A few points are probably in order here, viz.:

(1) The word "islamophobic" is hugely tendentious; and even more so when coupled with the noun "b/s." It appeals to the viscera, not to the intellect.

(2) The observation that the article cited at the beginning of this thread is "frought [sic] with errors [and] misinterpretations" begs the question: What, precisely, are those "errors" and "misinterpretations"? A few examples would surely be useful.

(3) The comment that "some religious people are compatible [with post-Enlightenment ideas of tolerance], others not" misses the central point, which is as follows: The nebulous "some" people who use religion as a battering ram, even if they constitute only a small minority--as I noted previously, seven percent is the number I have heard bandied about--can easily intimidate a much larger number of people ("moderates," as they are inaccurately termed), if the latter are complacent and largely indifferent to the bullying tactics of the minority, or even frightened by them. This is no small point.