I mean really, are you the one who says one man is a muslim and another woman is not? I think that this is between Allah and the person, don't you? It is the starting point for making the statement, I will kill you because you are not the kind of muslim that I am, not that you would take such a despicable action but that this turns into the religious justification for those sorts of actions.
It is sufficient to say that the collected Surat were put together at the time of Abu Bakr and there checks and balances to ensure that the written Surat matched the memorized Surat, by the Sahabah. Where there are likely to be tahreef is in the hadiths. Additionally, the hadiths were specific to the time and culture that Islam found itself growing within back in the day. The reason why the hadiths were not included in the proper Qur'an is that they were not meant to be the permanent form of Shari'a jurisprudence.
Thereby, Article 2 in the proposed Egyptian Constitution is right on in referring to the Principles of Shari'a rather than literal statements of hadith-based Shari'a Law. The right way forward is to place the order of fiqh as:
- the Qur'an
- ijma: consensus, of representatives of all the traditions involved
- qiyas: analogical reasoning and analogy
- ‘urf: local custom which is not in direct conflict with established Islamic principles
- hadith: the authentic narrations of the Prophet
This allows both different understandings of the Qur'an to be expressed on a level foundation, as well as non-muslim traditions, whether those traditions be secular or religious. It is the order needed to express inclusive tolerant liberal Islam and increase the likelihood that Islam will spread in compatibility with other traditions.
Why can't someone be both Christian and Muslim at the same time?