Despite this not being an actual, thing, it also is not a serious charge. And by not "serious," I mean the person leveling it is not serious.
As Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), Andrew McCarthy, Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugged) or Mark Steyn (SteynOnline) will attest, it also is not a phobia if the fear is rational.
I'll take on anyone who wants to debate that we should not have a rational fear of Islam and especially it's most fervent adherents, who I will refer to as Islamists, or Islamofascists to more precisely target it to those who push the teachings of Mohammad and the tenets of political Islam, including Sharia, to achieve their goal of a Global Caliphate.
All one has to do is look around and see the havoc being wreaked across the globe, including here in America, by these murderous thugs, operating under the banner of Islam. Are there others committing acts of terror in the name of their God? Well, yes, there are, and people love to point to Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph, but, let's please be honest, nearly 100% of Christians denounce these people, and the vast, vast, vast majority of acts of terror committed now are committed in the name of Allah. Sure the SPLC likes to catalog "hate crimes" committed against innocent Muslims, and these exist to be sure, but none approach in the remotest way possible, the acts carried out in this country at Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando, Chattanooga, Fort Dix, or Washington DC and New York City.
There simply is no comparison.
Alayna Hirsi Ali can tell you what practitioners of Sharia do to women. I encourage you to read her work. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller catalog the works of Islamofascists.
The Charlie Hebdo writers should have had a greater Islamophobia. Many more of them might be alive today had they taken the threats more seriously and protected themselves better.
The fact is that in a world of 1.2 billion Muslims, where polls show 20-40% do not disavow these extreme elements amongst their co-religionists, that means you have at a minimum 240 million people who are A-OK with what these murderers are doing. If only 0.1% of Muslims are part of the death cult that wants to establish the caliphate and do it by murdering the infidels, that means there are 120,000 people willing to meet Allah and get their 72 virgins. So, is it irrational to be concerned about 120,000 potential terrorists? What if it's .01%? Is it still irrational if the number is only 12,000? When does it become irrational?
The other thing Clinton's and the Left's approach to this is to lump Islamophobics in with racists and homophobes.
Little different, in that you can't change your race, and pretty much everyone agrees sexual preference is baked in. Does the Left think that Islam is a race? Newsflash - Islam is a religion that also includes a political element, with sharia as the law. People do have a choice when it comes to religions, and this one has proved all-too-willing to spread itself by the sword. In fact, there are teachings in the Quran that preach just this.
Do I want to rid the world of Islam? Not unless this minority of Islamofascists decide they want to rid the world of me and my co-religionists (and Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and yes, even you atheists out there). If that's the battle they want, I am more than willing to enjoin them. However, I fear few leaders in the West are as well.
And they're preaching to their minions to just keep their heads down. Treat this as a phobia. This ugly people who recognize the threat will just go away or be marginalized. They think there is no threat, or maybe they can negotiate it away when it reaches our shores and becomes truly a daily threat. They're wrong.
There are moderate Muslims who understand the problem Islam faces. Egypt's president al Sisi is one of them. Jordan's king another. There are others, but for now, their voices are really kept from us. How many of you even knew that one of our allies in the Middle East, Egypt's current president, is a voice of reason in this crowd of lunatics? You don't because the Western media don't want to cover a Muslim who admits and is willing to take on islam's problems directly. That would be giving cover to those who they prefer to call Islamophobes, and we can't have that, can we?