The word “sect” comes from the Latin sequi or sequor and means “to follow.” According to this definition, the term excludes the idea of schism or doctrinal rupture. In Christian usage, the term “sect” is not free from pejorative connotations although it is much better than the label “heretic.” Nowadays, in Christian terminology, the word “sect” refers mostly to a body of people sharing religious opinions who have broken away from a larger body. “Sect” in the sense of “cult” refers to a group of people who follow the “revelations” made by its founder. Such sects, like the Mormons for example, differ from the Church, in the non-theological sense of the term, in that they recognize another new revelation. The sect insists on the need to understand the neo-testamentary text which is different in essence from the sacred scriptures.[1] Besides that distinction, and as can be observed within the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses Witnesses" , the cult believes in collective, not individual salvation, which is exclusively limited to its members.[2]
[1] Editor’s Note: The Mormons are followers the Church of Latter Day Saints founded by Joseph Smith (1830) in the state of New York. His authority rested on the revelation to him of The Book of Mormon, an alleged pre-Columbian work giving the history of American peoples of Hebrew origin from the Diaspora to 800 A.D. After Smith’s death, Brigham Young became leader and transferred the movement to Salt Lake City, Utah (1847), where a prosperous community was established. When the practice of polygamy was stopped, Utah was incorporated (1896) into the Union as the 45th state. Mormons believe that The Book of Mormon is of equal inspiration with the Bible. The Church of Latter Day Saints is considered to some to be a cult.
[2] Editor’s Note: The Seventh Day Adventists are members of an
It must be understood, however, that the sects which the Church opposes in the name of orthodoxy are merely other religions with their own rites and dogmas which are only heretical with respect to official orthodoxy. If we attempt to remove the slippery polish from the word “sect,” turning it into a simple technical term devoid of subjectivity, we will see that “the meaning of sect is closer to the Spanish word séquito [group of followers, adherents and devotees] than to what is commonly understood by secta [sect] and its derivative sectario [sectarian] which curiously and arbitrarily are applied to it” (García Bazán 114-18).[1]
Adventist sect founded in 1844 in the U.S.A. Like the Mormons, they also follow a false prophet. As for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are a Christian sect founded in 1872 in Pennsylvania by Charles T. Russell. They accept a literal interpretation of the Bible and stress the imminent coming of a terrestrial, theocratic kingdom, into which only the Witnesses will pass. They hold that Ellen G. White (1827-1915) was given the gift of prophecy by the Holy Spirit and was the Lord’s messenger, her writings serving as an authoritative source of trust, guidance, instruction and correction. See “Fundamental Beliefs,” Seventh Day Adventist Church: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html. The Ellen G. White Estate, Inc. Website, explains that:
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Mrs. White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's Second Advent. From the time she was 17 years old until she died 70 years later, God gave her approximately 2,000 visions and dreams. The visions varied in length from less than a minute to nearly four hours. The knowledge and counsel received through these revelations she wrote out to be shared with others. Thus her special writings are accepted by Seventh-day Adventists as inspired. (White)
[1] Author’s Note: For the development of heterodoxies in Christianity, the following should be considered: A. Orbe, Parábolas evangélicas en San Ireneo-I-II (460 and 515 respectively).
A persistent residue, which has adhered to the word “sect” by use and Abuse, has been regularly documented. In its common meaning, it applies to exclusivist religious minorities which are opposed to a commonly accepted Church tenet. Sects are born through dissent and view themselves as a small flock of chosen ones. This is how quantitative differences come about between Church and sect. For the Western religious historian, what defines a sect is its character as a separate group, much more than its minority status, which can eventually reach the size of a Church. This is where we see the motives which drive Western religious historians like Gibb to come up with unilateral interpretations of complex concepts and doctrines. They explain and analyze them in terms that prevent the possibility of truly understanding what a sect or religion, such as Islam, really represents.[1] It can never be sufficiently stressed that the general application of Western terms like “orthodoxy,” “heterodoxy,” “church” and “sect” to Islam are grossly misapplied, especially as Islam does not have a Church to define orthodoxy or the powers to excommunicate.[2] The use of
[1] Editor’s Note: Some Orientalists seek to cause confusion, to put up smoke screens and to undermine Islam at the behest of certain states, for purely political reasons. Historically, some Orientalists served the imperial intentions of colonial masters. For more on Orientalist efforts to undermine Islam, see Ahmad Ghorab’s Subverting Islam: The Role of Orientalist Centers. The book is also available in Spanish translation by Hector Abu Dharr Manzolillo, under the name Subvertir el Islam: La función de los centros orientalistas.
[2] Editor’s Note: As Nwyia explains,
On sait que les fuqaha’, qui lisent le Coran en philologues ou en juristes, rejettent la lecture spiritualiste des soufis comme une nouveauté étrangère et infidèle au texte sacré. Or, parce que leur point de vue légaliste s’est imposé dans l’Islam officiel et est devenu pour ainsi dire le point de vue de l’orthodoxie, les soufis ont pris, aux yeux de l’histoire, figure de secte plus au moins hétérodoxe, leur lecture du Coran a été considérée comme une lecture tardive et étrangère à l’Islam primitif. (23)
[It is well-known that the fuqaha’, who interpret the Qur’an as
such terms ends up simplifying complex issues, associating them with Western religious phenomena which do not have equivalents in the language of Islam. There is no place for such terms as “orthodoxy, “heterodoxy,” “church,” “sect,” and “heresy” in an Islamic tradition rooted in the concept of divine unity.[1] While there is diversity within Islam, there is not, simply by a slight difference in approach, a contradiction of its central doctrine of divine unity nor the gregarious separation in its fundamentals of faith or its community [ummah]. Rather, they are diverse tendencies that make up Islam and so long as they do not stray from the fundamentals of faith, they can all claim with some
philologists or jurists, reject the mystical interpretations of the Sufis as a foreign innovation which is unfaithful to the sacred text. Since their legalistic perspective imposed itself in official Islam it became the orthodox position. In the eyes of history, the Sufis were relegated to the status of a more or less heterodox sect and their interpretations of the Qur’an viewed as a later development which was alien to primitive Islam.]
As Murata observes,
Though the proponents of al-kalam [scholastic philosophy] have often been looked upon by Western scholars as the representatives of ‘orthodox’ Islam, this is to impose an inappropriate category upon Islamic civilization, as many other scholars have pointed out. In fact, by and large the criteria for being Muslim have been following the shari‘ah and acknowledging the truth of a certain basic creed. Beyond that, a variety of positions concering the details of the creed were possible, and none could be said to be ‘orthodox’ to the exclusion of others” (8).
Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, confirms that “[a]ll Muslims--Orthodox, Sunni, Sufi, or Shi‘ah--are part of the same understanding of the shari‘ah” (211-212).
[1] Editor’s Note: Muslims, in general, should oppose the labels imposed on them by outsiders. This applies to the terms “heterodox,” “heretical,” “sect,” “fundamentalist” and “Islamist.” The author and the editor, however, must use them in order to disprove them.
justification to represent its most authentic expression.[1] With this understanding, one can appreciate that in Islam there does not exist a clear line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. As a result, the various Islamic currents are neither radically misguided groups which have broken from official orthodoxy nor are they separated from one another as are the Christian sects of today.
Unlike the Western world, the Islamic world defines orthodoxy by means of the profession of faith or shahadah: La ilaha illa Allah / Muhammadun rasul Allah [There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah]. The shahadah is the most universal proclamation of divine unity and is not a strictly defined theological formula. There exists, of course, an orthodoxy in Islam, without which no doctrine or tradition is possible. However, contrary to Gibb’s affirmation, Islamic orthodoxy has not been defined by ijma’ [scholarly consensus] in any restricted or limited sense. What is more, in Islam there has never existed a religious institution capable or deciding who is orthodox and who is not.[2]
Infatuated with every Western prejudice, Gibb seems to have translated the old axiom of divide et impera [divide and conquer] into the more modern: classify and discard! But to understand the history of Islam, however, requires more than merely counting or organizing dates. The eye of the scholar must be capable of
[1] Editor’s Note: In this sense, Sunnism, Shi‘ism and Sufism can all claim to be authentic expressions of Islam. As Sachiko Murata explains, “ When we look a the Islamic intellectual history…we see...that there is no question of a universally recognized ‘orthodox’ school of thought, but rather a large numer of schools that debate among themselves concerning how the basic items of the creed are to be understood” (The Tao of Islam 8).
[2] Editor’s Note: As Nasr has put it, “There is no magisterium in Islam” (The Heart of Islam 85). While Vittor and Nasr are correct that there is no official institution which speaks for Islam in matters of orthodoxy, for Shi‘ites, there is a magisterium in Islam, the Imamate, the throne of which is mostly empty, in the absence of the chief magistrate, Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi.
discerning the profound print of his subject, its depth, its substance and its essence. He must belong to a tradition and provide us with comprehensive and broad formulas called critical approaches and methodologies. Gibb easily forgets that in Islam, so long as a practice or a belief does not contravene the shari‘ah [Islamic law] and can be traced back to the Qur’an and the sunnah it is clearly orthodox and cannot be deemed heretical. This principle also applies to the genuine spiritual paths of Islamic mysticism [tasawwuf ] in the Sunni world whose devotional practices and metaphysical doctrines cannot be judged on the criteria of “orthodoxy” that govern the exoteric forms of the religion. This is particularly so since the esoteric can never face the exoteric on the same plane. Both operate on different but not divergent orders of the same reality.[1] In other words, they constitute the “core” [al-lubb] and the “skin” [al-qishrah] of the religion.
In Nahj al-balaghah [The Path of Eloquence]--a collection of sermons, epistles, and aphorisms of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib compiled by Sharif al-Razi (406/1015)--the First Imam most brilliantly and masterfully settles the question of the diversity of schools and currents in Islamic thought. He describes them as parts of the spiritual freedom given by God which are in accord with His Oneness:[2]
[1] Editor’s Note: In simpler and more modern terms, the estoric and the exoteric are two faces of the same coin. For scholars like Corbin, Shi‘ism and Sufism were identical in essence and that Shi‘ism was only the outer form of Islamic mysticism. Evidently, this is not the case as Shi‘ism represents a balancing totality between both the esoteric and exoteric dimensions of the din.
[2] Author’s Note: The following quotations are from Nahj al-balaghah / Peak of Eloquence translated by Seyed ‘Ali Reza. It contains an interesting preface, a brief biography on the compiler and abundant notes.
Editor’s Note: The work is also available in a Spanish translation titled La cumbre de la elocuencia. An abridged Arabic / French edition
Praise be to Allah who established Islam and made it easy for those who approach it and gave strength to its columns against any one who tries to overpower it … It is the most bright of all paths, the clearest of all passages. It has dignified minarets, bright highways, burning lamps, prestigious fields of activity, and high objective. (Sermon 105: 249)
This Islam is the religion which Allah has chosen for Himself … He made Islam such that its constituent parts cannot break, its links cannot separate, its construction cannot fall, its columns cannot decay … It consists of columns whose bases Allah has fixed in truthfulness, and who foundation He has strengthened, and of sources whose streams are ever full of water and of lamps, whose flames are full of light, and of beacons with whose help travelers get guidance. (Sermon 197: 408)
As one can gather from these words, the Islamic tradition has, in a general sense, provided a broad umbrella which embraces a multiplicity of points of view as distinct as the doctrinal masters of thought who formulated them. The only tension between them--when there was any at all--has normally been between the exoteric and esoteric dimensions of the tradition. This tension has always alternated harmoniously within the same dynamic rhythm.
The temporal predominance of one over the other in the successive manifestations of the same living organism is comparable to the diastole and the systole of the heartbeat. Without alternation, these two essential movements continue in harmony, like the exoteric and the esoteric. Like any other tradition, Islam would cease to beat without them and would turn into a rigid form without a pulse.[1] In other words, the orthodoxy
translated by Samih Atef El-Zein also exists but devoid of most of the sermons dealings with the status of the ahl al-bayt.
[1] Editor’s Note: Allawi’s “Sufyani and Muhammadi Islam” gives an exposition of two distinct interpretations of the Muslim religion. There cannot, however, be two versions of Islam, a good Islam and a bad Islam.
of the distinct schools of thought in Islam does not manifest itself solely through the preservation of its outer forms. It is expressed equally by its natural development and, especially, by its capacity to absorb any spiritual expression which is not essentially alien to the doctrine of divine unity.[1]
It is true that in Islam there is what in the language of the West is defined as “sect.” The word “sect” in Arabic is firqah which comes from the Arabic farraqa which means “to separate” and “to divide.” Let us not make the mistake, however, of considering Sunni and Shi‘ite Islam as the two main sects of Islam. Let us not differentiate between them by applying normative and schematic judgments to decide, unilaterally, in accord with the mental and moral modes of historically European-based societies, which one of them is “orthodox” and which one is “heterodox.” If we have acknowledged that there is diversity in
There is only Islam and what is not Islam. As Hector Abu Dharr Manzolillo explains in his article “La filosofía de Abu Sufyan,”
Abu Sufyan no veía ni entendía cual era la misión de Muhammad (tenéis ojos pero no veis, tenéis oídos pero no oís, como decía Jesús). Lo único que veía y entendía era que la religión daba poder mundanal que era lo que él quería.
[Abu Sufyan could not understand the mission of Muhammad. As Jesus, peace be upon him, used to say, “You have eyes but you can’t see. You have ears but you can’t hear.” Likewise, the only thing that Abu Sufyan could understand was that religion leads to worldly power, which was exactly what he wanted.]
[1] Editor’s Note: The Sufi Muslims, for example, embrace music and poetry from other cultures as a means of drawing people into Islam. As Nasr explains, “Sufism has had the greatest role in the spread of Islam, in addition to its vital function in the preservation and purification of ethical life, the creation of the arts, and the exposition of unitive knowledge [ma‘rifah] and metaphysics within Islamic society” (Heart of Islam 63-64). Massignon notes that “In India, Islam was spread not by war but by mysticism and the great orders of mystics” (61). Islam is a great syncretic sponge. Its survivability is the result of its adaptability.
Islam we need to recognize that there is also a means to understand its unity. The unity of Islam rests on one sole factor: the uninterrupted event of the Qur’anic revelation. In synthesis, the oneness of God and Islam is manifested in every aspect of its doctrinal reach in the affirmation of divine unity [tawhid], the proclamation that the beginning of existence is one as ratified by the apothegm al-tawhidu wahidun: “the doctrine of oneness is one.” For Islam, divine unity constitutes the only raison d’être [reason for being] and the essential criteria upon which all “orthodoxy” is based, regardless of its contingent modes of expression. We can go further and affirm that, as far as Islamic thought is concerned, the doctrine of “divine unity” is the common denominator shared by all traditional monotheistic faiths without exception, so long as they adhered to pure and original monotheism.[1] We can expand upon this more and proclaim that the universal and the continuous in all things operate through this Unique Principle which invariably is everywhere and always identical to Itself.
The great metaphysical currents from east and west unanimously agree that the ultimate reality of all things, the essential state of all creatures, their beginning and their return, is divine unity.[2] In this sense, this Islamic concept runs parallel to
[1] Editor’s Note: Strickly speaking, the ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, are the Jews and Christians. Tabataba‘i and Lankarani include Zoroastrians in this definition. Mawlana Muhammad ‘Ali, the Qadiani scholar, is most liberal to claim that “the Parsis, the Buddhists "Hindus" all fall into this category” (614). He even believes that “Parsi and Hindu women may be taken in marriage, as also those who follow the religion of Confucius or of Buddah or of Tao” (615). He criticizes the narrow conception of the word ahl al-kitab adopted by the jurist and holds that “there is no reason why the Magians, the Hindus and others who profess a religion and accept a revealed book, should not be treated as such” (615).
[2] Editor’s Note: This is an allusion to the Qur’anic verse: “From Allah we come and to Him is our return” (2:156).
those of Xenophanes, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus.[1] It runs parallel with those of Judaism, Taoism and Buddhism as well as those of the Advaita Vedanta Vedanta" formulated by Master Sankara, Master" as a recapitulation of the Veda which, according to Muslim Gnostics, is the revelation God made to Adam.[2] This also
[1] Editor’s Note: Xenophanes (6th c. B.C.) was a Greek philosopher and poet known for his monotheism. He is not to be confused with Xenophon (c. 430-c. 355)--the Greek general and writer--the disciple of Socrates. Xenophanes, who particularly objected to the anthropomorphism of Homer and Hesido in their portrayal of the gods, gave the following definition of the Divine: “God is one, greatest among gods and men, in no way like mortals either in body or in mind” (qtd. Netton 1). Parmenides (c. 504-450 B.C.) was a Greek Eleatic philosopher. He regarded movement and change as illusions, and the universe as single, continuous and motionless. Plato (c. 428-c. 348 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher who was a follower of Socrates. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher, pupil of Plato, tutor of Alexander the Great, and founder of the Peripatetic School at Athens (335 B.C.). His philosophy grew away from the idealism of Plato and became increasingly concerned with science and the phenomena of the world. His analyses were original and profound and his methods exercised an enormous influence on all subsequent thought. Plotinus (205-70) was a Roman philosopher of Egyptian birth. After studying in Alexandria, he established his Neoplatonic School in Rome (244). He used the metaphysical truths of Plato [esp. the dialectic of love] to create a mystic religion of union with the One through contemplation and ecstatic vision. Through Saint Augustine his theory of the human spirit entered into the mainstream of Western philosophy.
[2] Author’s Note: For a comparison of the doctrines of Plotinus and Sankara, see García Bazán, in Baine Harris (ed.), Neoplatonism and Indian Thought (181-207); Neoplatonismo y Vedanta; La doctrina de la materia en Plotino y Sankara and for a paragon between Plotinus and Isam see Nabi, “Union with God in Plotinus and Bayazid” in Harris (227-232). Most importantly, one should consult the volume prepared by P. Morewedge, Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought.
Editor’s Note: Sankara was a commentator on the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita, writing in c. 800 A.D. He was an upholder of traditional monistic Hinduism, which reduces all reality to a single principle or substance
applies to Alexandrine hermeticism--to the extent that it is a continuation of the tradition of Hermes or Idris, as he is known in the Islamic world--which is also embraced and integrated into Islam.[1]
The truth of the One Absolute, the identification of all things with a Sole Beginning, was revealed by the Qur’an for Islam in the form of the shahadah .[2] The divine profession of faith stresses that “He is Allah, the One and Only” (112:1), “there is no god but Allah” (47: 19) and that “He has no partners” [wahdahu la sharika lahu] or, as the chapter “Divine Unity” [surat al-tawhid] or “Purity of Faith” [surat al-ikhlas] declares, “there is none like unto Him” [wa lam yakun lahu kufu’an ahad] (112:-4). To be considered as orthodox, Islam requires a true and sincere belief in monotheism.[3] The contrary of tawhid is shirk: the attribution of partners or associates to God, idolatry and polytheistic paganism. Shirk is a mortal sin without possibility of pardon.[4] It is heresy
[1] Editor’s Note: Idris is the Arabic name for the Hebrew Hanokh and the English Enoch, the Biblical prophet who supposedly lived from 3284 to 3017 B. C. In the Holy Qur’an, Almighty Allah says that: “He was a man of truth and a prophet. We raised him to a lofty station” (19:56-57) and refers to him as a man of “constancy and patience” whom Allah admitted to His Mercy as a righteous one (21: 85-86). More than a man, Idris is an archetype, a sublime soul appearing in various cultures as Thoth, Hermes and Metraton, among others.
[2] Editor’s Note: The first sentence of the shahadah is typically translated as “There is no god but Allah” but it can also be translated as “There is no god; only Allah.” The attributes of Allah can also be used in the shahadah as in “There is no Reality but the Reality” which leads to the metaphysical notion that nothing exists outside of Allah.
[3] Editor’s Note: The words “faith” and “belief” cannot convey the sense of the Arabic iman which means “absolute knowledge, belief and conviction.”
[4] Editor’s Note: As Shaykh Sadduq explains, “There can be no forgiveness for sceptics [ahl al-shakk] and polytheists [ahl al-shirk]; nor for unbelievers [ahl al-kufr] and those who are persistent in their denial [ahl al-juhud]. But the sinful among those who believe in the unity of
incarnate which is why the Qur’an warns: “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed” (4:48).[1]
Allah [ahl al-tawhid] may be forgiven” (122).
[1] Editor’s Note: For the Qur’anic quotes in this translation, we have relied mostly on the English translation of ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali. We have also consulted Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and M.H. Shakir; the French translations of Muhammad Hamidullah and Denise Masson and the Spanish translations of Julio Cortés and Juan Vernet. The Yusuf ‘Ali translation is closer to conveying the style as opposed to the literal sense of the Qur’an which Pickthall adheres too more closely. The original Yusuf ‘Ali commentary was a fine work of scholarship. Over successive editions, however, the text and tafsir [commentary] have been “purged” of any and all ideas which are not in line with Wahhabi ideology. The value of Shakir’s translation resides primarily in that it is expressed in clear modern English. The Hamidullah translation, the product of two years of labor, adequately conveys the meaning of the scripture and is accompanied with a basic commentary. The Masson, translation, however, the result of three decades of effort, is far superior stylistically. However, the modified Hamidullah version prepared in Saudi Arabia is the most perfect. While the Vernet translation manifest a filo-Christianizing tendency which often substantially modifies the sense of certain figures of diction and classical Arabic formulas its literary value far exceeds the crude and vulgar translation made by Cortés. While the Vernet translation is more manicured, both the Vernet and Cortés translations manifest distortions and corruptions of the Qur’an. Vernet’s introduction and notes are devoted to casting doubt on the authenticity of the text on the basis of sloppy scholarship which is easily dismissed by Ayatullah Mirza Mahdi Pooya Yazdi’s comprehensive criticism of tahrif [textual change], “Originality and the Genuineness of the Holy Qur’an in its Text and Arrangement” which accompanies Ahmed ‘Ali’s translation of the Qur’an which itself is very poor and which can only be partially redeemed by its philosophical commentary. See also, Tahrif al-Qur’an: A Study of Misconceptions Regarding Corruption of the Qur’anic Text” by Muhammad Baqir Ansari.
For Islam, the essential element which guarantees true orthodoxy is the belief in “monotheism.” This applies not only to its own schools of thought or spiritual paths, but also to any traditional religion prior to Islam.[1] The term “monotheism,” however, is inadequate when it comes to translating the sense of al-tawhid. The word “monotheism” can only be used to accommodate the lack of a better term in English and other Western languages, without giving it an exclusively religious connotation. The doctrine of “divine unity” is essentially metaphysical in the true and original sense of the term. But in Islam, as in other traditions, it also implies--in its direct application to diverse contingent domains--a whole network of complicated and interlacing parts. These parts, within Islam, are not necessarily incompatible, despite their respective characters, as they are in the West since in Islam there is no division between the functions of “religion” and “state.”
Islam is a complete civilization and a complex culture in which all activities and spheres of daily life, individual, societal and governmental must reflect divine unity.[2] Islam is not merely a
[1] Editor’s Note: As Almighty Allah explains:
Those who believe [in the Qur'an], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62, see also 22:17 and 5:69)
This could also be applied to Vedic Hinduism. In the Vedas we read that God has many names but the wise call Him One. In the 20th century, the Arya Samaj reformist movement was formed within Hinduism. It calls for a rejection of all polytheism and idolatrous worship in favor of the Vedas alone. This acceptance of previous religions applies to pre-Islamic times and to those who, since the advent of Islam, were not reached by its message. According to the Qur’an and Sunnah it is incumbent on all believers to accept Muhammad as the final Messenger of Allah.
[2] Editor’s Note: Tawhid is also the union of the divine order and the worldly order, between religion and state.
source : http://www.maaref-foundation.com
