I think I’m starting to understand how all the …isms fit together thanks to Maajid Nawaz.
Islam is a religion. There is a spectrum of personal interpretations of the underlying texts based on increasing ideological commitment (literalism), from hyper-moderates to fundamentalists.
Groups of people with similar interpretations may or may not want to impose their ideology on society to create a caliphate (very generic definition). The probability of that increases with literalism as does the likely degree of violence utilised in the methodology. i.e. its unlikely that hyper-moderates would want to create a caliphate and even if they did it would most likely be by political means rather than violence. Similarly not all fundamentalists necessarily want to create a caliphate but if they do it seems that violence is more likely because of their increasingly literal interpretation.
So if you draw a graph with ideological commitment (maybe I should have labelled it Literalism) on one axis and caliphate methodology on the other you can mark places where certain groups exist and they will tend to exist on something like the line drawn (I think) which also doubles as the implied probability of a desired caliphate (really a third axis should be use for probability but it seems to collapses fairly reasonably) .
Generic labels can be marked for Islamism (the attempt to impose an Islamic ideology on society by political means to create a caliphate) and Jihadism (the attempt to impose an Islamic ideology on society by violent means to create a caliphate – e.g. IS).
Bottom line: Islamophobia is bigotry – it inclusively addresses personal ideology whereas one should address the area under the graph – the activation of those ideologies into processes impacting negatively on society – and with the appropriate means – i.e. social/political pressure against Islamism.
We are not at war with Islam or Islamism or Islamists or even Fundamentalism and Fundamentalists – rather with Jihadism and Jihadists.