The difference between the IRA and ISIS is that the IRA wanted to join
the Irish republic a democratic constitutional republic.

Hamas, the ISIS and various mullahs want a caliphate, by definition a
fascist theocracy.
The general moslem population, even if they were uneasy about the
politics involved would go along with it.
As a mullah said recently; If death for apostasy did not exist then
Islam would have disappeared years ago.

Moslems need to be assured that they can leave Islam without being
murdered, or attacked or even been ostracised by their friends.
That requires all moslems to be assured of protection.
It requires changes to the Koran, that forbids friendship with infidels.

These are big hurdles for moslems, because it can mean cutting off
from family and friends.

A further though, could an organisation be set up that could harbour
moslem families that want to leave Islam and stay in Australia and
move to an area with few or no moslems.
They could adopt new names also and let it be known that they were
some other Middle East minority.

Is this already being done ?

Bazz,
Correction, Hafez Al Assad and Saddam Hussein were Ba'thists, which is a variant of Fascism, Muammar Ghadaffi could also be described as a Fascist but IS, Hamas, Al Nusra, Taliban etc are the complete opposite of Fascists, they're pure theocrats where Fascism is a form of socialism.

Think of Europe in the 15th century, and you might begin to understand at what point in history the Islamic world is at today. In 15th century Europe, the two primary political forces within every nation state were the absolute monarchs, and the Church. Both groups formed uneasy alliances to rule the people, with both sides jockeying for absolute power. In those contests, the Kings usually won their fights against the Church, because there was nothing in the Christian religion which said that the clergy was top dog. The Church was divided between the Prots and the Catholics, who were at war with each other.

In the Islamic world today, the role of Kings has been replaced by dictators. At the moment, the Church in the form of Islam, is winning it's fight against the "Kings." It is doing so, because the man who began the Islamic religion decreed that church and state were inseparable. That means that the "Kings" must do the bidding of the Mullahs, and all the mullahs have to do to win the support of the people is to point out the relevant passages in the Koran. The Islamic religion itself is divided roughly into two main factions, and they too are at war with each other for supremacy.

To say that ISIL has nothing to do with Sunni Islam, is like saying that the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Saying that the violence in the Middle east has nothing to do with Islam, is like saying that the Hundred Years War in Germany had nothing to do with Christianity.

Middle Eastern oil is so important to western (and now Asian) economies, that western leaders are denying reality. We bomb the Muslims who make no bones about their intention to destroy us from without using terrorism. But we support the Muslims who are at war with them, and but at least sell us oil. Those particular Muslims wish to destroy us from within, using more effective means, like high Muslim immigration rates, with Islam spreading, suburb by suburb.

And they are winning.

Lego, I find little or nothing to dispute in your post.
It does look similar to Europe in the period leading up to the reformation.
The IS Caliphate might well be a transition moment, in the flow of
history but it will not change Islam like the reformation changed Christianity.
Iran is probably what a true Islamic state would look like.
A fascist dictatorship ruled by clergy who have directive control of government.

As they all say, no separation of Mosque and State.

That is a political structure called fascism.

A dose of Theodore Dalrymple:
https://theodoredalrymple.wordpress.com/category/political-correctness/

When Christianity goes, so does the West. When weak, Islam moves in. Simple really. The internal Christian wars began with the Reformation as cited (thus destroying any images of Christ – sound a bit Islamic?) so here we are now. One extreme creates another. Puritan fundamentalism, seems a bit Islamic to me. Henry VIII and his disposing of wives? Martin Luther it seems also contributed to anti-Semitism in Germany. His writings were the blue-print for what came later. He also actually did not leave the CC but was ex-communicated for all his propaganda.

Islamic scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Egyptian Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir are saying islam has been creeping in the more Secular the West becomes.

It only takes one man.

power-and-the-glory, Graham Greene:
“The priest, then, is a fully drawn character; but he is also a spokesman for Greene's view of the continuity of the Catholic Church. As a sensitive and thoughtful person, the protagonist is scarcely expendable; yet he is only a small part of a large spiritual organisation - the Roman Catholic Church. In his debate with the lieutenant, the whisky priest states that the totalitarian state is based upon personalities. When its leaders die, he says, the government will probably fall, consumed by corruption. The Church, he argues, does not depend on any one person, and the appearance of the new priest at the end of the novel manifests Greene's thesis.”

Middle Ages (so called Dark Ages maybe not so bad): "How to be Free", Tom Hodgkinson. Of course the arrival of industrialisation and now serious corporatising going on.

George Orwell 1984 - are we there yet?

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/02/05/theodore-dalrymple/old-europe-doomed

Socialist governments of Sweden and France have big problems and the UK, as Dr Dalrymple describes as paranoiac and brutish.

Leonard Cohen - First We Take Manhattan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A