Thank you for your very long response. My impressions of what you meant by authoritative, what similarities you envision with the SEP and what your goal was were incorrect.

If your goal is to get people off mount stupid, then am I right in thinking that your product does not aim to counter  non-stupid islamophobia or non-stupid islamic beliefs approaching extremism?

On your twitter you've said something like "we should not make an opponent out of conservative islam" , but I don't see why we as western non-muslims shouldn't see  mainstream, conservative Islam which is representative of normal practice and preaching of islam in muslim majority countries around the world (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) as a threat to core western liberal values and way of life.  Unless these people assimilate and lose the Islamic values and beliefs they possess which are in opposition to liberal values then as they start forming larger %s in european countries they will want those european countries to accommodate their core values and norms more and more. When muslims form say 30% or 40% or 50% of a european country there is a significant risk that they will form and vote for a muslim-brotherhood like party that will try to change that european country's legal system and norms to become closer to that of a muslim majority country like egypt or jordan or pakistan or afghanistan. There isn't good reason to believe that with the current course being set by european countries this possibility does not have a significant chance of occurring. We might within our lifetime see a northern european county make gay marriage or even homosexuality illegal again as a result of rapid muslim mass immigration and fast breeding, how would you and your team feel about that?

Are your non-muslim team members aware of and happy with this? I could imagine your non-muslim chairman or cto having misgivings about creating a space that will go towards reaffirming for instance that blasphemers and muslims who become atheists or followers of another religion should be imprisoned or put to death  , especially at a time in the world where this is regularly carried out both by official legal systems in islamic countries and by zealous muslims extra-judicially.

Also, since IslamQA.com already gives a range of mainstream scholarly intepretations (with reference to quran and hadith) when answering a question, such that their answers on say gambling or divorce cover most of the mainstream sphere of sunni belief systems , are you not worried that they already have captured the niche of ordinary muslims wanting answers to questions, and it will only be muslims interested in the fringe opinions and groups that IslamQA does not represent that will be more interested in your platform?

Hi, thanks for answering the questions so patiently even when they've been very rude and hostile. I hope you'll be able to answer mine.

I see in your whitepaper that one of the main aims of Ananas is to be authoritative similar to how the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is regarded as very authoritative.That is great for countering ISIS-style narratives because there are loads of authoritative scholars and organisations that aren't regarded as fringe but as the mainstream, established scholarly consensus on sunni islam who regularly condemn ISIS and explain why Islam should not be interpreted the way ISIS do. So that is great.

But from the other direction of countering islamophobic points of view and interpretations, how are you going to do that when mainstream , sunni, orthodox Islam as characterised by the scholarly consensus of  Hanafi, shafi, maliki and hanbali schools of jurisprudence contains large numbers of rulings and judgements based on the quran and hadith which are antithetical to western , liberal values?

For example on the frequent charge of Islam being sexist, can you deny that the consensus of mainstream, authoritative sunni scholars is that a man can get married to whom he wants with or without his family's permission but a woman is only able to get married with her male guardian's permission? That totally goes against equal rights for men and women. Only the Hanafi school of fiqh has some disagreement on this issue.
Or take the fact that all 4 schools of surviving, mainstream sunni jurisprudence agree that the penalty for converting away from islam or becoming an atheist is imprisonment then death. Note that these rulings by these schools don't say "if you leave islam and become an enemy and traitor working to wage war against muslims" (which is what apologists frequently claim). The jurisprudence,  which hundreds of years of scholars have studied the quran and sunnah and decided upon, is simply whether they convert or declare that they're atheist; if they do that then the penalty is death.

So here is your problem in a nut shell: if you want to be authoritative then you go with the mainstream sunni scholarly consensus; if you go with the mainstream sunni scholarly consensus then you end up with jurisprudence which is regressive, appalling and antithetical to enlightened, liberal, western values like gender equality , freedom of religion, freedom of speech and separation of church and state.  You can't be both islamically authoritative and in agreement with the values of liberal, western society without watering down Islam and adopting fringe, non-mainstream, non-authoritative, liberal positions. 
I mean  since you make parallels to the stanford  encyclopedia of philosophy, what would happen if Al Azhar university were to make the Al Azhar encyclopedia of islam?
What would most of the scholars there say about legal marriage rights for men and women? About what the punishment for converting away from Islam is?  If you want to accomplish both being islamically authoritative and not in opposition to fundamental, core, western values then surely it's just going to be an exercise in cognitive dissonance and dishonesty. Infact, I imagine you would have trouble answering this question honestly without putting your mission statement or funding at risk.

Is there anything I have gotten wrong here? Even if you create a nuanced interpretation where you say something along the lines of "but lets leave virtually all legal discretion to Siyasa, much grey area"  that still isn't going to be what the mainstream of orthodox sunni scholars endorse.