Philips still firmly hangs on the the Great White Hope of "moderate peaceful islam" in spite of all evidence saying that such a thing simply does not exist. Her only argument is the existence of men like Ed Husain who still claim to be muslim and claim that by having found a "new interpretation" and discovering the "pluralistic tradition of islam" they managed to renounce jihad. Melanie Philips blindly signs on to these claims never actually bothering to ask Husain or herself what are these "pluralist traditions", when did they exist and what islamic texts do they derive from. On the contrary, she attacks Hirsi Ali for allegedly not refuting a rather fantastic claim for which no evidence was given.
If Philips wanted to do a serious analysis of the debate instead of wishful thinking, she could have done worse then taking a look at Robert Spencer's opinion on "moderate islam":
...as I have noted many times: there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Every school of jurisprudence and sect that Muslims consider orthodox teaches that it is part of the responsibility of Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law.
In other words, Philips' and Husain's "pluralist traditions of islam" do not exist or consist mainly of tactical differences of how to wage jihad. Husain's "interpretations" go no further then himself.
Islam, or any other set of beliefs for that matter, can not be what some of it's adherents want it to be or would like it to be. It has it's scriptures and ideological tennets layed down in print and the ideological authorities that give it's meaning. Husain's and Philips' intentions may be honourable, but ultimately they are deluding people with this theory and putting them in great peril.