Does Islam Accept Reform?

Sacred scriptures that were written centuries back have their own special places in the hearts of their believers. Whether they were divine revelations or written as traditions of famous figures and prophets or philosophers. They provide codes of behaviors and rites that most can take as guidelines. They also codify morals relative to a specific culture. Codes of morals for the Hindus, for example, differ from those for Moslems. But nevertheless, most of them contain universal moral codes. They retain their holiness for many reasons; most important reason is that they were the codes of the ancestors. Primitive cultures did not have those literal codes, but still they adhered to the ways of the ancestors that were verbally transmitted from generation to generation. It aided them to face mysteries in life, as it aided modern religion believers. The only difference is that as religion evolved, it got more complex with time. In a nutshell: those scriptures, figures and rituals became a symbol for the believer.
It is also common and healthy to change some codes from generation to generation through interpretation, so long that the basics were intact. It was done throughout history with all religions. But that does pertain some dangers. Some interpretations might develop into creating sects or cults. More interpretations, or reinterpretations are also needed to comply with the needs of each new generation as per time and locations. A new generation usually follows the interpretations of his parents, adhering to their sources, but when the location changes, say someone who lived in the Middle East and his children were raised in the United States, he’d have to comply with the new rules of that place, and therefore be more flexible in his interpretations. Even if the location stayed the same, the world is getting smaller, and humans are getting smarter, each one of us would eventually develop his or her own interpretations according to what makes things more logical to ones specific logic. They may not even realize that that’s what they’re doing.
Fundamentals refuse any interpretations but the original ones, taken from famous figures in history where religion was at its purest. Fundamentalism is derived from the word fundamental, which means basics. Moslem fundamentals, for example, believe that Quran is a set of instructions on life given by the almighty, ordained from all eternity as the final and the ultimate truth for all human beings. This group considers any deviation from the fundamentals of Islam deprives it from its essence in the belief that it is the words of the divine, and therefore it becomes a human intervention and an assault on the fixed dogma. Fundamentalism can take many shapes; Wahabis for example, who take their traditions from the prophet and his following khaleefats, call the Shiites Khawarij; a word indicating the ones who went astray from the ways of God. Shiite on the other hand, who take their traditions from the prophet’s linage with a strong belief that their philosophy is the continuation of the divine revelation, and hence consider Sunnis Nawasib which means the ones who carry hate for the prophet’s linage, descending from Ali, the prophet’s cousin. Both sects claim that they have preserved the basics of Islam, and that their differences are minor, yet wars between them never ceased since the prophet’s death until today.
This was an example of the old dispute concerning different interpretations regardless of the hidden political agendas. Of which it’s implication is still evident in Iraq and Palestine.
Modern thinkers, peace loving individuals of both sects may not pay these differences any attention, but no doubt when a member of each sect meets with the other, each is sure that he’s from the salvation group and the other is destined to be burned in hell.
Yet interpretation is not a rigid phenomenon as I mentioned before, new interpreters like Amro Khalid who addresses the new generation and gives Islam a new look, is also faced with a lot of criticism from both sects. Some even consider him an apostate. And his likes are many, especially in the West, who have been bitten by the old interpretations and trying desperately to modernize Islam.
But could Islam be modernized?
Let’s look at history:
Sikhism began as Hindu reform under centuries of Moslem rule in north India; a religion that began in the fifteenth century AD with the teachings of Nanak and nine successive gurus. Its message is the one of compromise between Hinduism and Islam. And although today Sikhism is the fifth growing religion in the world, it was never digested; neither by Hindus nor by Moslems. Moreover, it was fought by both religions in fierce battles.
Modern Moslem reformers who work on the philosophy of compromising between civil human laws orchestrated by the secular West and Islam, most probably would face the same fate.
Mainstream Moslems would never accept their reform. Quran had described those who take part of their religion and leave the other part as Monafiqeen, i.e. the hypocrites. And It described them in a whole Soorah with the same labeling as:
[1] When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, “We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.” Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars.

[2] They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds.

[3] That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: so a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.

[4] When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)!

Now should we expect after that, that the mainstream Moslems would take any modern interpretations? Would the people of Saudi Arabia and Iran abide to modernization?
There is a saying that goes:

هذا حلم ابليس بالجنه

i.e. this would be Satan’s dream in heaven.
Like any other religion, Islam does not accept reform. Christianity had gone through seas of blood to achieve reform in the past. And although it had come a long way, there are still many fundamental Christian sects who oppose reform and want to stick to the literal interpretation of the bible.
Religion is part of human evolution, it was accepted by our ancestors in the past, albeit with bloodshed. Time has changed, with centuries of human development, nothing can be found in religions that the people of the twenty first centuries can’t find in civil laws that started with Hammurabi, and ended with reason against faith. Humans can’t just go in circles and not learn from history; circles would only take us to the beginning point, right were we first started, humans are destined to move on. That past has to be acknowledge as part of our history, and there is no escape from the bottleneck except divorcing religion for good. Science proves everyday that religion is nothing but myths. It may have not proved the existence of a creator, even the ultimate nonexistence is solely based on logic that may have different arguments from both sides, but religion is something totally different. And it is a pity to destroy our planet earth with a mere belief in a symbol. Religion has done too much harm to humans, and all indications point that this is the time to ask rational questions, and demand religion to step aside.
An Update: meet Greydon Square