I had always though the "so-called" aspect of so-called Islamic State, was to emphasis it is not a real state.

Very good article - I'm sympathetic to lots of this; especially the final paragraphs about the links between millenarian cults where Cohen channels Norman Cohn's seminal In Pursuit of the Millennium. But there is one essential bit of the argument missing; the recognition that in their essence none of the world's great religions are seamless codes but vast lumber rooms of contradictory stuff (Sura of the Sword/No Compulsion in Religion, Eye for an Eye/Turn the other Cheek) etc etc, which their adherents selectivity interpret in vastly different ways according to their own impulses and the spirit of the time and place; crudely put, violent interpretations are begot in violent times, and peaceful ones in peaceful times. I'm not joking. Not the same bits, obviously. But the Koran nonetheless. For more on this see Dennett - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. So of course ISIS has 'something to do with Islam'. I mean, they quote the Koran, right?.... But then so do the authors of the Islamic Karma Sutra and the Islamic Ontology of Pleasure and Wine (I'm not joking.)Not the same verses. Obviously. But the Koran nonetheless. And of course causality runs from ideas to acts as totalitarian ideas have their own vitality as Cohe states. But it is equally true that causality runs the other way from individual and societal conditions to the selective interpretations of religious texts; just as Cohn pointed out re the ultra-violent Christian medieval cults that always emerged and their ideas took wing in times of societal stress; as did Nazism and Bolshevism. Why does this matter? Because it is a trite point that the successful strategy here is to separate the extremists from the mainstream the better to deal with them. There. Is. No. Other. Way. Easier said than done, no doubt. But you sure ain't going to get anywhere if you either deny the links between extremism and some strains of Islamic thought, and equally if you go around condemning Islam across the board as productive of extremism and ignoring societal factors and differing interpretations of Islam - that way lies a clash of civilisations between billions in which there is no victory. This is not appeasement, It is reality. Any successful strategy has to make allies of the biddable and deal with the irreconcilable - not conflate the two. Nuance and complexity in pursuit of such an objective is essential as these are nuanced and complex issues, and is not the same as the sort of refuge in apologism and refusal to face facts Cohen rightly condemns. Instead, it is looking at facts straight, and dealing with them as they are, and not as we might wish them, to identify what compromises might be necessary, and which impermissible, to win this fight.

Is it really the case that people don't understand this or is it just people are afraid of being vilified for their views which no doubt circulate in the privacy of people's homes? This then begs the question, do British muslims want a relationship with wider British society where they are mollycoddled or treated like children?

No, we are not, for the simple reason that wishing things away and ignoring the evidence that is staring in your face for the sake of non-existent community cohesion doesn't work. If it's not clear now, it will be clear soon - another Manchester, another 7/7, slowly and painfully we will pay the price for ignorance and delusions...