I don&#x27;t understand the answer. We see Christian extremists, who &quot;peddle a message of terror&quot; (see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Christian_terrorism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Christian_terrorism</a>). Why didn&#x27;t the atrocities of, say, the Lord&#x27;s Resistance Army end up with a call that all Christians had to reform their faith? Would it have made a difference?<p>We see plenty of people from other faiths, including Christians, who want the equivalent of sharia - where their own religious laws take precedence over secular laws. (Eg, anti-gay marriage justified by Biblical interpretations.) Many passages from the Bible are also full of views that don&#x27;t really fit with our modern life. (Eg, is it okay to have slaves? can a women be ordained?) There&#x27;s been centuries of schism and reform on those points, and still no consensus. (Eg, that whole Protestant thing.) Why expect more from Muslims than those of other religious faiths?<p>As the interviewer suggested, I find the Ali&#x27;s views &quot;absurd and offensive&quot;, including even the term &#x27;reform&#x27;. What I understand is that the vast majority of Muslims want a <i>return</i> to the more secularized world of the 1950s and 1960s. Back when ideals from communism and socialism had a bigger influence in middle eastern political practices, and where Islam was seen more as moral rather than a political influence within a secular state. (Eg, rather like the Christian state church of England.) Back when women could wear miniskirts in Kabul, and Abdus Salam, the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize in science, was still considered Muslim by his nation.<p>That&#x27;s hardly a reform, but a restoration.