Hirsi Ali is one of the most intelligent and articulate of the criticasters of Submission. I have read all of her books. They are must reads for anyone interested in how Islam treats its women.  Born in Somalia into Islam, as a young girl she was raped, genitally mutilated, abused and uneducated. She fled to Holland where her life began. She left the cult, educated herself, learnt Dutch, acquired a job helping abused Somalian female refugees in Holland [detailed in her books], and eventually a position in Dutch Parliament. Together with Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh she made the film 'Submission' which simply pointed out the abuse of women within the Muslim cult. For his pains van Gogh was murdered and beheaded by a Moroccan Muslim on a busy Amsterdam street. Hirsi Ali was put under 24 hour security. For her views on Islam she was exiled from Holland on the supposed 'charge' that she falsified her refugee claim status some years earlier. Most refugees 'embellish' the truth for obvious reasons don't they? This woman was assaulted, cut up, raped and imprisoned in Somalia. What more do you need to claim refugee status?

Apparently that experience was not good enough for the Dutch immigration minister Rita Verdonck who forcibly ostracized Ali to America. Holland's loss is America's gain. In a recent interview with a craven politically correct narcissist from the London Times, Ali was accused by the reporter to have falsified Islam's 'true nature'. Ali lived in the Islamic cult. The self-loathing cultural Marxist 'reporter' never did. I would assume that someone who has experienced the deprivations of Mohammed's political project knows a little bit more about said theology, than some dhimmy-dhummy writing for a socialist paper. But then again I am just another infidel pig. The thrust of Ali's critique of Islam is capsulated in this interview:

But back to the central issue, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's editorially repudiated interview. In it she said: “Islam is incompatible with the rule of law because it says only Allah is the law and not human beings.” She charged that the West was engaged in appeasing Muslims. She denied that to call for an end to forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and a life of submission to males or Islam was a form of “racism” (the word commonly hurled at anyone berating prominent facets of Muslim culture and praxis). Surely, that's not “what you want for your own little girl,” she told her sometime disdainful, politically correct interviewer, Janice Turner. Ali pointed out that Saudi Arabia's 13.5 million women live under virtual house arrest and Iran's 34 million women can be married off at the age of nine or be stoned for adultery.

She charged that Islam was always an “expansionist” religion. Genital mutilation, practiced in pre-Islamic Egypt, was then exported by the conquering Muslims to sites as far afield as Indonesia, “which had no history of female genital mutilation.” “It’s very, very important not only to condemn the practise itself but to get to the bottom of it: That this is done in the name of Islam.”

Ali insists that Islam must undergo a reformation or enlightenment, as did Christianity, and that Muslims must come to accept that the Koran is “the work of man, written in the particular circumstance of 7^th century Arabia, not the unchallengeable, universal word of God.” As it stands, the Koran posits the right of men to beat women.

I personally don't understand why any woman would belong to the Mohammed cult, or how any non-Muslim female would defend it. The Koran is rather clear – women are to be used by men for sex, pleasure, procreation and domestic duties. See here for examples. It is not heroic figures like Ali who need to be criticized for exploding the myths about the merged church and state theology of Mohammed. It is those, including Western femi-nazis who know nothing about the topic who need a thorough re-education and most likely, a permanent stay in a Muslim state to experience the 'joys of Islam' and how Muslims truly view and treat their female counterparts.