The notion of orthodox Islam functions inside religious disputes, not neutral historiography

Evidence

Since it was precisely the “authorized exponents of the shari¯‘a” that Abduh and Rida sought to dislodge (and in some measure succeeded in dislodging) it is evident that Layish’s critique—and others like it37—operates with an a priori concept of “orthodox Islam.” Yet this concept seems to me misplaced in the discourse of scholars who aim to write a history of Islamic tradition. It belongs to religious dispute between reformers (who invoke the authority of the text over that of the interpretive community) and conservatives (for whom authority is vested in the community of interpreters, the keepers of texts), because both of them are committed to doing certain things to what they regard as the essential tradition. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 1053

Categorization

• DEFINE: Shows that ‘orthodox Islam’ is a contested internal claim about where authority lies (text vs. interpretive community), not a scholarly category.
• DEEPTHINKING: A sharp methodological point: the concept of orthodoxy presupposes a position inside the dispute it purports to describe from outside.
• XREF: connects to: Orthodox Islam and Christianity hold mutual heresy accusations rooted in Crusade history — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 784