Prager is overly optimistic. I fear that what is necessary for a reformed Islam may be seen in three precedents, two outside the Muslim world — the Seige of Muenster and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski — and one within the Muslim world — the devastation of Ismaili Islam by the Mongols.
Since the Mongol destruction of their power, the Ismailis have been remarkably pacific, despite formally including jihad as a pillar of Islam, as they regard only the Aga Khan as having the authority to call for jihad in the sense of warfare, and the Aga Khans down the years since then have shown no inclination to do anything of the sort (lately they tend to be very cosmopolitan, Oxbridge educated, and a bit decadent).
The Anabaptists only turned pacifist after the horrible Siege of Muenster, before which they meant to establish their vision of the Kingdom of God by force of arms. Likewise, the last fanatical cult to use its members as guidance systems for bombs (actually a new feature for Islam, post-Saayed-Qutb) was the Shintoist Imperial Cult from which, through the alchemy of a severe defeat involving atomic bombing, pacifist Japan arose.
I fear that a universal reformation of Islam into a religion compatible with civilized norms (be they Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, or even post-Christian secularist) would require a traumatic defeat of similar sort dealt to the ummah as a whole. Probably there really should be contingency plans for nuking Mecca and Medina drawn up against the possibility that someone manages to unite the ummah in a full-on old-style jihad.
excellent analysis, trd