I really don't see reason to be sorry about it - in terms of core values namely freedom of speech and individual rights we more or less completely agree. The only divergences may be the role of government and the nature of religions. I feel that there is a folly in those who only see liberalism as tolerance even when they must deal with the inherently intolerant. Taking a stand for the core values of liberty, secularism and free speech even when it is not what people want to hear is one of the noblest traditions of liberalism through history.
This style of Islam will not change it's manner to suit European values, it will change European values to suit it's manner. It will do it through the avenues of the political systems and it doesn't matter how many stupid anti-freedom laws are pushed in now to piss off Muslims because Islamic populations in Europe have the long term demographic upper hand in many of these countries - the important thing today is positively engaging these populations - laying the groundwork for a future where the core principles of democracy, pluralism and maybe, just maybe secularism are maintained.
Demands for blasphemy laws, anti-porn measures, campaigns against lewd advertising and alcohol as well as the push to recognise religious bodies to resolve disputes (for instance limited Sharia courts) cannot go unchallenged.
To qualify all of this I would like to list a few examples of Islamic intolerance in Western Europe that illustrate the mentality that threatens liberal values. I invite a response that shows me Muslims experiencing attacks such as this by Europeans because for the most part Islamophobia only seems to be about cartoons, jokes and political statements.
>The brutal murder (shot, throat slit and stabbed in the chest) of Theo Van Gogh by an Islamic terrorist Mohammed Bouyeri over him directing the film
Submission that deals with misogyny in Islam.
>
The abduction, sustained torture, dismemberment and burning to death of French Jew Ilan Halimi by a gang of Muslim youths.
>The reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed extending to death threats upon the cartoonists, publishers and their families.
The fundamental nature of discourse is being altered by these events, the limits of free speech have been highlighted by these events, the rights of individuals become redefined in light of these events. What is the reaction when this gets highlighted and rightly oppposed? Islamophobia, anti-religious hate speech, fascism - people are getting murdered for their dissent against a set of religious conservatives that make Jerry Falwell look like Jim Wallis. Let's make no mistake, there is nothing wrong with opposing these people to support minority rights - engaging the Muslim community should not entail giving a minority of extremists credibility.
A start may well be curbing immigration, and if not then ensuring that individuals who see these western societies as decadent, sinful and worthy only of contempt are not just granted citizenship. Banning the Burka is a dumb idea - symbolically it drives away a lot of Muslims from engaging with a society and only exacerbates the disconnect. Welfare programs are getting stretched and that is a problem, especially when you see Islamic leaders telling their followers that they are righteous in getting welfare because it is a form of Jizya. These are not answers merely pointing out things that are or may potentially be problems. Crying anti-Islam, racist and fascist then siding with advocacy groups who's leaders who carry sentiment that a liberal would find abhorent (e.g. Iqbal Sacranie talking about homosexuality) is self-defeating. If you genuinely believe in pluralism and individual rights then speak out against the greater threat of fundamentalism: the moderates who are sidelined, the apostates who are silenced and all manner of regular Muslims are all victims when bigotry is sanctioned in the name of tollerence.
Islamic populations will grow over the next few decades to a large minoriity in Western Europe, they will not dominate violently or seize control - it will just become electorally neccessary for politicians to appeal to this religiously conservative base. Piece by piece the nature of these societies will change because it gets politicians elected: say goodbye to gay marriage, make divorce harder, crackdown on abortions, crackdown on alcohol advertising, ban blasphemy etc. It is not far removed from the rise of the religious right - the difference being that the Islamic populations within Europe are seen as outsiders at best - but their votes count and moderate levels of religious conservatism will be injected into government (not electing Taliban style governents, that just wouldn't happen - I am talking about governments that are sensitive to religious views which by any measure would be considered conservative at the expense of the real minorities such as gays and atheists).
It would all be done democratically and for the most part non-violently. The groundwork was set over the last few decades (for instance allowing immigrants from former colonies to bring their relatives into Europe). The hope of creating a European Islam has not come to fruition and there is even a small minority that shows the exact opposite response - rejectionism - towards the societies that they have been raised around.
Moderate Islam is Mainstream Conservative Christianity - Conservative Islam is Inquisition Era Catholicism
Either way when it becomes politically expedient societies will become more socially conservative than they are now and I feel that is a bad thing.