Hirsi Ali continues to carefully, and subtly, support "moderate Muslims" which ultimately means that she supports Islam. Many experts on Islam have written that actual "moderate Muslims" do not exist. There is no moderation in Islam. Instead, there is temporary leniency. What this means is that Islam is willing to tolerate a temporary halt to its fundamental values while in hostile or enemy territory, in order that it doesn't attract attention to itself, and isn't removed from that society. When Muslim numbers are high enough - mostly through immigration in Western countries, and of course the subsequent Muslim procreation, and the host country is forgetful enough - as we see in Western countries through the lenient multicultural policies, then Muslims will start to get the call of jihad, either through clergy in mosques, or simply through ordinary Muslim reading, and following, the Koran. This will then start the process of turning the country into an Islamic, sharia-abiding, state.
Ali cleverly says in the interview above, with Sun Media's The Arena, Michael Coren's program, that no country wants to have sharia law as its defining legal and spiritual guide. She says that every country who has had sharia law has eventually fought it off, in the pursuit of a "moderate" Islam. She gives examples of Iran, and the thirty years it took to remove the Ayatollahs, and resume democracy. This is actually false. Iran is not on track to democracy, and is in fact mired in deeper Islamic rule than ever. There may have been a short respite of what she could call a "moderate" period, but at some point, the people capitulated and accepted Islam. Iran is as "fundamental" a Muslim country as they get.
Countries which successfully and permanently fought off the institutionalization of sharia law, and hence Islam, were those that removed Islam completely from their systems. For example, Ethiopians, who were lenient towards Muslims and Islam, eventually fought a jihad-type, nation-wide war in the fifteenth century, and completely removed Islam from the country (although it was allowed to remain in the peripheries, and periodically caused problems).
The only solution to preventing the resurgence of Islam is to remove Islam completely, or to destabilize and minimize it, with eternal vigilance that it doesn't rise up again.
Recently, we've seen examples in Egypt and Syria, where moderate elements of Islam turned into fundamental, sharia-embracing movements.
Ali must know this. So why does she carefully support Muslims, who, as I write above, will eventually usher in Islam?
I think at heart she is, and continues, to have attachments to Islam. In a recent interview, after the birth of her second child (with Niall Ferguson), when asked what she would do if her son decides to follow Islam, she says:
“Alright, go for it.” I’m hoping it does not happen.I don't know what psychological blockage prevents her from saying:
"Don't follow Islam. It is the wrong religion for you or for anyone."I think she has a guilty attachment to her religious upbringing. After all, she left her country and family in such negative terms that I would call it a betrayal. She hasn't filled that void, at least that spiritual void, with anything but her adamant "atheism" and is probably still haunted by, and psychically attached, to Islam.
Any person who has truly denounced this religion would have said (written, since this "letter" is for all to see, including the now born child):
"Islam is not for you, or for me, or for anyone."Any one who had truly denounced this religion, but desired to believe, would have chosen Christianity, and said to this unborn child:
"Your religion, as is mine, is Christianity."Instead, Ali leaves a void for her children, who will be grasped readily by the greedy and active hands of Islam. She must understand that, and I say that she must ultimately agree with that.