I’m only arguing that we should afford Muslims the privilege to cherry pick (as other religions do) rather than denigrate them for it. This can’t harm the ‘reform’ process. I agree, it isn’t the only solution though. It will take a lot of different approaches to reform Islam, and that’s if it’s even possible at all, which I’m sceptical of.

Most moderate Muslims don’t read the Quran or care much about piety. But they also feel somewhat guilty about it. They know that the Quran is for all times even though they don’t follow it literally. They believe that Sharia is the best code of conduct for humanity and superior to any other man made legal or political system. They vehemently defend Islam (often out of guilt to compensate for not being pious enough) when critics or reformers point out the need for reform. Call for reform is seen as an affront, reformers are seen as apostates.

Islam is unlike Christianity or Judaism in that questioning the fundamental doctrines and actions of the prophet is simply not allowed. Moderate Muslims can cherry-pick all they want (in fact that’s what they do), but that’s not going to be enough unless the infallibility of scripture is not challenged.

Only arguing about interpretation is not going to eradicate Jihadism or Islamism because even moderate Muslims know that Jihad, Sharia and global caliphate are core tenets of Islam. They are taught this from early childhood. So they grow up believing it even though they don’t read scripture. They buy into and propagate the victimhood narrative, conspiracy theories and end of the world prophecy. They dream of the day when Islam will reign supreme.

Empowering progressive/liberal Muslims and making them the mainstream creates more influence for them and will undoubtedly increase their numbers. For every young Muslim that then chooses to subscribe to this narrative instead of whatever their local mosque is peddling, that’s one small step to diminishing the influence of the literalist.

Again, reform may be unrealistic. I certainly won’t see it in my lifetime – I’m simply suggesting it makes more sense to support progressive Muslims than to denigrate them as ‘apostates’ as you just did.

“Religion, despite what the believer may tell you, has always been fluid. Oral dictation, alteration, translation, reinterpretation and reformation are religious themes as much as anything. Secular, progressive Muslims are not asking for anything new here. Sure, the Ayatollahs and the Imams will dismiss the reformers as apostates. But that’s exactly why it’s important to empower the reformers in order to diminish the influence of the literalist theocrat”.

What makes you think that differing flavours of apostate (reformists and ex-muslims alike) and kuffar empowering each other will diminish the influence of theocrats and their crap they sponsor in European mosques?

I’m not ignoring anything. I specifically mentioned the Ayatollahs and Imams.

Again. I’m not even saying reform is possible, or probable. I’m entirely sceptical on that front. I’m simply saying it’s still a good idea to support liberal, progressive Muslims.

Every single thing you have raised here is addressed in my article. Please read it again. Going forward, could you please quote the specific points you disagree with, or you think are untrue from my article.

It’s not that you’re wrong about the things you’re saying, it’s just that they seem to be in response to points I’m not actually making.

You seem to be ignoring the power of radical preachers over in european mosques. Mosque funding comes from the gulf states most of the time and we both know the islam their favoured imams will go by.