That review fell right on its face by my lights. I kept waiting for the part where she revealed some sort of error or defect in his analysis. Page after page of ad hominems and whining about his lack of respect for her field, and then it ended. If this passes for a rebuttal in her eyes, then F-M would seem to be correct in his assessment of her field as insular, hyper-politicized, and uncritical.
My favorite part was when she proclaims that 'Islamophobia' is inseparable from bad scholarship.
"Perhaps I am falling into precisely the trap that would allow Fernández-Morera to dismiss my critique as coddling Muslims and casually dismissing those with whom I disagree intellectually as Islamophobes (7); but as these examples show, whatever I might think about the inherent immorality of adopting an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim position, to adopt such a position does skew, distort, and render incorrect historical analyses. An Islamophobic attitude is not separable from bad scholarship on the Islamic world; hatred of Arabs will always affect the reading of Arabic texts. What is on the surface reflects what is below."
She just can't help herself, even though she sees the problem. Imagine how asinine and uncritical her proposition would sound if its equivalent were imposed upon any other field of academic scholarship. "One cannot produce good scholarship on Christianity if one hates Christianity." "You can't produce good scholarship on the Inquisition if you hate the medieval Catholic Church." "No scholar can produce good historical analysis of Nazism if they dislike Nazism." "You cannot be a scholar of Marxism, if you fear Marxism." "Unless you respect Scientology, you are not qualified to study it." Whether one hates/fears a particular religious movement, or any other ideology, cannot in any reasoned and critical society be asserted as the precondition for producing scholarship on that ideology in its historical context. This isn't the medieval era anymore.
The difference, of course, is that these are all implicitly considered 'white/Western' movements, and thus one has the privilege of being permitted to be critical towards them, while Islam continues to be 'othered' in many corners of academia, such as her field, making an equally critical mindset towards it impermissible ... even blasphemous and politically monstrous, a form of Western imperialist hate. Islamic imperial occupation thus cannot be criticized in the same manner as European imperial occupation might. In classical Orientalist fashion, it must be treated with kid gloves, as a foreign and 'other' object, with a halo of the sacrosanct that is denied to 'our own' religions and ideologies. And this is how Maajid Nawaz ends up on SPLC's hate list---'Islamophobia' becomes asserted as an incriminating political offense, a marker of monstrous difference that allows one to dispose of the incriminated person as a totality.