The crucial part here for me is "(you can be a muslim if you dont believe this literally)"

Even if it wasnt a majority that disagreed, I would find it important to differentiate between the people under the religion who did agree and whi didnt - especially when their views differ so radically. The sentence highlighted above makes a huge difference to how a muslim is influenced by the religion they follow.

Im not sure what exactly you meant by where you draw the line, but it sounds as if you are drawing the line at people who take the Qu'ran entirely literally, which seems like an extreme place to draw the line because you are sectionning off the majority of people who identify as Muslim. Personally I am of the view of, if someone identifies as Muslim they are a form of Muslim, even if their values and ideologies differ from all others following the religion.

I dont find it illogical because I can see the steps you took to get there, but as explained above I do think you are missing crucial points.

I do understand your point of view now, and the main difference, if I have understood correctly is that you draw the line of Muslim at fundamentalist. The big issue here is that, just like many Muslim speakers saying fundamentalist muslims are not true muslims it seems to me that your steps use the no true scottsman fallacy to section off a huge swathe of Islam - if you get what Im trying to say