Infidel

Her rejection of Islam is well known, yet her critique accepts many of the basic tenets of Islamic extremists. She says, for instance, that Islamic extremists are right: violence against women is justifiable in Islam. It does not seem to occur to her that by validating this interpretation, which is rejected by large numbers of Muslims, she is reinforcing the power of misogynist men. In contrast, Muslim women scholars who teach that domestic violence is un-Islamic seek to deprive wife-beaters of moral authority.

Hirsi Ali claims to have joined a conservative anti-immigrant party because left-wing multiculturalists had allowed Muslim men the licence to subject women to genital mutilation and honour killing. But although there have been failings on the Left, I do not accept that the shameful neglect of abused Muslim women has much to do with multiculturalism.

Domestic violence is not regarded seriously by law-enforcement authorities, and domestic violence against women of immigrant background is taken less seriously still. I will never forget reporting my fear of a male Muslim relative to the British police and being told: "We prefer you people to sort these things out among yourselves." This was not misguided multiculturalism, it was old-fashioned sexism and racism.

Like the religious extremists she decries, Hirsi Ali believes there is only one Islam, and that it advocates violence and misogyny. She challenges Muslims to debate her: certainly a more appropriate response than killing her.

But it is difficult to see how far such a debate can go when she claims that all Muslim women are locked in a "mental cage". I respect her choice, but it doesn't seem as though she respects mine.