That's a great sentiment, necessarily, but unfortunately Muslims have erected significant barriers to the better understanding of their religion.
E.g.
Globalization presents a great opportunity to learn from the rest of the world, and that includes learning from your closest neighbors which you've fought and distanced yourselves from. Hinduism is monotheistic at its core, but takes a polytheistic appearance as it celebrates the plurality of appearances of that divinity and notably tolerance for disparate views of the divine. Islam on the other hand is arguably the least tolerant of all religions, and it is because of that there is a gulf between it and other religions; other views of God.
However, considering that positively might be too far of a leap for you at this time. It should be easier to consider the message of prophet Isa. That message is clearly one of tolerance and harmlessness -- turn the other cheek, instead of taking enormous offense and violent reactions to attacks, only perceived and otherwise.
Sadly, you have done nothing here to improve the perception of Muslims. Not one iota of compromise, not one iota to accepting responsibility for the harm done by Islam and Muslims to the world and to your present corner of the world specifically. What we hear instead is you're not responsible, and that the other aren't true Scotsmen like yourself, and that you couldn't make any compromise because no compromise would be sufficient for the hardest opponents, and the appearance of any compromise would be seen as a loss, in your great battle.
You could even start by showing some respect for comical protests, instead of the more common rage and violent hostilities that we've become accustomed to. Such protests are not simply acts of war as you take them to be, but are also acts expressing freedom of thought and specifically freedom from the increasing effects and impositions placed on others by Islam, its proponents, interpreters, and law makers.
Rumi was proud of his scholarship. Yet it is said that the man who was to teach him threw his books in a well when he met him, in a symbolic act. So if symbolic damage to books could be used to teach Rumi, must such an act be interpreted and reacted to as simple hostility now?
