We will not win because Muslims decide they enjoy Britney's navel more than the Koran.
We will win only when Muslim holy men - not politicians merely posing as such holy men, as are the terror master themselves - declare terrorist murderers to be apostates and damnable before God.
They are hypocrites. They have no actual belief in a just judge. The merciful and compassionate cannot be found in any of their acts. When Muslim men who are not simply westernized (to say nothing of those simply interested in Britney's navel), nor merely learned, but downright pious, denounce the fundamentalists as having missed the entire point - then we can start to speak of victory.
It will take someone of the stature of a Ghandi to do this.
The writer notes that religions change because men change them. That is true. But to the men that change religions, the change is quite a little thing, and religion is the big thing. Religions are not changed by those who think them unimportant. By mere activists convinced they are merely dated folklore, but perhaps useful for bossing some people around. They are changed, with any depth or lasting seriousness, only be men who care about them deeply.
When there arises a Muslim holy man who is deeply wounded by the injustices committed in the name of Islam, who regards them as a stain for which rigorous atonement is required, who is on a mission to save the souls of erring brethren, then you can start to talk of victory.
As long as it is all calculating politicians on one side, interested only in peace with the west and Britney's navel, and calculating but more cyncial politicians on the other side, interested only in war with the west and acquiring nuclear weapons, it is a delusion to speak of promise or progress or victory.
The writer talks as though the fundamentalists, while dangerous and misguided, are true representatives of the lasting nature of religion. It is certainly true that religions have had that baleful influence at many times for the entire recorded past. But they have had that influence most when they have been felt to be, and were wielded as, cynical tools of worldly rivalries.
Which is all Islam is to the terror masters. He speaks of their self-righteousness, accurately enough. But they haven't an actually righteous bone in their bodies. And until that is seen as the crucial issue in the Muslim world, the war is still with us.
There would be hatred of the west in the Muslim world even after, as there is hatred of the modern west in certain intellectual circles within the modern west. But it would be rightly seen as an impious flirtation, as playing chicken with damnation, not as a holy cause.
It is going to take a great man to make that change happen. As yet there is no sign of such a man on the horizon. There have been scholars who have seen as much and said as much (Fazlur Rahman comes to mind), but a scholar is not an example to an entire people, teaching them as though with authority, by the whole conduct of his life.
We are only limiting the destruction within the Muslim world, and the danger to ourselves from its inner turmoil, until that happens. We have to do that. But it won't settle the matter. Men need not merely something to avoid, but something to follow. And all due respect to Britney's most excellent navel, but civilizations are not founded on the frivolous.
I think of Mohammed - a killer himself. Righteousness in Islam seems congruent with killing all infidels in the world, if necessary, and I've heard it said that the older Mohammed got more viscious than the younger, "liberal", Mohammed. The last words don't sound good for us.
All religions seem like fairy tales to me, so I can only stand outside and speculate about deeply held Islamic beliefs.
The suicide bombers sure seem sincere, and some of their leaders have suffered torture and execution for their faith. I don't know of a more severe proof of conviction than sumitting to torture and execution for one's belief. Deep conviction and determination conserning what looks to me like a bad fairy tale.
But the Koran does contradict itself, apparently, and has the tolerant quotes for sincere liberal Muslims.
All of it whackdoodle to me, and sincere Muslims can die fighting each other over the "true" version. At least I hope some liberal Muslims will emerge, ones willing to die for their more enlightened Islam, since apprently it will take that to win.
But seeing Islam as demented, I hold out hope for enough of them snapping out of it all together, with agnostic children standing on the shoulders of their liberal parents. The Indonesians seem halfway there, as the author describes them.