Lawrence Auster (h/t Alan) doesn't like Ayaan Hirsi Ali much:

As a long-time severe critic of Hirsi Ali's, I want to point out that this is the first article by her I've seen in which, instead of focusing on the oppression of women (though she does speak of it eloquently here) and thus sounding more like a feminist than a critics of Islam, or talking about the badness of some generic "theocracy" (by which she means Christianity), or talking about her own life and experiences, she focuses on the doctrines and characteristics of Islam itself, from the perspective of its jihadist agenda toward non-Muslims.

Why do people think the oppression of women is a side issue? Women are half the population and just as human as men. If a "religion" oppresses half its followers, this is a good reason to criticise it, even if the main problem of Islam is its approach to unbelievers. And if Hirsi Ali focuses on her own life and experiences, again so what? That life and those experiences illustrate clearly the cruelty and barrenness of Islam. More importantly, together with Hirsi Ali's stunning beauty, they draw in an audience, who may then go on to consider Islam in more detail.

I have some reservations about Hirsi Ali, although these are disappearing. I didn't think The Caged Virgin was particularly well written - she muddled personal recollection with general comments on Islam. But over the last couple of years, she has developed her ideas into more cogent arguments, and is now an extremely eloquent opponent of Islam.

Perhaps Hirsi Ali is a bit too uppity for Auster. She probably believes women should have the vote.