The orthodox-versus-Sufi binary is a scholarly artifact, not an intrinsic Islamic split

Evidence

The complexity in Abduh’s views brings out the inadequacy of the kind of binary thinking (familiar to Western students of Islam since Goldziher) that opposes as mutually exclusive “orthodox Islam” to “sufiIslam,” “doctors of law” to “saints,” “rule-following” to “mystical experience,” “rationality” to “tradition,” and so forth. This is not to say that Muslims never themselves employ such binaries—especially for polemical purposes—but this situated deployment should not be mistaken by the nonparticipatory scholar as objective evidence of a continuous split in the Islamic tradition. The difference that does exist is between would-be authorizer and practioner. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 1074 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Al-Gazali insisted Sufi initiation must follow rather than replace orthodox religious duties; The orthodox-versus-mystical Islam binary reflects scholarly projection, not a real split — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 1074; West-versus-Islam doubt binaries are projections of scholarly desire (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• The orthodox-versus-mystical Islam binary reflects scholarly projection, not a real split #corroborates (0.97) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 1074
• Massignon positioned Sufi mysticism as the disruptive countercurrent within orthodox Islam. #complicates (0.80)
• Medieval theologians classified Islam in multiple overlapping religious frameworks #complicates (0.78)
• Muslim religious identity is ascribed by outsiders, not internal practice #complicates (0.72)