"Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy . . . You have to be careful of the enemy's plots that involve applying democracy in your country and confront these plots, because they only want to do so to . . . give the rejectionists the rule of Iraq. And after fighting the Baathists . . . and the Sunnis, they will spread their insidious beliefs, and Baghdad and all the Sunni areas will become Shiite. Even now, the signs of infidelity and polytheism are on the rise." . . .

"For all these issues, we declared war against, and whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God,"

the tape said.

Assuming that this is actually Zarqawi, or anyway that it accurately reflects his thinking, this harangue makes crystal clear what is at stake in Sunday's elections. Far from Iraq being a "distraction" in the war against Islamist terrorists, a successful election will be an enormous victory over them. President Bush's Inaugural Address looks better all the time.

Which brings us to a criticism of that speech that David Gelernter offers in The Weekly Standard this week (ellipsis and emphasis in original):

There was one flat-out unacceptable moment. Evidently the "edifice of character" is "sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount," and . . . "the words of the Koran"? Come off it! Which words? Name one! Is there a single sentence, phrase, idea in the Koran that has made any difference to this nation whatsoever? I'm not knocking the Koran; pluralism is wonderful. The problem is that at this moment, no listener in the whole world could possibly have believed that the president was serious.

Gelernter is no leftist or "realist"; he is in fact an exponent of the same idealistic creed the president espoused in his address. In a fascinating essay in Commentary, Gelernter terms this creed "Americanism" and describes it as a sort of nonsectarian religion, an outgrowth of both Judaism and "the radical Christianity known as Puritanism [which] insisted on choosing life."

But Gelernter's criticism of Bush's nod to the Koran misses the point. It's true enough that Islam has played little or no role in the history of Americanism, but the president meant not to give a history lesson but to shape history.

America finds itself at war with the exponents of a particular form of Islam, a strain that is, as Gelernter puts it, "a religion of death, a religion that rejoices in slaughter." The world has some two billion Muslims, the vast majority of whom are not radicals; and a religious crusade to convert them to Christianity (or Judaism, or atheism) simply is not an option. The only way to defeat the radical Islamists is to establish an accommodation between Islam and democracy--to assimilate the Islamic world into the modern world.

Lee Harris, in an essay adapted from his book "Civilization and Its Enemies" (available from the OpinionJournal bookstore), offers his own definition of Americanism:

The United States is uniquely equipped to act as the new sovereign in the world today, not simply because of its power--but because of its tolerance.

The very multiculturalism that causes concern among many conservatives--far from weakening the United States' position--has made it a historically unprecedented microcosm of the rest of the world.

Its diversity reflects that of the world--and this means that for the first time in world history, a great power is genuinely capable of transcending the limitations to human cooperation imposed by divisions along the lines of race, sect and ethnicity. . . .

The civilization that the United States is now called upon to defend is not America's or even the "West's"--it is the civilization created by all men and women, everywhere on the planet.

We act on behalf of all people who have worked to make the actual community around them less addicted to violence, more open, more tolerant, more trusting. Civilization, in this sense, is Chinese, American, African, European and Muslim.

Saudi Arabia's Arab News has an encouraging report from Mecca, where Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque, delivered a sermon to pilgrims that coincided with our Inauguration Day:

"Islam is the religion of moderation. There is no room for extremism in Islam," he said.

He called on Muslims to "protect non-Muslims in the Kingdom and not to attack them in the country or anywhere. Islam is a religion of peace that abhors attack on innocents." Militants were using misguided interpretations of Islam to justify violence, he added.

"Because Muslims have strayed from moderation, we are now suffering from this dangerous phenomenon of branding people infidels and inciting Muslims to rise against their leaders to cause instability," Al-Sudais said.

"The reason for this is a delinquent and void interpretation of Islam based on ignorance. . . . Faith does not mean killing Muslims or non-Muslims who live among us, it does not mean shedding blood, terrorizing or sending body parts flying."

Al-Sudais warned that extremism would ruin the Muslim nation, adding: "This phenomenon has expanded so much that scholars must confront it with concrete proof from Islam to protect our youth from its stench and rottenness."

When President Bush cited the Koran in his speech, he wasn't engaging in ahistorical, feel-good multiculturalism. He was delivering a message to civilized Muslims everywhere: You need not forsake your religion to live in freedom. If instead we were to assume, as Zarqawi does, that democracy and liberty are the exclusive province of Jews, Christians and other "infidels," we would thereby condemn the Muslim world to unending tyranny--and ourselves to unending terror.