John at Stop The ACLU askled me why I opposed the manifesto because he did not read it the way I did. Well. I may be wrong but I doubt it. Here is why I interpreted the words the way I did:

Here is the original text:

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

The group says they “refuse to renounce our critical spirit” -i.e., they retain the right to criticize – simply because we refuse to bow down to people who lable them “Islamophobic”. They then define “Islamophobia” as “an unfortunate concept which confuses (a) criticism of Islam as a religion” – i.e., criticizing Islam as a whole, not Islamist – and (b) “stigmatisation of its believers” – which they would never do. They would never insult all muslim believers! Right?
The definition of stigmatization (american spelling) is:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stigmatization

“To characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious.”

The options are to criticize Islam or brand Islam’s believers as disgraceful. You know, either way you slice it, this is not good. Actually, either choice is bad.  The either reserve the right to criticize all Islam or stigmatize all their believers.   They do not attempt to differentiate areas if Islam.
I believe they connect this “unfortunate concept” with “criticism of Islam as a religion”.  They also equate abuse with dogma in the phrase “against all abuses and all dogmas”. Dogma is a religious concept, generic to the religion, not the believers.  They equate this to abuse generically.

Could I have misread it? It’s possible, but I doubt it.  I know how Europeans think and this is their classic dodge to be against religious dogma of all types – they go after the believe system, not the believers.