Above all else, the ulama are men of religion; it is thus hardly surprising that the definition of orthodoxy should be foremost among their concerns, as is evidenced by the abundance of their written and oral production in this realm.

For the purpose of this analysis, I adopt a sociological rather than a theological perspective on the notion of orthodoxy. From a theological point of view, orthodoxy consists in fidelity to the ‘true’ meaning of the scriptural sources; from the sociological perspective adopted here, orthodoxy is defined as the religious doctrine that has hegemonic status at a particular place and time.

In Sunni Islam, where there is no universally accepted religious hierarchy, orthodoxy is defined through collegiality and mutual control: it consists in the relatively consensual interpretation of a scholarly corpus that each ‘alim has the responsibility to preserve while calling to order those of his peers who might diverge from the majority opinion. Such a system involves a considerable number of individuals, who in classical terminology are referred to as the ‘mass’ or the ‘crowd’ of scholars (jumhur al-‘ulama’). Although in modern times this ‘mass’ has certainly grown with the development of mass higher education, it is not an infinitely expandable category: to have influence on the debate requires that one have sufficient interest to take part in it, the intellectual capacity to master its terms, and enough social capital to make one’s voice heard. In other words, the definition of Sunni orthodoxy is a matter of elites and not, as has been suggested, of the mass of the faithful.