There is a reference in the Wikipedia article I posted to Andrew Bostom. He wrote a very interesting article that pertains to the subject: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18230 As the Wikipedia article indicates, Bostom considers differences between Islamism and other forms as Islamism as exaggerated. Here are some pertinent highlights from the above article: "Combining lucid intellectual and experience-based understanding with rare valor, uncompromised by politically correct apologetics, Hirsi Ali has made explicit the threat that orthodox Islam (as she stated, "The problem is the Prophet and the Koran" )-not "Islamism"-poses to the Western civilization she has come to cherish, and staunchly defend. She identifies the core Muslim texts-Koran, hadith, sira-their codification into Islamic Law (i.e., Shari'a), and the orthodox interpretation of this sacralized literature by seminal Muslim jurists-noting Ibn <http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495&search=bostom> Taymiyya's "pure" Islamic exegesis, specifically-as being responsible for the incompatibility between Islamic and Western values. In particular, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human <http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm> Rights, versus the Shari'a-based Universal <http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ohmyrus30816.htm> Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (Cairo, 1990). The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam included the triumphal statement that the Shari'a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to "guide" humanity. This formulation captures the indelible influence of the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4857> on the Shari'a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels-reiterated in the Cairo Declaration. Hirsi Ali's response to the standard non-sequitur apologetic about the putative existence of, "different Islams", is unequivocal: "No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam as the religion founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths, there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework." Finally, she concludes that true reform of Islam, to render it compatible with modern human rights standards, must include criticism of both its core sacred text, and founder: "You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the Koran.You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside." In stark contrast, despite repeated death threats which mandate 24-hour protection, clandestine living arrangements, and a virtually non-existent social life, Hirsi Ali remains, as described <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03ALI.html?ex=1270267200&en=7272 f7f8332d2c15&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland> aptly by journalist Christopher Caldwell , ".a democracy campaigner for whom the role of an ordinary democratic citizen is off limits.Hers is a big heroic life that moves her fellow citizens but now gets lived mostly in locked rooms and bulletproof cars." Hirsi Ali, condemned Muslim "apostate", and intrepid politician committed to maintaining the democratic vitality of her adopted Dutch society, epitomizes the powerful, effective voice Ibn Warraq foresaw in <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591020689/qid=1057774452/sr= 1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-5243996-1991229?v=glance&s=books> Leaving Islam. Recalling The <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006D63Z2/qid=1117070959/sr= 1-10/ref=sr_1_10/002-5243996-1991229?v=glance&s=books> God that Failed, a collection of testimonial essays by ex-Communist intellectuals and their warnings about the all-encompassing oppression of body and spirit intrinsic to Soviet-style Communism, Warraq noted that the accounts of these ex-Communist "Cassandras" appeared eerily similar to the ex-Muslim apostates whose testimonies he had compiled. Warraq concluded, "Communism has been defeated, at least for the moment.unless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy. And these ex-Muslims.on the side of Western Democracy, are the only ones who know what it is all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries." Hirsi Ali's practical efforts in the Netherlands mirror the strategies outlined by Warraq in a thoughtful essay <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7906> about reform (somewhat ironically) of Middle Eastern Muslim societies. She clearly shares the unapologetic views about the obstacles to such reform presented by Islam itself, which Warraq characterized as follows: "There are some (I believe, misguided) liberal Muslims who deny any such transformation is necessary, that Islam need not be marginalized for liberty to flourish. These liberals often argue that the real Islam is compatible with liberal democracy, that the real Islam is feminist, that the real Islam is egalitarian, that the real Islam tolerates other religions and beliefs, and so on. They then proceed to some truly creative re-interpretation of the embarrassing, intolerant and misogynist verses of the Koran. But intellectual honesty demands that we reject just such dishonest tinkering with the Koran's text, which, while it may be open to some re-interpretation, is not infinitely elastic. The truth is there is no real difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism - at most there is a difference of degree, but not of kind. There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. All the tenets of so-called Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Koran, the Sunna, and the Hadith - the defining texts of Islam - and elaborated in intimate detail by the classical Muslim jurists from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, as well as by Shi'ite jurists. The only solution is to bring the questions of human rights out of the religious sphere and into the sphere of the civil state, in other words to separate religion from the state and promote a secular state where Islam is relegated to the personal. Here, Islam would continue to provide consolation, comfort, and meaning, as it has to millions of individuals for centuries, yet it would not decree the mundane affairs of state." "First, we who live in the free West and enjoy freedom of expression and scientific inquiry should encourage a rational look at Islam, should encourage Koranic criticism. Only Koranic criticism can help Muslims to look at their Holy Scripture in a more rational and objective way, and prevent young Muslims from being fanaticized by the Koran's less tolerant verses. It does not make sense to lament the lack of a reformation in Islam, and at the same time boycott books like <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591020115/qid=1116806268/sr=2-2/ref =pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-5243996-1991229> Why I am Not A Muslim nor to cry 'Islamophobia' (or 'fatwah!') every time a critique of Islam is offered. Instead, political leaders, journalists and even scholars are bent on protecting the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. We are not doing Islam any favors by protecting it from Enlightenment values. . We can encourage rationality by secular education. This will mean the closing of religious madrassas where young children from poor families learn only the Koran by heart, learn the doctrine of Jihad - learn , in short, to be fanatics. What kind of education? My priority would be the wholesale rewriting of school texts, which at present preach intolerance of non-Muslims, particularly Jews. One hopes that education will encourage critical thinking and rationality. Again to encourage pluralism, I should like to see the glories of pre-Islamic history taught to all children." Here is a Wikipedia site reference facts about Hirsi Ali: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali Notice that some representatives of Denmark think highly of her. Lawrence