On his own website, which bears an overly self-deprecating title, Ed Suominen discusses and criticizes the tenets of Islam—as he did the tenets of his own former faith, Laestadianism.

Don’t be put off by the title of his piece,”Why I am an Islamophobe“, for it’s actually a very reasonable and throughtful discussion. But I don’t think the title does it any favors, for “phobia” implies unreasonable fear, and Ed argues that his fear is reasonable. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines “phobia” as “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation,” and Ed argues that his fear is perfectly justified by Islamic scripture and history.

On the other hand, it’s a provocative title, the word “Islamophobia” has been flung around misleadingly as a synonym for “racist” or “Muslim-hater,” and it does call attention to the article. I just hope people can get beyond the title and read the piece, which I highly recommend as civil, educational, and copiously referenced.  Towards the end of the piece, after Ed has dissected the Qur’an and the nature of Islam, he explains his position. I’ve left the footnotes in to show the documentation:

In his recently published dialogue with Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris recalled how the Islamic State had “been burning prisoners alive in cages and decapitating people by the dozen and gleefully posting videos attesting to the enormity of their sadism online.” These atrocities, he observed, “represent what they unabashedly stand for.” ¹⁹ Yet, when “one asks what the motivations of Islamists and jihadists actually are, one encounters a tsunami of liberal delusion.” ²⁰

Nawaz acknowledges many of the difficulties Harris raises throughout their discussion, and laments “regressive leftists” (his words) who “have a poverty of expectation for minority groups, believing them to be homogeneous and inherently opposed to human rights values.” ²¹ Regarding the Islamic State, he notes that more “violence does not necessarily equate with greater religious conviction. Each group is deeply convinced of its approach to achieving Islamism in society, and both face much danger in pursuit of that goal.” Not only do “they differ in methodology,” but they also very much despise each other.” Islamic State, for example, “would kill members of the Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt.²²

His efforts to salvage something separate and worthwhile from “Islamism” are commendable, but knowing that various Islam-inspired groups hate each other as well as everybody else doesn’t make me feel much better about Islam itself. My “Islamophobia,” a term I accept for myself despite its pejorative intentions, is a very reasonable aversion to Islam. It is not a phobic (i.e., irrational) fear at all, but an entirely sensible response to something very dangerous.²³ Frankly, I wouldn’t want either the Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere nearby.

Ed’s exegesis of the Quran differs from that of the very few who read the text as metaphorical, which is a). hard to do since the book speaks very plainly about the horrors of hell and the punishment of unbelievers, and b). not the usual practice of Muslims, the vast majority of whom read the Qur’an as the literal words of Allah. The editors of The Study Qur’an, a book I wrote about recently, have gamely tried to show that the Quran’s calls for violence, and its demonization of nonbelievers and apostates, should be understood in light of the historical context, and shouldn’t be appropriated by modern Muslims. I haven’t read The Study Qur’an, but I have read the Qur’an, and I find such an interpretation dicey—though well motivated—given the pervasiveness of violence and hatred in the book.

I’ll close with another recommendation to read Ed’s piece, which is longer than most blog posts, and add one other excerpt—Ed’s gloss on Ibn Warraq’s book Why I Am Not a Muslim:

“Western Islamic apologists and modernizing Muslims continue to look for democratic principles in Islam and Islamic history,” says Warraq, noting many reasons why their search will be in vain. Perhaps most glaring is the legal inferiority of women, whose testimony in court is worth half that of a man, whose movements are strictly restricted, and who are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims. Non-Muslims of either sex who live in Muslim countries suffer their own form of subjugation, while atheists and apostates from Islam can expect only death. (Warraq notes Islam’s hypocrisy in welcoming converts who move in the other direction.)