"An Islamic Reformation is the world’s best chance for peace," by John Lloyd, is loaded with fundamental errors.
First of all, it completely mischaracterizes Christianity as having been for things Jesus was against. All members of authentic Christianity know that, that's impossible. If Jesus had taught that women were inferior or had he taught violence, then the article might be closer to correct but still wrong, which brings me to the second point.
It makes zero sense for any religion to be "reformed" away from it's founder's religious principles. The only thing that makes sense when the founder's principles are found to be wrong is to conclude that the religion is wrong and to drop it for a different religion or none.
For example, if Jesus is wrong about anything, he's not who he claimed to be and should not be followed as what he claimed to be, which would render the entire point of the religion irrelevant. It would then make sense to found a new religion with the different principles that reject Jesus as what he claimed to be. It would not be Christianity.The exact same thing holds for Mohammed. It is a ridiculous notion that Islam should be "reformed" to "correct" Mohammed's teachings about his Allah. If Mohammed was wrong about anything, if his teachings then do not apply now, then drop him and, therefore, his religion. His religion is that he was the messenger of God (infallible but able to change teachings to supposedly enhance understanding or to abrogate earlier pronouncements for a better, clearer path but not to allow his final teachings to be abrogated after his death).
Nothing Jesus taught is wrong for today in my view. I see no reason to change anything. If I ever do, I will quit Christianity, not try to morph it into what Jesus didn't intend his religion to be or to become (an unfolding completely consistent with his teachings, no hypocrisy).