I largely agree.
What is needed from the Muslim community is to be open and accept that other Muslims are the perpetrators of these attacks. Yes, it's ultra-conservative wahhabism, but it's still Islam. At the other end of the spectrum, it needs to be okay for a Muslim to drink, gamble and marry a non-Muslim without renouncing their heritage. The idea of who is and who isn't a Muslim needs to be opened right up, just as the idea of who and who isn't a Christian or Jew. The ability to be a Muslim or of Muslim background needs to be not restricted to faith.
I am of Protestant background and as someone that has not been to church since my teens (I did have a very brief phase at age 12-13) admit it would not be fair to call myself a Christian. However if I were Jewish but not practising Judaism I would still be Jewish. So it's admittedly complicated.
The point I'm getting at is that in order for less offence to be instinctively felt, Islam needs to evolve as other religions have done. Women's rights need to improve. Parents should accept that their child might be homosexual, might not want to marry, might want to drink alcohol or have sex out of wedlock (it might not be appropriate to categorise the aforementioned as one homogeneous group but the point is NONE OF THEM ARE BAD IN THEMSELVES). If the five pillars aren't strictly adhered to, hey ho. They are still Muslim, or not, if they wish to call themselves non, lapsed or ex Muslim. Only at that point can Muslims turn round and say without sensitivity that yes these terrorists are Muslims just like the PIRA and UDA were Christians fighting each other. Muslims come in all shapes and sizes and it is OBVIOUS that these acts do not represent the majority. The problem is that in saying "it's not us", the question "but hating gays and subjugating women is you, isn't it?", which is an un-PC wording of a reasonable question, naturally arises. If that then becomes "not them", there becomes less of a question to answer.