphere of religious jurisprudence there are five different

madhhab and numerous subgroups each with their own interpretation of Islamic legal

texts and the teachings of the Koran as applied in a legal context. There are at least
Stone 4

twenty different schools of Islamic theology, some of which are against one another

over ideas and concepts such as predestination and the nature of the Koran. The

diversity of opinions in both Islamic law and theology highlight the deep divides that

separate the Islamic faith, even amongst those who consider themselves to be Sunni or

Shiite. While there are certainly different factions of theologians within organizations

such as the Catholic or Orthodox Christian churches, they differ from one another only

very slightly, and the rigid hierarchy of these organizations prevents them from making

radical interpretations of scriptures and texts that deviate from the official line. Due to

the lack of such a hierarchy in Islam, this has allowed what first began as a simple

disconnect due to the lack of communication between the various jurist and imams of

the Islamic world to develop into a fractured and highly regional interpretation of Islamic

texts and scriptures by different schools of jurists and theologians. While some of these

schools have only small followings and have waned in influence and power over the

years, others such as Wahhabism have grown in power and influence all while claiming

to be the pure form and expression of the Islamic faith.

While many look at the Islamic faith and say that it is easy to determine

that Sunni Islam is the orthodox version of Islam, and Shiism a heterodoxy it is in fact

impossible to determine such a thing between these two groups, let alone the various

smaller sects and schools that make up each of these faiths. While there was structure

to the Islamic religion in the form of the Caliph, this is no longer the case today. There is

a plethora of Islamic judicial traditions and theological schools of thought in both the

Sunni and Shiite traditions, all of which claim to be the pure and correct representation

of Islam while being at odds with one another. It is even difficult to determine orthodoxy
Stone 5

between early Sunni and Shiite as both have arguments showing that their founders

were appointed by Muhammed as the new leaders of the Islamic faith after his death.

The lack of communication between the various groups that make up Islam throughout

its history and the failure on the part of Muhammed and the early caliphs to develop a

religious structure within the religion have led to the house of Islam becoming fractured

even further than the Sunni Shiite split. The fractured nature of Islam therefore makes it

impossible to determine which branch of the faith is orthodox, as each and every one

claims to follow the teachings of the prophet Muhammed as laid down in the Koran and

Hadith.