The Archbishop of Canterbury is as keen on criminalising criticism.

UPDATE: Anglican church out of cash; Britsh cathedrals collapsing, English heritage botomless pit, entree fee for churches proposed, Archbishop desperate for cash joining the 21th cent silkroute silvering his motherload position in the faithtrade train cargocult islam.

The recent rise in metal prices on the international market has caused a dramatic increase in the number of roof and other metal thefts from churches, causing immense damage. In the period 2002-2007, Ecclesiastical Insurance have seen metal theft-related claims rise from 14 claims with a total value of around £11,000 to 2,300 claims with a total value around £8.5 million (figures supplied by Ecclesiastical Insurance).

The theft of lead, copper and stainless steel roof coverings, copper lightning conductors, lead and copper rainwater pipes, bronze statues, iron gates and even church bells causes irreplaceable loss of heritage and huge financial costs. and UK State donations for acient buildings have dropped over the years from 10/11 mil. pound Sterling to merly 1 milion per year.

More: crusaders battle over wind mill, black prince see [+] front row, winning his spurs.

Islamopobia is new Deutsch feindlichkeit, L'hostilité contre l'islam, nouveau Allemange hosilite or German hostility and critics, the plie-bargening implementor-agents of Islam have no knowledge of the islamic dogmata nor teachings so this religion gets here the devils advocat in the form of this Britsh State Church employed primaat Williams* confirming to the EU-Lexicon anti-islamfobie doubletalk among those dark Satanic Mills.

*Who visions a revieval of the Saxon-Arabian III Reich, conquerer of space in nations of serfs without faith, holding their head bowed in submission to the Islamic siege on infidels with physical genocide in Darfur and cultural genocide in Europe, the wouldbe Eurabia Nation of Islam for Arab-Frankistani

From Le monde.fr L'ONU contre les droits de l'homme:

"...Quel est le prix de la liberté pour Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
ex-députée néerlandaise, menacée de mort, après l'assassinat
en 2004 de son ami le réalisateur Théo Van Gogh, accusé d'avoir blasphémé l'islam dans le film Soumission ? Les exemples s'additionnent qui, de Taslima Nasreen à Salman Rushdie,
de Robert Redeker à Mohamed Sifaoui, apportent la preuve
que l'intégrisme islamiste impose sa loi par la terreur.
Combien d'Algériens, de femmes au Maghreb, au Proche-Orient,
en Turquie, au Pakistan ont déjà payé du prix de leur vie
le refus de se soumettre à l'obscurantisme religieux ?

Si, par malheur, l'ONU devait consacrer l'imposition
de tels critères, si le blasphème devait être assimilé
à du racisme, si le droit à la critique de la religion
devait être mis hors la loi, si la loi religieuse devait
s'inscrire dans les normes internationales, ce serait une régression aux conséquences désastreuses, et une perversion radicale de toute notre tradition de lutte contre le racisme,
qui n'a pu et ne peut se développer que dans la liberté de conscience la plus absolue.

L'Assemblée générale de décembre 2007 a déjà entériné
des textes condamnant des formes d'expression considérées
comme diffamatoires de l'islam. L'enjeu est clair, il est mondial : c'est de la défense des libertés de l'individu qu'il est question.

Soit les démocraties se ressaisissent, à l'exemple du Canada,
qui vient d'annoncer son refus de participer à la conférence
de Durban 2, estimant qu'elle risquait d'être "marquée par
des expressions d'intolérance et d'antisémitisme", et cessent
de s'abstenir ou de voter des résolutions contraires à l'idéal universel de 1948, soit l'obscurantisme religieux et son cortège
de crimes politiques triompheront, sous les bons auspices des Nations unies. Et lorsque les paroles de haine seront transformées en actes, nul ne pourra dire : "Nous ne savions pas."

Signatures de soutien à ce texte par e-mail à licra@licra.org.
Liste complète des signataires sur www.licra.org.


From aei for pub. policy; A Craven Canterbury Tale
by Anne Applebaum, Feb 12, 2008 The archbishop's language is mild-mannered, legalistic, jargon-riddled; the sentiments behind them are profoundly dangerous.

What one British writer called the "jurisprudential kernel"
of his thoughts is as follows: In the modern world, we must avoid the "inflexible or over-restrictive applications of traditional law" and must be wary of our "universalist Enlightenment system," which risks "ghettoizing" a minority. Instead, we must embrace
the notion of "plural jurisdiction." This, in other words, was no pleasant fluff about tolerance for foreigners: This was a call for the evisceration of the British legal system as we know it.

One Daily Telegraph columnist called the archbishop's statement a "disgraceful act of appeasement;" another called it a "craven counsel of despair." An Observer columnist eruditely wondered whether the archbishop's comment might count as a miracle, according to David Hume's definition of a miracle as a "violation of the laws of nature," while the notoriously sensationalistic Sun launched a campaign to remove the archbishop from office.

when Rowan Williams _the archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the Church of England, symbolic leader of the international Anglican Communion_ called for "constructive accommodation" with some aspects of shar'ia law, and declared the incorporation of Muslim religious laws into the British legal system "unavoidable," practically no insult has been left unsaid.


from The awful squeal of fundamentalism
Nick Cohen - The Observer, Sunday March 2 2008

In language filled with the optimism of the struggles against 20th-century totalitarianism, Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

But faced with a conflict between high principle and a reactionary stunt, the UN Secretary General chose the side of the hysterics. A spokeswoman for Ban Ki-moon said that he thought that the new cartoon controversy showed that 'freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs'.

All religious beliefs, that is. Even if they do not respect each other. Even if by the normal standards of intellectual life, they make no sense. Even if the behaviour of their followers does not inspire respect, but fear.

If the UN were to order us to 'respect all political beliefs', conservatives would say they weren't prepared to respect communists, leftists would say they weren't prepared to respect fascists and everyone else would burst out laughing. Yet the UN Human Rights Council is proposing in all seriousness to protect religion by doctoring its universal defence of freedom of expression.

The OIC is pushing it to approve a super-blasphemy law that would make it an offence to 'defame' any religion. Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said attending the discussions was an Orwellian experience, with speakers using the language of liberalism to justify oppression. 'Anyone seeking to draw attention to the capital offence of apostasy in Islamic countries will be lucky to be heard,' he reported. 'Anything deemed the slightest bit critical of Islam is immediately jumped upon.'

To the bafflement of outsiders, communist China and Cuba have joined the states of the Islamic conference. Both are officially atheist and China persecutes its Muslim minority. But what unites dictatorships is more important than what divides them and no one should be surprised that communist elites will use any weapon available to assault principles which threaten their power.

Sitting in Britain, it is easy to feel superior. We can dismiss the UN as a club without rules that negates its own standards by granting membership to countries that break every article in the declaration of human rights.

You need only look around to realise that complacency is unwarranted. Last week, Channel 4 launched a libel action against West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which had accused its film-makers of inventing all-too-real scenes of clerics preaching misogyny, anti-semitism and homophobia. They must have found accurate investigative reporting disrespectful. The government seeks to deny us the very language we need to describe religious terror and insists civil servants don't call Islamic extremists Islamic extremists but 'anti-Islamic extremists'.

He isn't alone in succumbing to obfuscation and appeasement. The past five years have been among the most shameful in BBC history. It presents tiny groups of extreme right wingers as the authentic voice of Islam while shunning liberal-minded Muslims or asking hard questions of those who would oppress them.

Meanwhile, it is not only authoritarian states at the UN which want a universal blasphemy law. The Archbishop of Canterbury is as keen on criminalising criticism.

from Speech delivered by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, an expert on Islamic terrorism, an internationally recognized critic of Political Islam and an author of the book, “The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing Over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad”, at the Symposium organized by America’s Truth Forum, at Dallas, Texas, on Feb. 2, 2008

I am afraid scientific analysis tells us that fundamental level Islam is dominated by politics of its founder and is designed for conquest of unbelievers. How can one reform an ideology designed for conquest? It makes little sense, does it not? How could about 1.5 billion Muslims and so many others be thought to believe that Islam is a religion? In the similar manner billions thought that earth was flat – ignorance and intimidation (in the case of Islam, heads cut-off if you question Mohammed or the Koran) – not questioning Islam's founder's intent and actions! If Mosques and other Muslim religious institutions are not closed, jihad does not stop. In fact, mosque is the fountain head of terror.

If a mosque appears moderate it just means that it is in the beginning stages of building up jihad in the local Muslim community. So, don't get duped by the so-called moderate mosques in America. What do we do now? As part of preemption, work toward legislation that shuts down mosques and other Muslim religious institutions within American jurisdiction. With its power so concentrated, mosques are also Islam's greatest weakness. This is a natural direction to go, the moment we identify Islam as an ideology designed for conquest and annihilation of non-Muslims. This proposal doesn't violate the liberty of individual Muslims, but instead provides them with a future by breaking the back of the ideology of conquest (a civic responsibility and ensuring religious freedom of Muslims).

If mosques are neutralized Muslim populations should be swayed by ever-prevalent modernism and move on to alternate faiths or way of life. Still, additional measures are needed to help liberate Muslims for this predatory ideology of conquest. Hirsi Ali, best-selling author and a former Muslim, says in a recent review quote The problem is not too much reason, but too little unquote and further says quote I see [western leaders] squandering a great and vital opportunity to compete with radical Muslims for the minds of Muslims, especially those within their borders unquote. This theme of confronting murderous ideologies with the science of Einstein is the theme of my recently published book. Due to physical threats, the Islamic trilogy couldn't be put under microscope in Islamic nations.

Confronting Islamic ideology with science is a no-lose proposition and has the most potential for driving a wedge between mosques/clerics and educated Muslims. Educated Muslims form the backbone of terrorism, because it takes modern education to operate effectively in modern world. If this is done, effective Muslim recruitment for terror is over. The Koran was the first book of the trilogy to be put together, and that was done several decades after the death of Mohammed. In a Hadith it is said that Koranic verses were collected from bits of bone, stone, parchment, date palm leaves, and also from the memories of those who had memorized it.

But these are not reliable forms of note-taking or information storage. This is common sense. For something as profound as God's "revelations," in the Koran there shouldn't be an iota of doubt about their authenticity. We can make a powerful assertion that available evidence makes the claim of associating these revelations of God in the Koran as not scientifically credible. What about Muslim majority nation that are fountainheads of terror? America couldn't shut down mosques in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran! A rapidly unraveling nuclear-armed Pakistan has shown that political solution to the Islamic terror is not possible.

We are now left with mostly externally-inspired ideological and military means to deal with this existential threat. America is stretched militarily. Who will do the fighting and who will deliver the decisive blows to the nations and populations that jihad sponsorship is unbearably expensive? Who will help liberate these populations?

In terms of population, location and size, 850 million non-Muslim India matches the extended global network of Muslim populations that are influenced by Islamic forces. India is already under an Islamic siege and in about 5 years time, at this rate, will likely be destabilized beyond repair by Islamic forces. America needs to act fast. If America could help deliver a fatal blow to the former Soviet Union by backing Muslim nations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, why not help mobilize (America is good at that) Hindu majority in India to take the war to Islamic entities.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of "infidel" Indian children are going hungry and malnourished because of the high economic cost of jihad imposed on the Indian state by many middle eastern nations and Pakistan. This is a form of genocide, ladies and gentlemen. Indians may be well-justified in responding devastatingly to this terror war imposed on them.

Thank you.

from jp.dk : a global battle for the right to free speech
by Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllans-Posten ;

The cases are different, and you can't compare the legal systems in Egypt and Norway, but the justifications for censorship and self-censorship are similar in different parts of the world: Religious feelings and taboos need to be treated with a kind of sensibility and respect that other feelings and ideas cannot command.

This position boils down to a simple rule: If you respect my taboo, I'll respect yours. That was the rule of the game during the Cold War until people like Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Andrei Sakharov and other dissenting voices behind the Iron Curtain insisted on another rule: It is not cultures, religions or political systems that enjoy rights. Human beings enjoy rights, and certain principles like the ones embedded in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights are universal.

Unfortunately, misplaced sensitivity is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism. Right now, the Organization of Islamic Countries is conducting a successful campaign at the United Nations to rewrite international human-rights standards to curtail the right to free speech. Last year the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution against "defamation of religion," calling on governments around the world to clamp down on cartoonists, writers, journalists, artists and dissidents who dare to speak up.

In the West there is a lack of clarity on these issues. People suggest that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen and Kurt Westergaard bear a certain amount of responsibility for their fate. They don't understand that by doing so they tacitly endorse attacks on dissenting voices in parts of the world where no one can protect them.

We need a global movement to fight blasphemy and other insult laws, and the European Union should lead the way by removing them. Europe should make it clear that democracies will protect their citizens if they say something that triggers threats and intimidation.


From: Muslim Media Channel

In Great Britain and the United States, Muslims are only 3 percent and 2.7 percent of the population, respectively. Yet British Muslims have successfully launched their own TV channel, called Islam Channel, which unites all — or most — British Muslims under one representative media body. In the USA such a step is yet to come. There are several media outlets, including bought air time on non-Muslim TV and Bridges TV. Yet US Muslim media outlets reflect division rather than cohesion. Al-Shinqiti was asked whether the eight million Muslims in America will at any time in the near future be able to set up their own media channel, where they can speak freely and explain to their fellow citizens who they are and what they stand for.

In his answer, Al-Shinqiti did not give a time frame but rather emphasized the need for such a channel. Pointing to the two types of power, the soft and the hard, he noted that the soft power of persuasion has been neglected for too long by contemporary Muslims. The sheikh noted that this condition caused Muslims to be exploited by others without being able to answer back. He also stressed that the only solution to this problem is through "a powerful, credible media funded by Muslims." Moreover, he said that "Western Muslims are the most qualified for running this endeavor because of their familiarity with Western societies and languages and their high level of education."


Still mosque exploiting and shari'ah courts promoting propaganda apparaat CAIR sets up a 75.000.000 USD bastion so AP alters CAIR quote in story about Ayaan Hirsi Ali in 8 houres;

the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) now
housed in Washington DC, Dubai deed-owned location,
has a $75 million dollars buget endorsed by the UAE
Min. of Fin. and Ind. also Deputy Ruler of Dubai " to build
a property in the United States to serve as an endowment
for the Council". United Arab Emirates website May 21, 2006

Now this paper bullet bureau has used the H-word "HATE"
so communications director Ibrahim Hooper - CAIR had his
origial statement on Hirsi removed from an AP interview.

With the Malcom X spin-off they would not like to be accused
of naming a black woman hatefull, slanderlous bigotica.

First version:
"It is unfortunate that she had to bring that kind of hate from
Europe to the United States."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations thinks
Hirsi Ali's campaign amounts to slander and bigotry.

"We believe that contributes to a growing level
of Muslim hatred in America," said the council's
communications director, Ibrahim Hooper.

Has been changed to:

"We believe that she will bring an increase to the level
of anti-Muslim bias in this country that we saw her bring
to the situation in Europe," the council's communications
director, Ibrahim Hooper, said in an interview Saturday.

"Unfortunately her message is one of bigotry,
not one of mutual understanding."

While they hang on to;
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations thinks
Hirsi Ali's campaign amounts to slander and bigotry."


The first quote from an AP article written by William C. Mann
“Critic of Islam finds new home in U.S.” on the wire at 2:05 a.m.
f.i. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…

The second is from AP article same author, same title 10:14 a.m.
f.i. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…

critic first version 140+ on Google, 40+ on Yahoo and 1 hit on MSN

UPDATE:
"she will bring an increase to the level" ali

Ask - 27

Google - 12

MSN - 16

Yahoo - 48

"that she had to bring that kind of hate" ali

Ask - 9 Google - 10 MSN - 11 Yahoo - 22

SCORE:

the Infidel: more book reviews

AEI Online: Home > Short Publications > Media Respond to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel BOOK REVIEWS

In her memoir, Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali recounts her transition from a third-world upbringing to her current status as AEI resident fellow. The following selections are links to press and media coverage around around the release of her autobiography;

See Ayaan literary pictured as amazone reflexting the scalptaking puritainisme in the US in compairing to the more brains for black women allowed UK book cover below....

"The Gall to Speak Her Mind," by Anne Applebaum
Article in the Washington Post, February 27, 2007

"The High Price of Freedom," by Sandip Roy
Book review in the San Francisco Chronicle, February 25, 1007

"Uneasy Truths," by Ranen Omer-Sherman
Book review in the Miami Herald, February 25, 2007

"Infidel; Murder in Amsterdam; In the Name of Honour; Shame," by Paul Sheehan
Book review in the Sydney Morning Herald, February 17, 2007

"No Rest for a Feminist Fighting Radical Islam," by William Grimes
Book review in the New York Times, February 14, 2007

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali," by Tom Ashbrook
Interview on National Public Radio's "On Point," February 12, 2007

"Critic of Islam Finds New Home in U.S.," by William C. Mann
Book review and interview by The Associated Press, February 10, 2007"

Dark Secrets"
Book review in The Economist, February 8, 2007

"Telling Her Story--Ayaan Hirsi Ali," by Naseem Ferdowski
Featured on ABC News, February 6, 2007

"'Infidel' and an Argument for Intolerance," by Neal Conan
Interview on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation," February 5, 2007"

Enter the Dutch 'Infidel,' Faithful to Herself," by Laurie Goodstein
Interview in the New York Times, February 4, 2007

"The Fight for Muslim Women: A Feisty Memoir from a Controversial Champion of Female Rights," by Anne Applebaum
Book review in the Washington Post, February 4, 2007

"Taking the Fight to Islam," by Andrew Anthony
Book review in the Observer (London), February 4, 2007

"A Voice That Will Not Be Silenced," by Christopher Hitchens
Book review in the Times (London), February 4, 2007

"Out of Europe: Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali," by Luuk van Middelaar
Book review in the Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2007

"Dangerous Odyssey of Muslim Voltaire: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Is a Rare Public Example of Moral Courage for the West," by Rebecca Weisser
Article in the Australian, February 3, 2007

"My Life as an Infidel," by Penny Wark
Book review and interview in the Times (London), January 31, 2007

"Who Says 'Ladies First'?" by Deroy Murdock
Book review on National Review Online, January 29, 2007

"A Muslim Woman, Her Leadership and Its Costs," by Sol Schindler
Book review in the Washington Times, January 28, 2007

"Hirsi Ali: La Voluntad del Alma no Se Puede Coaccionar"
Book review on ABC News (Spain), January 22, 2007

"Una Mujer Frente a la Intolerancia," by Yolanda Monge
Interview in El Pais (Spain), January 7, 2007

Violence is inherent in Islam – it is a cult of death

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali issues a stark warning about the growing threat of Muslim extremism in Britain

• Islamic faith schools must close • Sharia law could happen here • Multiculturalism has failed • Islam is the new fascism

By David Cohen - Evening Standard, 7 February 2007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, never one to shrink from controversy, has some words of advice for Prime Minister Tony Blair. 'Close the Islamic faith schools today,' she says. 'Britain is sleepwalking into a society that could be ruled by Sharia law within decades unless Islamic schools are shut down and young Muslims are instead made to integrate and accept Western liberal values.'

Hirsi Ali, 38, the Dutch-Somali human-rights campaigner who lives under 24-hour police protection and is in London to promote her provocative new book, Infidel, argues that Catholic and Jewish schools can stay because the values they teach are not a threat to liberal democracy. 'I haven't seen anybody coming out of a Catholic or Jewish school advocating violence against women or homosexuals, or wanting to murder innocent people in the name of their religion.'

Having grown up within Islam, Hirsi Ali believes she is uniquely placed to warn the British public that they are living under a 'great deception' about the true nature of Islam. 'They have deceived themselves that the men arrested in the [alleged] beheading plot last week and the 7/7 bombers are a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate.

'But they are not. The plot to murder Muslim soldiers in the British Army is consistent with the purest teachings of Islam, which encourages you to kill Muslims who join the infidel army. Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder. The police may foil plots and freeze bank accounts in the short term, but the battle against terrorism will ultimately be lost unless we realise that it's not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself.'

But surely she must see, I counter, that the majority of British Muslims are moderates? Sitting in her publisher's office in an elegant grey-flannel trouser suit and pearl earrings, she fixes me with her lucid brown eyes. 'If the majority are moderates, why did the Muslim community never take to the streets to abhor the 7/7 bombers? Why is it that the only time we see Muslims protesting en masse is when Islam is allegedly insulted, like with the Danish cartoons, or the Pope's comments?

'I'll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren't going to get that in Islamic faith schools.'

Suddenly Hirsi Ali halts her no-holds-barred polemic, a quizzical look creasing her brow. 'When will this interview be published?' When I tell her, she breaths a sigh of relief and in a rare moment of caution, says: 'Whew! Thankfully I'll be out of the country! I don't know what's possessed me, but I've been more forthright with you than in any other interview so far.'

It is two years since I last interviewed Hirsi Ali and now, like then, I am struck by the contrast between her physicality – soft voice, waif-like figure, and perfectly manicured long fingernails – and the explosiveness of her rhetoric. If anything, she is more inflammatory and hardline now than she was then.

Yet, as she reminds me, a lot has happened since we met, including the murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who made her film, Submission, in which verses from the Koran of a man's alleged right to beat his wife are superimposed on an actress's body.

Van Gogh's assassination in late 2004 propelled Hirsi Ali from being well known to world famous, because plunged into his chest by his Dutch Moroccan killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was a knife with a letter addressed to her, warning that she was next. The political fallout from this public death threat has dramatically affected her life ever since and has made her into the new Salman Rushdie.

It costs the Dutch government about 8 3.5 million (£2.5 million) to provide armed guards for her round-the-clock protection, she says, and it means that she lives 'in fear and looking over my shoulder', but insists it's a personal price worth paying. Initially forced to flee to a safe house, her neighbours hounded her out, saying her presence put their lives (and real estate stock) in danger. The ball that began rolling that day has led, via a few detours, to her leaving Holland, where she'd served as an MP for the conservative Liberal Party, and taking a position as an analyst at the Right-of-centre American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.

To some, like Time Magazine, which in 2005 proclaimed her one of the '100 most influential people in the world', she is venerated almost as a prophet, certainly as a hero. But to others she is reviled as a troublemaker, Islamaphobe, and someone who simply transmigrated from one extreme position on Islam to another. She has certainly travelled far: from the privations of Africa to the West, from devout Muslim to apostate, from a five-year-old girl subjected to the mutilation of circumcision and arranged marriage to fervent defender of women's rights.

But is it true, I ask, that she 'regretted' writing Submission, as claimed by a British national newspaper in its headline last week. She seems surprised to hear this. 'I absolutely wish that Theo had not been killed,' she says. 'But I don't regret that I made it. In fact, I'm proud of that film. To feel otherwise would be to deny everything I stand for.'

Recently, says Hirsi Ali, she met Salman Rushdie at a writer's festival in Manhattan and confessed that as a Somali Muslim in 1989, she had supported the fatwa against him. 'Rushdie said that if I can believe he should be killed in 1989, and now believe what I do today, it fills him with optimism because hopefully other Muslims will follow the same path.'

When I ask Hirsi Ali why she's become even more outspoken since we last met, she says that it's because she's realised that 'being diplomatic and politically correct' gets you nowhere. 'The world is now in a far more dangerous position than it was then. Hamas is in power in Palestine, Iran is ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and in the West, we are engaged in a war against the enemy within as well as without.

'The mistake that Blair and Bush made is that they called it a War on Terror, whereas in fact, it's a War on Islamic Fascism. It's a war of values and the only way we are going to win it is to be honest about what we are fighting. This plot to behead Muslim army recruits is a warning to all potential recruits and it can be supported by what is in Islam.'

Hirsi Ali says that on current projections of immigration growth and birth rates, British Muslims will be the dominant group within the next 50 years. A recent poll, in which 40 per cent of young Muslims said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, and a majority said they were in favour of women taking the veil, should worry liberals.

'We risk a reverse takeover. In 50 years, a majority Muslim society could democratically vote for Sharia law, and then what you face is that Britain will slowly start to look like Saudi Arabia. Women will be veiled, driven away from the public sphere, polygamy will be rife.'

She takes in my sceptical look and says: 'You think it can't happen? The problem with liberals is that we believe other people are as reasonable and tolerant as we are. How naive is the self-deception of the West to continue to talk of moderate Islam? We're trying to appease Islam, but we are headed for a terrible confrontation between fascist Islam and Right-wing fascists who will step in when liberals fail to do so. Why do Britons think that what happened in the Baltics,with fascist Right-wingers murdering Muslims, can't happen here? It can, and it will, unless we stop burying our heads in the sand.'

But there is a glimmer of hope, she says, borne out of the increasing realisation that multiculturalism has failed in the UK. So what does she believe should be done?

'We have to fight their values with ours,' she says. 'We have to persuade young Muslims that liberal democracy is superior, that what the Prophet Mohammed said is not right, that the Koran is a man-made brutal doctrine of death whose time has long passed. We have to show the next generation of Muslims, the children, that they have a choice and to do that – to have any hope whatsoever – we have to close down Islamic faith schools.'

Unsurprisingly, Hirsi Ali says she is much happier living in America than in Europe, because 'people really appreciate what I do, and the personal risks I take, whereas here they prefer to shoot the messenger.'

When I ask how she sees her role going forward, she begins talking to me about her new book. Indeed, it is typical of her honesty – and infamous lack of tact – that, within earshot of her publishers, she tells me that Infidel, a book detailing her life story, is 'far less interesting' than the philosophical one she's currently writing, called Short Cuts to Enlightenment.

'Its about the Prophet Mohammed waking up in the New York Public Library and having his absolutist ideas challenged by John Stuart Mill, Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, my favourite liberal thinkers,' she says.

Do they convince him? She smiles. 'No, they don't. But something happens to throw the Prophet Mohammed into doubt so that by the end of the book, he's no longer completely convinced by his own dogma.' She pauses. 'I suppose that is the most I can do – creating chinks of self-doubt where previously there was none. I can start the revolution within Islam but it will be up to others to finish it.'

l Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is published by Free Press, Simon & Schuster, £12.99.