Heresy (Gk.,
hairesis, ‘choice’). The adoption of false views and practices. Basically, the Gk. word may mean simply the adoption of a particular opinion or school of thought (e.g. Acts 5.17), but in religious terms it is usually a choice of belief which is held to be aberrant (i.e. heretical) by the main continuing body of believers. A heresiarch is the originator of a heresy or heretical movement. In Christianity, where the term is essentially located,
Roman Catholic theologians distinguish ‘formal heresy’ (the grave sin of wilful persistence in error) and ‘material heresy’ (the holding of heretical doctrines through no fault of one's own).
In other religions, the term is not formally appropriate, but similar considerations, derived from the necessity for systems to have boundaries, can be found. Thus in Judaism, neither Bible nor
Talmud present creeds or dogmas to which Jews must conform. However, Deuteronomy 17. 8–13 isolates the
zaqen mamre, the obstinate teacher (
rebellious elder). Already in the
Mishnah serious aberrancy is recognized. Heresy now is belief in ideas condemned by the Orthodox religious authorities. In Judaism, a heretic is still considered to be a
Jew, and is described by a number of terms such as
min,
apikoros, and
kofer (cf.
kāfir).
The nearest equivalent in Islam is
ilḥād, ‘deviation’. Heretics are called
malāḥidah. Right practice (
sunna) is as important as right belief, but in any case the heretic is, quintessentially, one who denies the reality of God. Thus the major offences in Islam are
shirk and
bidʿa. One who forsakes Islam is an apostate (
murtadd), and if he turns against Islam in public attack, he should be executed.
In E. religions, it might seem, superficially, that there is little room for a concept equivalent to heresy. ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Buddhism’ contain diversities of an even more spectacular kind than Christianity. Hinduism as
sanātana dharma is able to include conceptually even those breakaway religious movements, such as the Jains and Buddhists, which are usually described as separate religions. They are interpretations (
darśana) of the revelation in the
Vedas, but unorthodox ones—
nāstika as opposed to āstika. In a sense which is now eroded, the orthodox is defined geographically: it is the area in which
dharma can be observed. Thus
Manusmṛti:
The land between the two sacred rivers Sarasvati and Drsadvati, this land created by divine powers, is the Brahmavarta. The customs prevailing in this land, passed on from one generation to another, constitute right behaviour (
sadācāra). From a
brahman born and bred in this land all people should learn how to live.… Beyond is the land of the mlecchas: a
twice-born should remain in this land; a
śūdra may, to gain his livelihood, live anywhere.
Buddhism was not even confined to territory, since it was, at least in terms of teaching, opposed to caste, sacrifice, and dharma determined by Vedas and brahmans. However, it was not on trivial issues that the early schools divided (see
COUNCILS (BUDDHIST)); and the subsequent elaboration into
sūtra-based Buddhism (i.e.
Mahāyāna) led to an immense proliferation of schools and traditions. But although there has been considerable hostility between Mahāyāna and
Hīnayāna (witness the latter name itself), the different forms of Buddhism have in general flourished in different geographical areas. The definition of the heretic has therefore been extremely local, leading to expulsion from communities, especially of monks (see
EXCOMMUNICATION). The nearest equivalent to heresy is ‘false views’: see
DIṬṬHI.