Here, for example, is an interesting discussion of the idea I express every chance I get: That islam (or any religion) is in essence what it does, not what it says or professes to believe. In the case of islam, it's all bad...
Not what it was, but what it does
Not what it was, but what it does
[snip]
It is not what it is, nor what it was, but rather what it does that defines a religion: How does a faith address the paramount concern of human mortality, and what action does it require of its adherents? I addressed these issues under the title Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life (September 19, 2006), explaining that jihad does for Muslims precisely what Communion does for Christians. It is not a doctrine but a sacrament, that is, a holy act that transforms the actor. Indeed, Spengler is always thought-provoking. He got me to find Franz Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption and make an attempt to study it. Not easy reading.
I cannot think of any other op-ed pundit who would dare suggest that Muhammed is not the source of the Qur'an, or that the Qur'an might be an 8th or 9th century invention.