Recently in Singapore Category

Muslim marriage courses come under fire for teaching standard Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of women. The kuffar, of course, have been buying soothing nonsense from Islamic apologists for so long that they're shocked when the ugly truth actually peeks out.

"Singapore’s Muslim marriage courses under fire," by Tiddy Smith for BikyaMasr, November 4 (thanks to David):

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s leading association for Muslim converts, Darul Arqam, has begun an internal investigation into lecturer misconduct after several attendees of the organization’s pre-marriage courses voiced concerns over violent and sexist content in the lectures and course materials. Specifically, attendees allege that male students are encouraged to beat wives who refuse to submit to sex, while female students are taught that if they refuse sex with their husbands angels of Allah would curse them.

"Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them." -- Qur'an 4:34

"If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." -- Muhammad (Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460)

Singaporean gender equality advocacy group, AWARE, has begun an investigation into the claims. The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport (MCYS) has also been alerted.

The pre-marriage guidance courses, which are also supplied by other Singaporean Muslim organizations such as the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) and the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM), are a compulsory requirement for all Singaporean Muslims to undertake before they marry. The courses cost between $100-$200 each, and, according to the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) website, the courses are conducive to developing ‘harmonious family ties’ and ‘communication skills’.

However, recent course attendees, who wish to remain anonymous, allege that the courses contain violent and sexist content. One attendee informed our reporter that a male lecturer demonstrated to the class how hard to beat wives who repeatedly refused to supply sex to husbands.

“He pulled out a chair, like this, and then started hitting the chair like it was the wife” an attendee told us. The lecturer is further alleged to have described the kind of rod that was appropriate for wife beating, and where such a rod could be purchased in Singapore.

Photocopies of course materials, which support the students’ allegations, have been passed to AWARE. The materials quote an English translation of the Qur’an, stating “as to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, first admonish them, next refuse to share their bed, and last beat them”. The course materials recommend that wives be beaten if they commit Al Nushooz. Al Nushooz is defined in the course materials as “the disobeying of the wife toward her husband and elevating herself above what Allah has obliged upon her and her raising herself above fulfilling her obligatory role”.

The course materials specify four ways a wife may commit Al Nushooz:

“1. She does not beautify herself for her husband when he desires.

2. She disobeys her husband with respect of coming to his bed [for sex].

3. She leaves the house without his permission.

4. She does not perform her obligatory religious duties.”

This is standard teaching. Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his Qur'an commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

The materials advise husbands, “it is your right that they [wives] do not make friends with anyone of whom you disapprove”, and wives are reminded that in the event of a marital disagreement “her husband has to make the final decision and [she has] to respect it.”

The allegations are against at least two different lecturers at Darul Arqam, indicating that it is not an isolated case of teacher misconduct.

Our reporter wrote to the organization’s head religious counselor, Sister Rusmini Komzani, under the guise of a husband whose wife was refusing to have sex because she was “not in the mood”. We received the following response from Komzani:

“Your wife cannot remain silent for a long time if she is unwilling to serve. If she is angry at your advances, I believe she could be having psychological issues.”

Komzani then arranged a marriage guidance counseling session with our undercover reporter, at which he was informed that his wife’s sexual refusal was “not halal” and “totally contradictory with the revelation of the Qur’an”. Komzani passed our reporter photocopies of the same Qur’anic verse as contained in the course materials....

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 — Federal Islamic authorities have declared haram a book in which Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less strict on Islamic observances.”

Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, a collection of interviews published in January, was included in a list of 15 books declared haram by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).

Jakim’s planning and research division confirmed the decision was made when its committee on the censorship of publications with Islamic elements met in October.

However, both the division’s director and Jakim director general Datuk Othman Mustapha have not responded to queries by The Malaysian Insider on why the decision was made nine months after the book hit the shelves in Malaysia.

According to procedure, the list of books declared haram is sent to the home ministry for further action but it is unclear if the home ministry has followed suit and banned the books.

Othman’s predecessor Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz had said in February that Lee was unsuccessful in developing the mindset of the Singaporean public because he was “still influenced by the landscape of the 1960s which were full of prejudice and presumptions against Muslims.”

Which is the fault of non Muslims, naturally.

Lee, who served in Singapore’s Cabinet as PM, senior minister and minister mentor for 52 years before retiring in May, said in the book that Muslims in Singapore were socially “distinct and separate” and should “be less strict on Islamic observances” to aid integration and the city-state’s nation-building process.

It led to uproar from Malay and Muslims groups on both sides of the Causeway with his old rival and former Malaysian PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accusing Lee of having no respect for religion.

Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has stirred a hornets' nest with his remarks about the religion as reported in leaked US diplomatic cables.

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s outspoken former leader Lee Kuan Yew today denied calling Islam a “venomous religion” after leaked US diplomatic cables set off a furore in the multiracial city-state.

One of hundreds of cables from the US embassy in Singapore released last week by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks had Lee as describing Islam as a “venomous religion” in a 2005 meeting with then senator Hillary Clinton.

Danger, Islamophobia alert! Unfortunately, there is no word, however, if the listening Hillary went along with Lee's Islamophobic notions. Without missing a beat, though, Lee issues a retraction and categorical denial in three, two, one...

“This is false,” the 87-year-old Lee, Singapore’s founding prime minister and elder statesman, said in a statement.

Lee said that he looked up a foreign ministry note of the meeting, and “nowhere does it record me describing Islam as ‘venomous’, nor did I say anything which could have given that impression”.

“I did talk about extremist terrorists like the (Southeast Asian) Jemaah Islamiyah group, and the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them. They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them,” he said.

“So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to.”

We have previously thought that Islamic banking -- that is, the accommodation of Western banking practices to Islamic legal requirements -- was being pursued by non-Muslim financial institutions out of a desire for economic gain. But in this story, DBS Group is still determined to make a go of Islamic banking, despite losses. Of course, they're confident that this venture will eventually be profitable, but perhaps there is also an ideological slant to this endeavor. Certainly the West is tied ideologically to the idea of making common cause with a benign and peaceful Islam; why not Singapore?

"UPDATE 1-DBS makes partial retreat from Islamic banking," by Kevin Lim and Liau Y-Sing for Reuters, May 24:

SINGAPORE/KUALA LUMPUR, May 24 (Reuters) - DBS Group (DBSM.SI), Southeast Asia's largest lender, is shrinking its Singapore-based Islamic unit in yet another sign that the city-state's efforts to promote sharia banking is struggling.

Islamic Bank of Asia (IB Asia), in which DBS has a just over 50 pecent stake, has transferred 10 of its 65 staff to DBS and redeployed others to new roles within the Islamic bank, a spokeswoman said.

"IB Asia will continue to focus on wholesale banking but prioritise its business focus on fee-based investment banking business activities and in private equity," she added in response to queries from Reuters.

"We remain committed to growing our Islamic banking franchise in this region."

IBA, Singapore's only wholly-owned full licensed Islamic bank, suffered a loss of $77.1 million in 2009 after making specific allowances on debt owned by customers in the Gulf region. The bank had $725 million in assets as at end-2009, including $453 million in payments due from non-bank customers.

A source had earlier told Reuters the Islamic unit of DBS planned to get out of the lending business entirely. The bank has also not replaced departing staff, including former CEO Vince Cook who left in December. [ID:nSGE5BG044]

Islamic finance has been slow to take off in Singapore despite the central bank's support and the city state's reputation as an Asian banking hub.

Sukuk sales have been sporadic and there has been little interest from retail investors and sharia-compliant funds.

A thriving Islamic finance industry would complement Singapore's position as a regional banking centre and enable it to tap cash-rich Gulf investors who can only invest in sharia-compliant assets.

But practitioners see little growth in Singapore's Islamic finance industry in the coming years.

"Islamic finance will take off in Singapore but it's going to be quite slow," said Haszeri Hussin, Islamic treasury head at the Malaysian unit of Singapore's No. 2 lender Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp (OCBC.SI).

"Singapore must encourage more issuance of sukuk. The MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) must be able to issue more, then they can create a lot of liabilities to match assets. Retail doesn't have the critical mass to make it a big presence in Singapore."...

To encourage the growth of Islamic finance, Singapore has removed double stamp duties and given similar tax treatment for sukuk investors....

Their first impulse was dhimmitude -- even at the expense of making a travesty of a Chinese tradition. After all, as offended as they may have been by this, the Chinese in Singapore were much less likely than the Muslims to start blowing things up and killing innocent people. "McDonald's says sorry," from Reuters, January 22 (thanks to Twostellas):

MCDONALD'S apologised to Singapore on Friday and brought a pig back to its toy menu, after a decision to leave the animal out of its Chinese zodiac collection upset many in the predominantly ethnic Chinese nation.

McDonald's this month started selling cartoon character miniatures depicting the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac calendar, but the pig was replaced by love god Cupid as McDonald's said it did not want to offend Muslims.

But the move, just ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday and Valentine's Day in February, backfired as many Chinese customers complained in chatrooms and blogs that they would not have a chance to buy the animal sign of their birth year....

Excellent observations from Singapore's Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean on the purpose of terrorism and the proper response. From the Straits Times, with thanks to Ali Dashti:

TO SUCCESSFULLY defend ourselves against terrorism, we first have to understand how terror actually strikes. At first glance, terrorism appears to be primarily a physical threat. A building here, an aeroplane there, markets, a train. However, the real target is not physical. It is psychological - it works on the mind. Terrorism strikes fear. It causes paralysis, and it shatters cohesion.

Al-Qaeda, through the 9/11 attacks, aimed to shatter the resolve of America so that they would reel in retreat. And this is how Al-Qaeda is working now to undermine the cohesion of the US-led forces in Iraq, by making threats to behead hostages and by constantly carrying out bombings. They are trying to break the will and cohesion of the coalition.

... the Al-Qaeda groups had offered a truce to the Europeans so that they will have time to reflect and withdraw from Iraq and this battle against Islamic extremists and terrorist groups. They have now declared this truce over and they have identified their next target, which is Italy and its Prime Minister. They want to break the coalition's cohesion.

In the face of such threats, the Koreans and the Japanese have displayed considerable resilience in refusing to bow to the terrorist demands.

The stakes are high in Iraq. Iraq has become the major battlefront in the war on terror. Failure in Iraq will only embolden the extremists and spur them to go on the offensive elsewhere with renewed vigour.

Pirate attacks on ships in the South Pacific are increasing in frequency and sophistication. Some see a connection to Islamic terrorism. From Reuters, with thanks to Nicolei:

SINGAPORE: Attacks on ships by sea pirates in South-East Asia are resembling military operations - growing bolder, more violent and fuelling fears of an attack that would cripple world trade, Singapore said yesterday. ...

"But the last piracy attack that took place in the Straits of Malacca showed a different pattern," he added.

The pirates were well-armed, operating sophisticated weapons and commanding high-speed boats.

"They conducted the operation almost with military precision," Tan said.

"Instead of just ransacking the ship for valuables, they took command of the ship, and steered the ship for about an hour, and then eventually left with the captain in their captivity," he said.

"To all of us, this is reminiscent of the pattern by which terrorists mount an attack." ...

Singapore has repeatedly warned of the potential link between pirates and religious militant networks such as Jemaah Islamiah, blamed for the deadly 2002 bomb blasts in the Indonesian island of Bali and widely linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

"We are concerned that terrorists may seize control of a tanker with a cargo of lethal materials, LNG (liquefied natural gas) perhaps, chemicals, and use it as a floating bomb against our port," Tan said.

"This would cause catastrophic damage, not only to the port but also for people, because our port is located very near to a highly dense residential area.

"Thousands of people would be killed," he said.

Lee Kuan Yew (newshub)

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew notes that while radical Muslims operate in terror groups worldwide, "at the moment, the moderate Muslims are keeping out of sight." From The Star, with thanks to Nicolei:

IN an interview with the BBC's East Asia Today programme, broadcast last night, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew addressed the issue of terrorism and spoke on the role of moderates within the Muslim community.

Speaking of his hopes and fears of the struggle to come, he said that if it becomes a clash or fight against Muslims, then, as he put it, "it's a very stupid way to conduct this battle".

"The problems are caused by an errant heretical group that wants to use the Muslim religion to turn it into a jihad, or a holy struggle, against the West," Lee said during the interview, which took place at the Istana last Wednesday.

"Their objectives, well if you read Osama bin Laden - I don't read him in the Arabic but I've read interpretations of what specialists think ... of what he means by what he's said - it's really to get the Americans and the West out of the Middle East, control the oil and control the world.

"But the crux of the battle really, the core battle, is between moderate and extreme Muslims.

"At the moment, the moderate Muslims are keeping out of sight."

So it has been the extreme Muslims against the Americans, the Israelis and the West, and all those who support the Americans, including Singapore, said Lee.

"But if Madrid, 9/11, Bali and so on keep going on and the moderates in the Muslim world keep silent, either condone or duck the issue, then there is a danger that the West may begin to feel, that really, there are no champions to counter these terrorists," he said, referring to recent and previous acts of terrorism.

"That would become a very dangerous problem."

Asked by the interviewer if he were to mean it was the moderates in the Islamic world, rather than the war against terror, that were exacerbating the situation, Lee replied "no".

He explained it thus: "I am saying that moderates in the Muslim world, by not being able to take a stand and take the lead and start the argument with the extremists in the mosques, in the madrasah, they are ducking the issue and allowing the extremists to hijack, not just Islam, but the whole of the Muslim community."

Indeed, moderate Muslims have yet to demonstrate to their fellow Muslims that the radicals have not "highjacked" the religion.

As for whether Lee thought the war against terror could widen the gulf between Islam and the West, he acknowledged there was that danger.

However, it was not necessarily inevitable - provided the Muslim moderates take a stand, he added.

Lee said: "Let's take 9/11 or Madrid. If nobody except Europeans and Americans and those who are already committed condemn this - I mean if all Muslim countries stay silent, or Muslim groups stay silent - then there is the danger that the Europeans and Americans may come to the conclusion, 'Look, there's really nobody on the other side, that's standing up against this evil.'

"I think that would be bad. I believe the vast majority have no interest in this terrorism. It is not going to win them the battle and they must know it.

"The question is: Who makes a stand? President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Bouteflika of Algeria, President Musharraf of Pakistan?

The whole world is waiting for the appearance of this moderate Islam.

In my line of work, I hear it all the time -- from Muslims and non-Muslims alike: "jihad doesn't mean 'holy war.' The Arabic word means 'struggle.' In Islam jihad primarily means the struggle within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of Allah." In Onward Muslim Soldiers I discuss all of this at length. From Islamic sources I show that there are indeed many meanings of jihad in Islam, but that radical Muslim theorists like Hasan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Abdullah Azzam (Osama bin Laden's intellectual mentor) reject the idea that jihad is a spiritual struggle on the grounds that its attestation in the Islamic sources is weak. Their arguments for jihad as holy war are firmly traditionalist: rooted in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the example of Muhammad, and Islamic history.

It does no good simply to pretend that this is not so and hope that it will go away; it must be understood because it is a fundamental cause of innumerable conflicts around the world today. If we don't understand the goals and motives of our opponents, how will we possibly prevail against them in the "war of ideas" that is so central to the war on terror?

In light of all this also, attempts by Muslims to explain that jihad is actually peaceful must be viewed as either well-intentioned but ignorant or outright deceptive. Until Muslim spokesmen acknowledge that violent jihad is a broad tradition within Islam and renounce the doctrines that give rise to it, there will be Muslims somewhere in the world who continue to consider it part of their religious responsibility to wage war on non-Muslims. They will not be swayed by efforts like this one, which only go so far as to show that jihad doesn't mean ONLY holy war, but deceive only those who aren't paying attention into thinking that jihad doesn't amount to holy war at all:

THE word 'jihad' has become so commonly used - and abused - that Muslim religious authorities in the region want everyone to get it right once and for all.

This from the Straits Times.

The official organisations that oversee Islamic practices in Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia are producing a book on the true meaning of jihad.

They want to put right misconceptions of the term by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, said the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) yesterday. . . .

Jihad is a term commonly used by the international media to mean a holy war. But most Muslims understand it to mean struggle or perseverance. It could mean struggle or striving in one's daily life, or in one's efforts to become more spiritual, or to avoid temptation.

At the Mabims meeting, the Singapore delegation described the efforts by Muslims here to build a community of excellence as their own brand of jihad, said its leader, Muis president Alami Musa. . . .

'We want to reach out to the non-Muslims, because the word jihad has been misused by many irresponsible groups for their own narrow objectives,' he told The Straits Times. . . .

Yesterday, Muslim leaders contacted lauded the moves, saying the book, especially, was timely. The word jihad has been in the news here this week after it was reported that members of the terror group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) had been put under Restriction Orders and must go for religious counselling.

Community leaders had said that the counselling must focus on correcting the JI members' misconceptions about jihad, including that it means violence is justifiable.

The good thing about the book is that it will go beyond the community and such efforts, noted those interviewed yesterday.

Ustaz Azmi Abdul Samad of Kampung Siglap Mosque said: 'When non-Muslims visit our mosque, many talk about jihad as if it means just 'holy war' when, in fact, it's a broad term with many meanings.'

Indeed. And I can produce a mountain of evidence to show that one of the most important of those meanings throughout Islamic history and today has been warfare -- that is, with guns, not rhetorical warfare -- against non-Muslims. Let the Muis forthrightly acknowledge that that is true and renounce that understanding of jihad, and we'll be getting somewhere.

The Straits Times reports that jihad warriors have somehow gotten all kinds of misconceptions about Islam:

"They think that the notion of jihad strictly means they should wage war on those who they believe are suppressing the community."

But now Muslim leaders in Singapore are going to address this problem:

"Such misunderstanding of Islamic practices among the few in the Muslim community here who join terrorist groups needs to be put right, Muslim leaders said yesterday. And they hope this can be done for the 12 men served with Restriction Orders (ROs) under the Internal Security Act for their involvement with the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front terror groups.

These men must go for religious counselling conducted by volunteer counsellors as one new condition imposed under the ROs."

Well, this could be just what we need: a comprehensive program to convince radical Muslims that what they are doing is wrong on Islamic grounds. But for such a program to be effective, it must deal forthrightly with the justifications for terrorism that radicals draw out of traditional Islamic sources -- as I detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers. If it doesn't do this, it will never succeed, because the radicals will figure that they were on stronger Islamic grounds in the first place, before the deprogrammers got hold of them.

I am not very confident that the program at hand will do this. The report continues:

"Explaining why religious counselling was a necessary first step, Ustaz Ali Haji Mohamed of Khadijah Mosque said it was crucial to understand why they had accepted the deviant teachings of JI leader Ibrahim Maidin, who was arrested in December 2001. 'We must tackle first the reasons for them turning to extremism... They interpret jihad to be a holy war when in fact jihad has a vast meaning, encompassing education, economics and many other aspects of a Muslim's life. Ustaz Fatris Bakaram, director of the office of the Mufti, said that the term really means 'struggle' and could relate to 'the struggle we go through in our daily lives'."

Doubtless all that is true. But to say that jihad doesn't mean ONLY holy war is not to say that jihad doesn't mean holy war at all. Warfare against non-Muslims has been a significant element of the Muslim understanding of jihad since the time of Muhammad. Do these two men think they will eradicate it by pointing out that jihad also means trying to get a good education? I doubt even they believe that.

Especially in light of this:

"Using Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim's vision of a community of excellence, to be a true Muslim here is to be able to contribute to the larger society, and... ensure that all of us progress and prosper. That's our true jihad."

All right. But how does that definitively rule out taking up arms if one sees it as the best way to improve society? This superficial approach will never solve the deeper problem.

At long last, a group of Islamic scholars is going to cut through all the confusion and explain what the word jihad really means: "The Council of Religious Ministers for Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (MABIMS) will publish a comprehensive working paper for explaining Jihad (crusade or holy war) to their Ummah (followers of Islam) by its target date next year.
Such a move is needed to avoid confusion and will also serve as a guideline for Muslims, especially young Turks, who could be misguided by certain elements, caused by lack of definition to the phrase's real meaning." This from Borneo Bulletin.

The article makes a start: "Jihad is a religious conviction for able Muslims towards defending the integrity of Islam. Those who may die because of Jihad are promised good returns and paradise in the afterlife."

Hmmm. If someone could die during jihad, it must involve more than just a personal spiritual struggle. Heck, it may even involve violence. (For an overview of what Muslims really teach about jihad, see my book Onward Muslim Soldiers.)

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew says that "Al-Qaeda is not like other terror groups Europeans are familiar with . . . its reach to fanatical Muslims is unique."

This is, as I have pointed out many times, because of its appeal to traditional Islamic concepts of jihad and martyrdom -- although political correctness compels most observers to ignore the evidence of this.

The report says that "Europeans have got it wrong in thinking the terrorist threat can be contained by taking a localised, kid-gloved approach. What the world is grappling with now is a new, globalised menace, one that has to be fought jointly by developed countries and moderate Muslims, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Newsweek."

According to Lee Kuan Yew: "The Europeans underestimate the problem of Al-Qaeda-style terrorism. They compare it to their own many experiences with terror - the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof, ETA. But they are wrong."

One reason why is because of radical Islam's global reach: "Describing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism as 'new and unique', he noted that an event in faraway Morocco was capable of provoking extremist groups in Indonesia. 'There is a shared fanatical zealousness among these different extremists around the world. Many Europeans think they can finesse the problem, that if they don't upset Muslim countries and treat Muslims well, the terrorists won't target them.'"

That is indeed a widespread view, not only among Europeans, but here in America as well. "But that is a fallacy, he said, bringing up the terror threat in South-east Asia as a case in point: 'Muslims have prospered here. But still, Muslim terrorism and militancy have infected them.'"

Hmmm. Isn't Islamic terrorism supposed to be a byproduct of poverty and desperation? It's good to see that Lee Kuan Yew knows better.

"He told Newsweek that both Singapore and Thailand had been targeted in recent years, even though neither had mistreated its Muslims.

"The more forceful American approach had its shortcomings too. 'You must use force. But force will only deal with the tip of the problem. In killing the terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees.'

"What is needed, he said, is to get at the 'queen bees' - the clerics who spread their twisted ideas of Islam, poisoning the minds of the young.

"SM Lee contrasted the case of Amrozi Nurhasyim - sentenced to death for plotting the Bali bombing - with that of cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiah, who was given four years for relatively minor offences.

"'Men like Bashir are the real force behind the terror,' he said. 'It is Bashir who churns out these kinds of people.'" Indeed it is.

"To win the war against terrorism, he said, the United States and its allies must give full backing, with their resources and other forms of support, to moderate, modernising Muslims. 'Only Muslims can win this struggle,' he said.

"'Moderate, modernising Muslims, political, religious, civic leaders together have to make the case against the fundamentalists.

"'America can't do it alone,' he explained.

"'You can't go into the mosques, Islamic centres and madrasahs. We don't have any standing as non-Muslims. Barging in will create havoc.'"

This is just what I have been arguing for years: that this conflict will not end until Muslims as a whole or in large part renounce the theology and ideology of violent jihad that underlies them. Sure, that's a remote possibility, but it has a much better chance of succeeding in the long run than some political solution, or any other kind, that is imposed from without.

Says Lee Kuan Yew of Iraq: "It is related to the larger struggle. You must put in place moderates who can create a modern society. If you walk away from Iraq, the jihadis will follow you wherever you go. You may think you've left them behind, but they will pursue you." (Thanks to LGF.)