The Mama Ghufron controversy in Indonesian digital Islam raises a broader question about how disputed religious authority is classified when strong doctrinal criticism does not develop into equivalent legal or security escalation. Using a qualitative, source-based case-study design, we examine mainstream media reports, official statements from the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI), legal records from contrastive blasphemy cases, and scholarship on digital religion, mediated authority, platformization, and religious regulation. We employ tolerated religious deviance as the principal analytical category, referring to a condition in which religious claims remain publicly circulable under criticism without being doctrinally accepted or fully incorporated into criminal or security frameworks. The analysis shows that perceived eccentricity, limited political threat, institutional correction, fragmented media circulation, ridicule, and platform-conditioned visibility together shape this intermediate position. The MUI response demonstrates that toleration does not imply institutional silence, while comparison with the Lina Lutfiawati and Aulia Rakhman cases highlights how intentionality, sacred referents, public mobilization, and legal classification influence different trajectories of escalation. The Mama Ghufron case therefore reveals how movement-like religious formations may remain socially durable through controversy, correction, oppositional attention, and repeated circulation even when their authority is publicly disputed and their claims remain outside recognized standards of religious legitimacy. Conceptually, this framework clarifies how religious boundary-making operates between recognized authority, criminalized blasphemy, securitized threat, and publicly tolerated deviance.