In The science of the text (see below) a reader correctly observes that: "The Quran is the word of God, and that's why Muslims believe in it 100%" I have pointed this out before to suggest that there are axiomatic problems with deviating too much from the text of the Koran. But note this from Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras (page 18):

It was this latter model that the Shi'a adopted...If the Qur'an was the actually Word of God, how could fallible mortals ever hope to comprehend its true meaning....

God always leaves a loophole because the human mind can not comprehend his ways and his words, but humans must jump through the opening. The majority Sunnis (unlike the Daudi Bohras and to a lesser extent other Shia) emphasize the Koran and the Hadiths as axioms that guide their thinking, superseding the judgements of their religious superiors (at least de jure). But, I could imagine a scenario where textual liberals emphasize the Koran's opacity over its transparency as a nodd toward the greatness of God, attempting to leverage the righteous piety of conservatives toward the ends of flexibility.

Addendum: Imagine Islam is a person. I think some of the comments below indicate attribution error, that is, ascribing to the individual essential characteristics based on behaviors when said behaviors are dictated more by situational factors. So...in response to Luke why many Muslims don't tend to take a more non-medieval attitude toward interpretation of their central text, well, it's because most Muslim nations exist in a state of quasi-civilized barbarism (and many Muslim immigrants come from societies where barbarism is normative). That is simply their current situation, which may constraint "The West" in its response to various aggressions and insults, but one should not presume that the present is a perfect back-reflection of the future.

For example, would an American who lived in Philadelphia in in 1680 predict that 300 hundred years in the future Virginia, and the Southern colonies in general, rather than Puritan Massachusetts would be the hot-bed of Protestant revivalism? One must be cautious about behaving as if the future has already been determined. Hate the sinner, not the sin!

Related: Abiola extends my thoughts. Let me note, what I refer is "gelding" is partly self-delusion. For example, the Christians of today likely think those of the past were misguided to insist on coerced conversion of heathens and wedding of violence to the faith. I personally don't know or care if any of this really follows from Christianity, but I'm glad that most Christians (in the West at least) adhere to this new Truth rather than the old one.