“This denial of ontological universals has direct and far-reaching implications for our understanding of both Islam and race.

As for Islam, it implies that there is no “real,” “true,” or “authentic” Islam apart from the historical instantiations (read interpretations) of the religion in the world. Even if the Qur’an and the Sunna were to remain physically in the world, there would no doctrine of Unanimous Consensus or Five Pillars or jihad in the absence of Muslims, for these are products of human understanding rather than ontological givens. And while this does not imply that any particular doctrine or school is ipso false, it does mean that none is transcendent. Muslims, in other words, whenever and wherever they happen to be, are ensconced in historical situatedness, and this endows them with a perspective from which they speak. Where their uncoordinated efforts results in unanimous agreement, this may serve as the functional equivalent of a transcendent view, inasmuch as the agreement itself shows the view to be impervious to the dictates of any particular perspective. But where there is disagreement (assuming due dillegence) no particular perspective can be justified in projecting itself onto the world as a universal standard for all. It is here that my critique of what I have been referring to as “Immigrant Islam” begins.

–Sherman A. Jackson, Islam & the Blackamerican, p. 11-12