Orthodox and Heterodox Muslims: Definitions

[PeteWaldo]

Some good sense regarding the adjective "heterodox", from a site I came across, "Inquiry Into Islam". It should provide a one word convenience for replacing phrases like "western styled peacenick, apostate, 'hypocrites'".
I hope they will bear with me on the copy and paste, as an introduction, to encourage forum members to visit their site.
http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/07/orthodox-versus-heterodox-muslims.html


"Orthodox and Heterodox Muslims: Definitions

YOU'VE HEARD the terms "radicalized Muslims" and "fundamentalist Muslims." We use those terms to make sure everyone knows we're not talking about "normal" or "moderate" Muslims. There is a good reason to try to make this distinction.

The main reason is because if you say "Muslim," you might mean all Muslims, and clearly all Muslims are not behaving the same.

The only piece of information missing from most peoples' understanding is that the "radicalized" Muslims are not really radical. They are orthodox. They are simply doing what it says in their scriptures they are supposed to do. They're not "hijacking" their religion or misinterpreting it. Most non-Muslims are unaware of this.

The first definition for "orthodox" in Answers.com is: Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion. That's perfect. And it is easily understood by most Westerners. It's a term we're already familiar with.

And in Answers.com, heterodox means: Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma. You can delete the word "church" and that's a great definition for what has been termed "moderate" Muslims. It's accurate and makes the distinction very clear.

So I'll be using the term "orthodox" to describe someone who strictly follows the teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and who tries — as a good Muslim is supposed to do according to the doctrines — to follow Mohammad's example.

To learn more about some of these basic teachings and what kind of example Mohammad set, refer to the article, What Makes Islam So Successful?"

In the comments section the author mentions he was struck by the term, when it was suggested during a discussion. (which I carried to the archive and found was in 2010) at this link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100728214507/http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/07/what-should-we-call-two-kinds-of.html#comment-2083664052687112271

[PeteWaldo]

It's important to bear in mind that according to the way the scriptures expose Islam, all Muslims whether Orthodox or Heterodox are antichrists, as an article of their faith in Muhammad alone. All Muslims must reject the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and thus His shed blood that saves, as another article of their faith in Muhammad alone.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm

[PeteWaldo]

While mainstream media types would be vilified and demonized for using the proper term "orthodox Muslims" when they are describing jihadist Islamic terrorists, rather than lying and calling them "extremist" or "radicals", there is a truthful alternative that they could likely get away with using. That alternative being to refer to violent jihadis as being "fundamentalist Muslims".

If it had not been for Christian fundamentalism, we probably wouldn't even recognize our scriptures today, as they would have undergone so much editing and so many revisions over the last 2,000 years and particularly during this politically correct prophesied apostasy of the institutional "church".
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm

By the same token it is Islamic fundamentalism that has preserved the Quran and inspired its continuing murder, mayhem and misery as practiced by Muhammad and in his wake his fundamental followers all around the world today.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

However the term "fundamentalist" is so often used incorrectly used as a demonizing term, by the ignorant and Godless mainstream media, that using it to describe an orthodox Muslim terrorist would likely go without criticism. Even mainstream talking heads might get away with it. Particularly those that speak a little more honestly to the subject like Sean Hannity, who in effect nonetheless lie, when they use terms like "radical" or "extremist" to describe what they likely know are true Muslims.
Particularly as Muhammad's true followers are increasingly revealed around the world today.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm