This is a very different picture than that of Robert Spencer, who argues that there cannot be a true revision of the Islamic heritage, since the life of Muhammed is held to be infallible for the period after his reception of purported revelation. (This life includes consummating a marriage with a 9-year-old girl and murdering enemies, as I understand it). And since the Qur'an is held to be unrevisable in itself, and has no central leader to lead an authentic development of doctrine (as opposed to "nominalizing" Islam into something it is not and has not truly been). Are you aware of any objective flaws with Mr. Spencer's argument? (His book is "Islam Unveiled").
More information about text formats