As the subject of the discussion, "Rethinking Islam" illustrates, the point at issue was that it was 9/11 and of late the London bombings, due to which the image of Islam had taken a plunge. The 'image' of Islam is not good, and that it has gone down even more after 7/7 was how one of the anchorpersons described the current 'state' of Islam. There were talks about the 'real Islam' and 'radical Islam' and of Islam having 'different faces'. And that the Islam practiced in the US was different from the Islam in Saudi Arabia. And given the various ways that Islam has been interpreted whether or not there were various categories of Islam, and whether there is a need of 'rethinking' Islam.

The tenor of the discussion clearly hinged on the argument that it was Islam that should be held accountable for all the terrorist acts we see today. The causal connection was made clear although it was 'radical' Islam that was blamed for the violent acts. Nonetheless, Islam is being put in the dock, not only by the CNN, the vast majority of western public opinion more so the press, has pilloried Islam, for the recent acts of some of its adherents.

But why must a creed be held accountable and denigrated for acts of commission of some of its followers, acts that are repugnant not only to the basic ethos of that religion but which patently contradict the fundamental teachings of its scripture also? Very few in the west seem to notice the fact that those who wage their war on the west, and it is war that bin-Laden and his groups think they are involved in, imbued with the spirit of a so called 'Jihad,' have a totally convoluted interpretation of the word where its spiritual and moral vive are totally ignored and replaced by a very narrow and literal explanation of 'Jihad'. To suggest that it is holy is a distortion of the word ' because no war can be holy, least of all those that kill and maim innocent civilians and non-combatants.'

Khaled Abou El Fadl, a Fellow in Islamic Law at UCLA, very nicely explains the wrong association of 'Jihad' to terrorist acts in the following exposition. He says, "Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. "Jihad" simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause, and according to the Prophet of Islam, the highest form of jihad is the struggle waged to cleanse oneself from the vices of the heart. In Islamic theology, war is never holy; it is either justified or not. The Qur'anic text does not consider the simple fact of the belligerent's Muslim identity to be sufficient to establish the justness of his cause." In other words, being a Muslim does not justify a war he may embark upon.

Thus, it will be a cardinal mistake to suggest, as some Western commentators do, that the West has made a strategic mistake in seeking to distinguish al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden from the rest of Islam, by arguing they are extremists, and therefore cannot be authentic Muslims. They assert that Bin Laden and his people come from an Islamic tradition where jihad is a cardinal principle in the fight against unbelievers and that they have had tremendous backing from Muslims worldwide. To say that bin Laden has backing of the Muslims worldwide is far from the truth, but that he has been able to exploit the grievances of the Muslim can't be denied. But what the West conveniently forgets is that it is this 'jihadi' spirit that the US exploited in bringing the al Qaeda to bear on the Soviets in Afghanistan.

While one cannot condone the vile acts, the commissions of a man or a group cannot be attributed to a creed or a religion; neither should the religion be held responsible for the deeds or misdeeds of a miniscule minority of its followers.

But, is it really the fault of the West for holding the view they hold about Islam and the Muslims? Is it really their ignorance of Islam that has contributed to the West's misperception about us, or there is really a variegated and truncated picture of Islam that our action and inaction have projected which have spawned this feeling about Islam in the West?

No doubt there is an internal struggle within Islam itself where the intolerance and exclusivity demonstrated by the extreme puritans have made Islam appear to be on a collision course with the West. There is, as one scholar puts it, a religious struggle for the soul between Puritanism and modern Islam. Also, through a very selective reading and exclusive interpretation of the Quran, genuine grievances of the Muslims are exploited and sacred texts are misinterpreted to justify violence and terror. They mirror in image President Bush's attitude of, "you are either with us or against us," therefore a fair target of state and non-state terrorism.

What is also overlooked is the fact that because of the struggle within Islam, the radicals, fed by extreme thoughts, have made their own societies as much as others' a target of their violent acts. One has only to look at Afghanistan, Turkey, Algeria and Iraq to see that the Muslims as much as non-Muslims have been the targets of these terrorists. Unfortunately, these minority Muslim extremists hog the western media.

Misperception of Islam by the west is largely due to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of its teachings and its sacred texts. Not only must the Islamic world seek deeper interaction and understanding with the other faiths, there is need for the same within Islam itself. That can be possible only if we go back to the Quran and interpret and understand the substance as well as the true meaning of it. And as El Fadl says, the burden and blessing of sustaining that moral trajectory --of accentuating the Qur'anic message of tolerance and openness to others -- falls squarely on the shoulders of contemporary Muslim interpreters of the tradition

The author is Editor, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.