That the term is misused does not mean it is not a legitimate concept and never appropriate.

Either someone is irrationally fearful of Muslims with no other criteria than the fact that some Muslims have done violent acts -- or they aren't. Either the charge of Islamophobia is accurate in a particular case, or it's not.

In my experience many have a strong tendency to make no distinction between, for example, the well-assimilated Muslims in the US, who are better educated, wealthier, and more law abiding than the average US citizen; and the refugee Muslims who are more predominant in Europe. And then they seem heavily invested in not seeing even those refugees in human terms, such that they might actually try to deal with the root causes of their radicalization. They seem heavily invested in the notion that Islamic fundamentalism is terrible but Christian fundamentalism is tolerable if not downright benign. And so forth.

They seem heavily invested in discrediting or minimizing such clear distinctions in an effort to do what has never been accurate or fair to do to any group: stereotype them all as undesirables. It's the same when many men say women are all far more crazy / emotional / irrational than men, or when black men with guns get shot to death whether or not they are lawfully employed as armed security guards.

The cited article is written with the clear objective of pushing a picture of Muslims that is simplistic, stereotyped, and unfair. Such an approach tends to radicalize Muslims that aren't already radicalized, and to promulgate ineffective solutions concerning those that are.

Finally, the article offers no solutions, not even bad ones. It appears to exist solely to fear-monger.

I have forgotten details but still remember an Islamophobic person who killed 2 Muslims simply because of Islam. His fear of them made him do it and the media called him an atheist. If anyone wants to do the math that doesn't even make sense.