With all due respect, your complaint then amounts to 'we have the wrong kind of separation/segregation.' I also don't think there are that many people who do describe all Muslims as terrorists, though there is a great tendency among the Muslim community to assume that any criticism is essentially the same as saying 'Muslims = terrorists', which isn't altogether unjustified, given the existence of vocal groups who say exactly that.
You want both anti-Muslim as well as anti-Islam threads stopped? I only half-agree, if that's the case.
Agreed, but this is much like stating the obvious: that one would prefer for crimes not to be committed in the first place than to punish them after they've occurred. There's no way to guarantee that, I'm afraid.
Whether something is degrading or insulting is entirely subjective, and often used by people who know this very well to try to silence opposition. As such, I don't agree; nobody has the right not to be offended and, equally, people are more than welcome to not read threads that offend them.
Though I think there's a good argument to be made about adding a customisable filter to the Latest Discussions feature so that it's possible to select which forums/subforums one wants to be kept up to date with. Then, you can simply untick the box next to Debates and Current Affairs if you don't want to see too much anti-Islam stuff.
It's very important to 'insult' Islam (I would say 'criticise', but we'll go with your word), as it is to 'insult' Roman Catholicism and other superstitions. You obviously don't agree, presumably because you're religious yourself, but while it may seem intuitive that if people simply suppressed their disagreement with/dislike of your religion, its adherents would instantly be better off, there's no reason to think that this would be the case. Rather, in silencing opposition voices, it would make extremist voices seem louder.
Doing away with free inquiry has never produced the positive results one would think.