The Nobel Committee finally gets one right.

The ferocious intellect and powerful soul of Malala Yousafzai may inhabit the body of a little girl, but she’s a remarkable young woman who is wise beyond her years.

Malala represents what I wish I saw so much more of in the Muslim world — the courage to stand up to the thugs and psychopaths who are taking over its streets and villages. This is where Malala is informative of our own arguments about Islam. Would conservatives who argue that Islam itself is the problem have us fight 23% of the world’s population? Could the isolationists who argue that we should ignore it really close down commerce, travel, and immigration, and at what cost to our economy? Would liberals who argue (contrary to the evidence) that Malala represents Islam’s silent majority, yet call for the abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and the cessation of drone strikes, refuse to give that silent “majority” the support it needs to survive and prevail, including military support when necessary? Why do those who hate sexism and homophobia the most often oppose it the least where it causes the greatest harm?

The paradox this raises is this: Sometimes, it takes conservative methods for liberal ideas to prevail. In today’s polarized America, it’s hard to build a constituency around that.

In the Muslim world, “culture war” isn’t a just a reporter’s hyperbole; it’s a war. It’s dreadful, messy, and complicated, and right now, it’s not going our way. Often, the forces that represent the best realistic alternative to ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban come with their own distasteful histories and hatreds. Winning this culture war will require many different strategies — most of which don’t involve any use of military force at all — to suit the human and physical terrain where it’s being fought. But by now, it should be clear that the war for Islam can’t be ignored away, and if Malala loses her war, humanity will lose, too.