This of course has not been followed by a consensus on what to do to meet the extremist threat. The differences of approach to the problem go beyond the existing political blame game that by itself can seriously weaken any resolve to fight Islamist extremism. It has been suggested, for example, that while the problem is real, it is fairly easily containable. For one thing, it has been argued, that the soil of Bangladesh is not fertile enough for a sustainable growth of extremism; the present spate of violence will die down. The argument amounts to little more than wishful thinking, but it has been made and I believe the view is fairly widely shared. Others recognize the problem but feel that strengthened law enforcement is all that is needed. Yet others have been less sanguine and have felt that the threat of extremists is serious enough to call for extraordinary anti-terrorist measures such as setting up of a "war council". In general, the present surge of extremism has so far been seen as a law and order problem. I think this is a grave error of judgment. To combat Islamist extremism, we need to look at the roots of the problem. Going to the roots may sound like a cliché, but we can do with this one.

Terrorism and violence, like just about anything else, do not grow out of thin air. They need an environment to thrive. I believe 'mainstream' Muslims themselves supply an important part of that environment. This would almost certainly raise a huge number of eyebrows. But it is time we talked about the issue.

First, I need a working definition of 'mainstream' Muslim. While I accept that no definition can be fully satisfactory here, by a 'mainstream' Muslim I mean someone who believes in one God, Koran and His Prophet (pbuh) even if he, or she, does not always abide by all that He has ordained. He prays daily, even if not five times a day, prescribed by the holy books. He normally goes to the mosque for the Friday congregation. He is expected to fast during the month of Ramadan. He spends for charity, even if what he spends may not add up to the proportion of his wealth that he is supposed to spend under the rules of zakat. He considers a once in a lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca an obligation, even though he often finds arguments to avoid it as long as he can. He is reverential to religious leaders and listens to their sermons as a matter of piety. He accepts the Koran as the word of God, and neither questions its edicts nor sees any contradiction in it. He knows at least the rudiments of the Koran by heart, sometimes recites them or hears them recited. He recites the Koran or hears the recitation, without understanding it, but has little difficulty in accepting a translation offered to him by traditional interpreters of the Book.

There is little in him to suggest that he is prone to violence and would certainly shudder at the thought of himself as an Islamist suicide bomber. He does not participate in terrorist acts. I take issue with those who claim that the terrorists are a 'tiny minority' among Muslims, if by this it is meant that there are only a handful of individuals who are engaged in acts of terrorism. The number of terrorists world-wide is not longer small. Nevertheless, in the Islamic world as a whole, mainstream Muslims, defined broadly as above, would vastly outnumber those whom we can call Islamist terrorists. They would certainly far outnumber terrorists in countries like Bangladesh where, till recently, Islamist terrorism had been at bay. Ordinary Muslims do not go about killing people.

Yet mainstream Muslims bear a large share of responsibility for the surge of Islamist terrorism. In many cases this may be unwitting, an act of omission rather than commission; the consequences, nevertheless, are the same. The culpability of mainstream Muslims derives largely from their lack of will or power to openly ask searching questions in matters of religion. This is perhaps the most important factor that creates an environment where Islamist extremism thrives. There surely are instances of exceptional individual heterodoxy. But a large majority of Muslims do not make searching inquiries in matters of religion or challenge dogma. Their equanimity and reticence have some major ramifications.

Take, for instance, the sermons he hears in the local mosque, at the Friday congregations, and elsewhere. In many cases, along with calls for piety, the sermons will call for solidarity of the Muslim ummah, as if it has been under attack all over the world. It is strange that over fourteen hundred years after it was born, after it long established itself as one of the major organized faiths, now with a billion adherents to it, Islam is still presented as a religion under threat from infidels. Often imams in mosques still end their supplication to God with Fa-ansurna ala al quaomil kaafereen -- "Help us against the community of non-believers"

And the mainstream Muslim never thinks it proper to ask why is it still necessary to call for divine protection for Islam and whether denunciation of the kafirs is still called for. He probably does not also ask himself what the impact of the relentless anti-infidel rhetoric may be on young and excitable Muslim minds in the congregation. The example of Islam -in- danger sermons is an important one in the present context, because here is an issue where mainstream Muslims could ask pertinent questions. But there are many other examples of mainstream reticence.

It is important to examine some of the ways the critical spirit is thwarted, and fanaticism spread, and see where the mainstream Muslim stands. It has of late been recognised that madrasas, or religious schools, have been a potent breeding ground for religious hatred and intolerance. The Taliban in Afghanistan were actually the eponymous madrasa students, mostly raised in Pakistan. This is an obvious example, an extreme one too. But tens of thousands of these madrasas are scattered across the Islamic world and they certainly do not spread the message of tolerance to dissent or of universal brotherhood. Yet Muslims in general do not speak against the spread of madrasa education, though there has been some criticism from them in recent times. It looks as if it is a matter of impiety to criticize madrasa education

On the other hand, the role of the mosque in the spread of Islamic extremism has still to be adequately recognised by mainstream Muslims. It is only after the London suicide bombings of July 2005 that their role came to public attention. An often repeated argument of apologists eager to dismiss any Islamic connection of some of the acts of terror in recent times has been that the terrorists were 'modern educated' and were not products of madrasas. But many of them were regular visitors to mosque and in all probability avid listeners of fiery sermons from their imams. This was true of the London bombers.

But fiery sermons are only one potential ingredient of extremism. Growing religious fundamentalism in general, through madrasa education and other ways, has been a powerful contributing factor. In fact rousing calls for jihad are relatively rare in the country and fanatical preachers like Omar Bakri or al-Masri of London probably have no counterpart in Bangladesh, though one can never rule this out. Fiery rhetoric is not absent though. It is only necessary to remember that the rout of the Taliban was followed by loud denunciations of the United States and call for jihad from the mosques in many parts of the Muslim world, including Dhaka and elsewhere in the country. But the tilt to religious fundamentalism has continued in parallel with, if not independently of, loud rhetoric. It has been quietly achieving what rousing sermons may not always have been able to do: the closing of the mind to critical inquiry and rational thinking.

And the very same mosques attended by the extremists are also the ones that mainstream Muslims attend. Extremists do not have mosques of their own. They share the house of God with other Muslims. These Muslims do not protest fiery speeches and the prospective young fanatic does not hear the protest. They do not question the orthodoxy and Muslim youths do not hear the question. The passivity of mainstream Muslims is not born simply of fear of retribution, though such fear may be real enough in some cases. An important reason why they do not protest against extremist sermons in mosques is that it is not in their tradition and training to ask critical questions about the major precepts of Islam. They can discuss matters of religion as much as they like so long as the discussion strengthens their Faith and are in the nature of piety or devotion, but they may not ask probing questions that sound like criticism of Islam.

There are also areas where the stances of mainstream Muslims have the undesired effect of bolstering those of the Islamist extremists. Many mainstream Muslims are often, and rightly, sympathetic to causes that extremists also promote and are eager to die for. There are regions of the world where Muslims have suffered gross injustices at the hands of foreign powers. The Middle East is an obvious example. Many extremists have taken up the cause of the oppressed there and elsewhere. Mainstream Muslims have also voiced protest and frustration at these injustices. It is not, however, usual for them to make it abundantly clear that their support for the cause of the oppressed has nothing to do with religion, or that they would protest with equal vigour injustices to other communities around the world. If the extremist thinks in the circumstance that he has the support of the mainstream Muslim, the latter is not entirely without blame.

In his equanimity as a Muslim, the mainstream Muslim often ignores the danger signs which should have told him to stop, think and talk. It is hardly conceivable that the scores or so of the extremists who planted the 500 bombs throughout Bangladesh in August this year did not pray in the same local mosque where other Muslims prayed hours or days before the attacks. They may even have rubbed shoulders against each other as they stood in serried ranks before God the Merciful. The mainstream Muslims might not have known about extremist designs but they must have known the fundamentalist streak that the extremist proudly show. But they never talked to each other in any meaningful way. Mainstream Muslims never drew the fundamentalists into a debate about their ideas, ideologies, and the reasons for their rage.

Clandestine activities designed for violence and terror cannot long survive in open societies. And an open society is one where people ask question, inquire into things long taken for granted, and where sacred cows are few and far between. It is time mainstream Muslims left their reticence behind and worked towards creating a truly open society. The longer they postpone it, the more likely will it be that extremists will triumph.

This is not to suggest that a diehard core of Islamist extremists cannot create havoc in almost any society. The danger from terrorists who are willing to kill themselves in order to kill others for what they consider true Islam is all too real. The danger increases in a world where, like most other phenomena, extremism is globalised and local forces of terror can count on support from rich and powerful allies abroad. Neither should one underestimate the ability of a determined band of Islamist political activists to exploit people's religious susceptibilities to achieve their objective. Nonetheless, we can ignore only at our peril the responsibility of mainstream Muslims for the present upsurge of extremism in the country, and the role they can play in combating it.

Mahfuzur Rahman, former United Nations economist, is currently researching in religious fundamentalism. An earlier and very different version of the article was recently published in Mukto-mona.com, a free- thinkers' website.