The problem of terror no doubt exists. A certain Muslim terrorism is stalking many lands, not excluding some Muslim countries. Western people lump Islam, Muslims and terror together. They think Islam and terrorism are somehow related, though they concede that most Muslims are not terrorists. Muslim leaders are being told to either stop terrorism or we will do the job violently.

To which two responses can be made: one that it is not for western leaders to define what Islam is. Their discovery of there being two distinct Islams would be laughed out of court by any Mullah by saying that it is not for others to define what Islam is. But what is undeniable is that Muslims are excitable, especially when someone insults Prophet Muhammad or ridicules Islam and its rituals. Excitable people do tend to be intolerant. There is obviously no dearth of intolerant Muslims.

Everyone says Islam is all about peace. But there are other facts about Islam. As it started to spread, it did not separate politics from religion; it was more than a mere faith; it established a state wherein decision-making was confined to the Caliph, who informally consulted his companions or friends, but was the law giver and top religious guide. Islam had to be intolerant of enemies. More so because it also had proselytizing zeal, driven by economic self-interest.

But over the centuries, Muslims made Islam to be no more than a faith, peaceful and peaceable. Contention in Islamic countries was among Islam's sects while inter-Islamic contention in non-Islamic countries was at a discount because Muslims had to survive and being aggressive about religion violated commonsense. Anyway, after the first few centuries came the Crusades that have left bitter memories. Some distrust and hatred of Christians, as a residue, survives. Soon there was a period of European domination and their colonialism. This lasted several centuries, with profound consequences.

European domination produced much resentment. But in most Muslim countries, the people were powerless because their governments were tyrannical and unstable. The European imperialists could easily manipulate Muslim governments and groups within a country. Toward the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century, ideas of freedom and liberation entered many Muslim countries through European languages. Ideas of revolt and nationalism were in forefront. Let's not forget the influence of French and Russian Revolutions vis-à-vis Islam's evolving into a non-political faith in practice though not in theory. That initiated the slow birth of ideas of democracy and social justice in Muslim countries while in countries like India and Egypt the inrush of such ideas was virtually direct through the English and French languages.

Egypt and Pakistan are good examples of Muslim reaction to modern ideas. Imperialists and their Egyptian tyrannical successors tried to keep societies immune from these ideas so as to survive in power with the help of dominant French and later British. Revolutionary ideas however produced Arab nationalism in three distinct schools: more numerous were simple liberals, generally intensely nationalistic, who wanted democracy and civil liberties; following 1917 Revolution, naturally emerged Left-inclined people, though they continued to be persecuted throughout most of the 20th Century, leaving few of them; while non-political Islamic orthodoxy, rather religious orthodoxies, never lost their hold on common people, a new religious school, represented by Akhwanul Muslimoon that, politically speaking, combined the appeals of both Islam and values of Russian Revolution. In Egypt a fiercely secular nationalism finally triumphed and all others, except religious orthodoxies, were persecuted.

In India the same colonialists tried basically to keep the society unchanged while cultivating local elites, either landlords or Princes, and made them shareholders. Here too the dominant reaction was nationalistic that acquired two opposing orientations of Hindu and Muslim communalisms, though the main nationalist party, Congress, has continued to preach a composite secular nationalism of all Indians. Thanks to English language, European ideas percolated into India virtually instantly. Liberal ideas found wide acceptance, while after 1917 the Left has created for itself a notable niche in India's intelligentsia and politics. Indian Muslims' reaction to colonial domination can crudely be described as similar to Egypt's, especially in two respects: Religious orthodoxies have largely retained their prestige and influence. Secondly, Pakistan was born soon after the birth of Jamaate Islami, which in basics resembles Akhwan, only its politics is more cut and dried and is more influential. Major difference is that Pakistan never had a secular nationalism, thanks to its origin in pre-partition communal politics. Otherwise, like most Islamic countries, Pakistan is military dominated, backward and conservative; it also virtually eliminated the Left -- like most Middle East Muslim countries and is a rich breeding ground of fanaticism and Jihadist schools.

Of course terror is born of profound despair and sense of helplessness. These produce impotent rage that mothers terror. Main features of Islamic history as well as resentment against recent foreign domination have jointly aggravated it. Foreign domination as a factor has to be taken seriously as also the excitability of the Muslims. Absence of reformation and renaissance in Muslims' history remains a significant factor.

But Islamic terror has to be fought mainly by Muslim intellectuals. Targets of Muslim terrorists are both westerners and collaborating Muslims. Theirs is a new kind of Islam that has been produced by the climate of the age and recent developments in Islamic thought itself. The JI now emphasises, in place of more pacific Muslim orthodoxies of 19th Century, that Islam and politics are two sides of a coin. Significantly broadly similar ideas of Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaate Islami have come to be tacitly accepted by most orthodoxies.

Products of Deobandi seminaries in Pakistan today contrast with peaceful and peaceable founders of the 19th Century Deoband seminary. Unless the ideas that produce Jihadis are countered by Muslims themselves, the fight against terrorism cannot be won. Fighting terrorism also requires ending America's dominant role in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the cessation of its expansionist zeal in rest of Asia. Even that is not enough. Democracy, in the sense of rule of law and human rights for all, has to be encouraged in all Muslim states. Fact and perception of the west as exploiters of the resources of Muslim countries has to change. Over time, the processes of democratic politics, no matter how defective in the beginning, will change Muslim thought as well as behaviour. Only democracy can erode terror's roots.

Western talk of reformation or renaissance in Islam is nonsense. It is not a project to be undertaken by a contractor and finished within a timeframe. Why forget the essence of Islam: It is subordination of man to God's will; it prescribes absolute obedience. Now in JI's or Taliban politics, the will of God will manifest in edicts of another (Caliph) Mullah Omar. The latter will impose Islamic legal system within limits of local culture. That is a Jihadi's faith and objective, in the context of an Islamic Revolution. Exposing the stark fascist content of Jamaat's goal has yet to be done. Outsiders cannot fight a faith; only the slow evolution of Muslim politics and thought would bring what reformation and renaissance is possible. It is a long haul. But west can help by changing its policies -- which is doubtful.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.