“Stoning law is an insult to today’s Islam” -- the "No True Scotsman" Redux

Brunei's Sultan decides to kill gays and adulterers
On 'ya Hassanal!

Mustafa Akyol is someone you'd like to believe. He's that rare duck, a moderate Muslim who speaks out. As in "Stoning law is an insult to today's Islam", in the New York Times.
I'd love to believe that Islam has nothing to do with stoning people to death for blasphemy or apostasy.  The problem is with the doctrines of Islam.  
In the end, Akyol ends up sounding more like an apologist than a speaker of truth to power.
And the argument used is, yet again, a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  As he did before in arguing that violent punishments for blasphemy were not "true Islam".  Or, this time, that violent punishment for homosexuality is "not true Islam".  (aka: it's "an insult to today's Islam").
A Turk himself, Akyol quotes the Ottoman Empire, as an example of more tolerant Islam. But is the Ottoman experience relevant, as opposed to the Saudi, the Iranian?
Specifically, he makes three points:
First the "context of the Koran".  Akyol argues that times were different in the time of Muhammad. Things are different now. However, the Koran is the inerrant word of God and cannot be "contextualised", it cannot be changed just because times change, at risk of blasphemy, and so... at risk of death.  The Torah and the Bible, by contrast, written by humans, are subject to exegesis and we can say, without fear of punishment, that "that was then, this is now".
Second, he says, "much of the Shariah is man-made".  Indeed.  (as of course is the Koran, unless you choose to believe that the Archangel Gabriel really did manifest itself to an illiterate peasant-trader, in a cave, in the Middle East, in the middle ages, and ordered him: "recite").  But Shariah is based both on the Koran and the Hadith, the latter being almost as holy as the Koran itself, particularly those verses with a "strong" chain of reliability, for they record the doings and the sayings of Muhammad himself.  So, they are canonical, despite being man-written.
There is no argument against the Umdat al-Salik, the Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence, amongst Muslim scholars.  None that I've seen.  The Umdate mandates, inter alia, death for homosexuals, and death or whippings for adulterers. So, there's that.
Third, Akyol argues that "Islamic jurisprudence was developed for Muslims only".  Even if this were true -- and it's arguable, as Islam believes itself to be the latest and most "correct" revelation, applicable to the whole of humankind -- so what?  Is it ok if a law that calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death applies to Muslims only?
In short, I wish Akyol were correct, but I fear he's not.
Still, as I said last November,

There is a sense in which even if what he [Akyol] says (“True Islam Does Not Kill Blasphemers”) is not quite true, as Robert Spencer shows is clearly the case, it ought to be true, and if more Muslims lived as if it were true things might be a lot better.  After all, many Christians remain Christians while ignoring the bits about killing blasphemers, stoning adulterous women, and so on. That's what I said six years ago, and it remains true today.

Earlier Posts including "Mustafa Akyol": 
2019-01-03 "China's gulag for Muslims" NYT
2018-11-27  "True Islam Does Not Kill Blasphemers". NOT......
2017-10-02 My Detention in Malaysia
2017-08-04 How to identify a genuinely progressive Muslim
2015-12-27 "Absurd criticism of Islam" Arab News
2015-12-22 A Medieval Antidote to ISIS -- NYTimes.com
2012-01-03 Muslim moderation: Mission impossible?