The Holy Quran is the best book of Allah (god) which is based on justice. The prophet Mohammad (PBH) is the best example of conduct and tolerance. He ruled but with love, justice, and full tolerance.

The Meaning of Terror

The words “terror” and “terrorism” have several definitions, including the linguistic, academic, legal, and psychological. The Merriam Webster dictionary tells us that the word terror derives from the Latin verb terrere, meaning “to frighten,” and that is akin to the Greek word trein, meaning “to be afraid,” or “to flee,” and to the Greek word tremein, meaning “to tremble,”. Terror says that dictionary has different meanings; a state of intense fear, one that inspires fear, a scourge, a frightening aspect (“as in terror of invasion”) a cause of anxiety, and appalling person or thing, a terrifying political state (as in “the reign of terror” or simply the terror), a violent or destructive act (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (as in revolutionary terror). It is no accident that a universally accepted legal definition of terrorism does not exist “Cynics have often commented that one states terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime document on terrorism). In 1973, when the Nazi rulers of Germany practiced terror on their own people, the League of Nations attempted to adopt this internationally acceptable convention: “All criminal acts directed against a state and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.” This convention never came into existence. The United Nations has since grappled with the legal definition of terrorism. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime admits that “ the question of definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades” (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime document on terrorism). As its member states still have no agreed upon definition, the United Nations can not formulate a universal convention on terrorism to supplant its twelve piecemeal conventions and problems on the subject. “The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international counter measures” ² (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime document on terrorism). To solve the problem, the United Nations turned to Alex P.Schmid, a Dutch Scholar in terrorism studies, who later became the head of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations. In 1992 Schmid advised the UN Crime Branch, the Predecessor of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, to define terrorism as “the peacetime equivalent of war crimes” Schmid said that if the core of war crimes were deliberate violent attacks on civilians, hostage-taking and the killing of prisoners in war time, then the core of terrorism were the same criminal acts in peacetime.”

In 1998, Schmid formulated what he called the “academic consensus” definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, and whereby-in contrast to assassination the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve violence based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audiences), turning it into a target of terror , a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation , coercion, or propagandas primarily sought (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime document on terrorism).³

In 1999 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that “strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whosoever committed and reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the consideration of political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

Islam and West

Some westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the west does not have problems with Islam but only violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise. The relations between Islam and Christianity, both orthodox and western have often been stormy. The twentieth –century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual relation between Islam and Christianity. At times, peaceful coexistence has been one intense rivalry and of varying degrees of hit war. Their “historical dynamics,” John Esposito comments, “often found the two communities in competition, and locked at times in deadly combat, for power, land, and souls.” Across the centuries the fortunes of the two religions have risen and fallen in a sequence of momentous surges, pauses, and counter surges. The initial Arab-Islamic sweep outward from early seventh to the mid-eight century established Muslim rule in North Africa, Iberia, the Middle East, Persia, and Northern India. For two centuries or so the lines of division between Islam and Christianity stabilized. Then in the late eleventh century, Christians reasserted control of the western Mediterranean, conquered Sicily and captured Toledo. In 1095 Christendom launched the crusades and for a century and half Christian potentates attempted, with decreasing success, to establish Christian rule in the Holy land and adjoining areas in the near East, losing Acre,, their last foothold there, in 1291. Meanwhile the Ottoman Turks had appeared on the scene. They first weakened Byzantium and then conquered much of the Balkans as well as North Africa, captured Constantinople in 1453, and besieged Vienna in 1529. “For almost a thousands years”, .⁴ Bernard Lewis observes, “From the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, Europe was under constant threat from Islam”. Islam is the only civilization, which has put survival of the west in doubt, and it has done that at least twice.

By the fifteen century, however, the tide had begun to turn. The Christians gradually recovered Iberia, completing the task at Granada in 1492. Meanwhile European innovations in ocean navigation enabled the Portuguese and then others to circumvent the Muslim heartland and penetrate into the Indian Ocean and beyond. Simultaneously, Russians brought to an end two centuries of Tatar rule. The Ottomans subsequently made one last push forward, besieging Vienna again in 1683. Their failure there marked the beginning of a long retreat, involving the struggle of Orthodox peoples in the Balkans to free themselves from Ottoman rule, the expansion of the Hapsburg Empire, and the dramatic advance of the Russians to the Black Sea and the Caucaus. In the course of century or so “the scourge of Christendom” was transformed into “the sick man of Europe”. At the conclusion of the World War I Britain, France, and Italy administered the coup de grace and established their direct or indirect rule throughout the remaining Ottoman lands except for the territory of the Turkish Republic. By 1920 only four Muslim countries, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan remained independent of some form of the non-Muslim rule.⁵

The retreat of western colonialism, in turn, began slowly in the 1920s and 1930s and accelerated dramatically in the aftermath of World War II. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought independence to additional Muslim societies .According to one count, some ninety-two acquisitions of Muslim territory by the non-Muslim governments, occurred between 1757 and 1919. By 1995, sixty-nine of these territories were once again-under Muslim rule, and about forty-five independent states had overwhelming Muslim populations. The violent nature of these shifting relationships is reflected in the fact that 50 percent of different wars involving pairs of states of different religions between 1820 and 1929 were wars between Muslims and Christians.

The causes of the ongoing pattern of conflict lie not in transitory phenomena such as twelfth century Christian passion or twentieth –century Muslim fundamentalism. They also flow from the nature of the two religions and civilizations based on them. Conflict was, on the one hand, a product of difference, particularly the Muslim concept of Islam as a way of life transcending and uniting religion and politics versus the western Christian of separate realms of god and Caesar. The conflict also stemmed, however, from their similarities. Both are monotheistic religions, which unlike polytheistic ones, cannot easily assimilate additional deities, and which see the world dualistic with us and terms both are universalistic, claiming to be the one true faith to which all humans can adhere. Both are missionary religions believing that their adherents have an obligation to convert nonbelievers to that one true faith. From its origins Islam expanded by conquest and when the opportunity existed Christianity did also. The parallel concept of “Jihad” and “Crusade” not only resemble each other but distinguish these two faiths from other major world religions. Islam and Christianity, along with Judaism, also have technological views of history in contrast to the cyclical or static views prevalent in other civiliztions.⁶

The level of the violent conflict between Islam and Christianity overtime has been influenced by the demographic growth and decline, economic developments, technological change, and intensity of religious commitment. The spread of Islam in the seventh century was accompanied by massive migrations of Arab peoples, “the scale and speed” of which were unprecedented, into the lands of the Byzantine and Sassanians empires. A few centuries later, the crusades were in large part a product of economic growth, population expansion, and the “chunaic revival” in eleventh-century Europe which made it possible to mobilize large numbers of knights and peasants for the march to the Holy land. When the first crusade reached Constantinople, one Byzantine observer wrote, it seemed like “the entire west, including all the tribes of the barbarians living beyond the Adriatic Sea to the Pillars of Hercules, had started a mass migration and was on the march, bursting forth into Asia in a solid mass, with all its belongings”. In the nineteenth century, spectacular population growth again produced a European eruption, generating the largest migration in his history, which flowed into Muslim as well as other lands.⁷

A comparable mix of factors has increased the conflict between Islam and the west in the late twentieth century. First, Muslim of unemployed and disaffected young people who becomes recruits to Islamist causes, exert pressure on neighboring societies, and migrate to the west. Second, the Islamic resurgence has given Muslims renewed confidence in the distinctive character and worth of their civilization and values compared to those of the west. Third, the west’s simultaneous efforts to universalize its values and institutions, to maintain its military and economic superiority, and to intervene in conflicts in the Muslim world generate intense resentment among Muslims. Fourth, the collapse of the communism removed a common enemy of the west and Islam left perceived major threat to other. Fifth, the increasing contact between and intermingling of Muslims and westerners stimulate in each a new sense of their own identity and how it differs from that of the other. Interaction and intermingling exacerbate differences over the rights of the other members of one civilization in a country dominated by members of the other civilization within both Muslim and Christian societies, tolerance for the other declined sharply in the 1980s and 1990s.

The causes of the renewed conflict between Islam and west thus lie in the fundamental questions of power and culture. Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The underlying problem for the west is not Islamic fundamentalism. But it is Islam different civilizations whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not CIA or the U.S. Department of Defence. It is the west, different civilizations whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These basic ingredients feel conflict between Islam and the west.⁸

Who’s Besieging Whom

The liberal evolution of political Islam faces some formidable obstacles. The first, as noted, comes from the local political scene, where Islamists are routinely suppressed, jailed, tortured, and executed. Such circumstances encourage the emergence of secret, conspirational, and often armed groups rather then liberal ones. The second obstacle comes from international politics, which often pushes Islamist movements and parties in an unfortunate direction. A familiar phenomenon is the Muslim national liberation movement. In more than a dozen countries, large, oppressed Muslim minorities, who are also ethnically different from their rulers, have sought autonomy or independence-witness the Palestinians, Chechens, Chinese Uighurs, Filipino Moros, and Kashmiris among others. In these cases, Islam serves powerfully bolster national liberation struggles by adding a “holy” religious element to an emerging ethnic struggle.⁹ These causes have attracted a kind of Muslim “foreign legion” of radicalized, volunteer Mujahideen, some of whom have joined Al.Qaeda. A third obstacle comes from the Islamists own long list of grievances against the forces and policies perceived to be holding Muslims back in the contemporary world, many of them associated with liberalism’s supposed avatar, the United States. The Litany includes US support for authoritarianism in the Muslim world in the name of stability or material interests such as ensuring the flow of oil, routine US backing of Israeli policies, and Washington’s failure to press for democratic political processes out of fear that they might bring Islamist groups to power. Ironically, even as westerners feel threatened by Islam, most in the Muslim world feel themselves besieged by the west, a reality only dimly grasped in the United States. They see international order as dramatically skewed against them and their interests, in a world where force and the potential for force dominate the agenda. They are overwhelmed by feelings of political importance. Muslim rulers fear offending their protectors in Washington, Muslim publics have little or no influence over policy within their own states, bad leaders cannot be changed, and public expression of dissent is punished, often brutally. This is the “stability” in the Middle East to which the United States seems weded.¹⁰

Under such conditions, it should not be surprising that these frustrated populations perceive the current war against terrorism as functionally a war against Islam. Muslim countries are the chief target, they contend, Muslims everywhere are singled out for censure and police attention, and US power works it will across the region with little regard for deeper Muslim concerns. A vicious circle exists dissatisfaction leads to anti-regime action, which leads to repression, which in turn leads to terrorism, US military intervention, and finally further dissatisfaction. Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of a “clash of civilizations” is seemingly vindicated before the Muslim world’s eyes.

Islamism not Terrorism

Islamic culture aims at creating a community of a construction –loving people who are the champions of civilization and who stand as witness to the mankind. It is feasible only “when we properly deal with our culture; we preach comfort instead of hardship and inconvenience, we believe in hopes and love instead of frustration and hatred and we stand for convenience and relaxation instead of extremism and alienation.” Shaykh Al Qaradhawi rejected the idea of initiative jihad. “Now it is confined within defensive jihad. Muslims fought violently against Romans and Iranians in the history because these governments created hurdles in the way of preaching Islam. Now you may convey the message of Islam to the entire world through modern resources; Internet, TV Channels, Magazines in different languages. I told some of my friends: Alas! If we demand such people among the Muslims who are ready to die in the way of Allah, the dozens and hundreds will probably welcome us. But if you need a group fully convinced with living in the way of Allah and remaining alive for the cause of Islam, only few will be ready available.”¹¹He insisted on the usefulness of only those people “who live for the cause of religion; who firmly believe in Islam as the only way to God; who preach the spirit not the structure; who propagate the common teachings not the controversial; who advocate construction not demolition and teach unity and love not demolition and teach unity and love not hatred and enmity. We today need the preachers of such talents; the activists of such nature and characteristics. It quite possible that Islamic resurgence may overcome. But some diseases have certainly affected it; some mistakes have certainly crept in it and some deviations have penetrated it. I think this resurgence must be oriented in the right along with the firm faith, practical wisdom and sound argument. Some westerners accuse the Muslims to train their youth and new generation in such a way they start hating the others, criticizes Al Qaradhawi. No Muslim thinks in this term. Non claims that those who do not embrace Islam are their enemies. It is wrong.

The Holy Quran declares clearly;

God forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justify with them: For God loves those who are just.

Allah says:

It may be that Allah will bring about affection between you and those who are you enemies from among them. And Allah is all-powerful, and Allah is forgiving and merciful.

In Hadith Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) says:

“Hate your enemy mildly; he may become your friend one day.”¹²

Since the acts of violence and terrorism grab the headlines and activities of the Islamic movement constitutional, democratic and political are not distinguished from the first, the west knows a lot of the “preachers of hate”, of the “advocating of violence and terrorism” so much so that any difference between the two groups-the mainstream resistant Islam and the tiny minority of “jihadist militant”¹³ Islam is almost missing in western media and intelligentsia as well. The fact is that the huge majority of Muslim intellectuals are working toward a dynamic, resistant, asserting and identity based Islam. Today’s, Islam’s encounter with the west and the need for Islamic identity and civilizational dialogue are being addressed by Islamically oriented intellectuals, religious scholars and Islamist academicians and activists all in the perspective of creating a new Muslim Ummah capable of reconstruction, rehabilitation and reassessment of both the internal and external world. They are trying their best to reformulate the Islamic agenda for 21^st century in order to cope with the aggressions and occupation through the methods of both the Islamization and modernization simultaneously. The mainstream Islamist, by their nature and method as well as by their concepts and ideologies, are constitutional and democratic. They openly and publicly struggle for Islamic domination and believe in the process of mass mobilization. The problem with the west is that it is not convinced ever with the moderate and democratic Islamists and mostly follows Samuel. P. Huntington’s theory of “clash of civilization”.¹⁴

Everybody knows that terrorism is our global problem. It is also accepted phenomenon that terrorism has no linkages with any religion be it Islam or any other religion of the world. Every religion is based on teachings of love, harmony, justice, world brotherhood, equality and tolerance. Same characteristics are more prevalent in Islam. Terrorism as a problem was always sponsored by those who were in power and position. But is totally, wrong statement when somebody is being attacked and oppressed, it creates a resistance movement from the side of those who were marginalized, tortured and exploited. When somebody is going to resist the wrongdoings and exploitation of west then he is being declared terrorist. So, Islam is the major resistance against crime against humanity and barbarism. When west attacked over Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Vietnam, Iraq they called their struggle as ‘holy war’ or ‘just crusade’. The division and demarcation line was maintained by the west rulers that “either you are with us or against us” this creates a sense of disharmony across the globe.¹⁵

Islam came to this world on the basis of conduct and character not on the basis of the war and coercion. People embraced Islam by seeing the character and conduct of the Muslim preachers. People became highly impressed by the character of Muslims. No doubt some time power had been used against enemies but the war was also based on just principles, which also shows the great tolerance of Muslim civilization. The history is replete with the conduct of Muslim rulers. Therefore, criticism and blasphemy is illogical and has no good output because everybody is well aware in 21^st century about the world history.

To be a fundamentalist is not wrong according to one prominent Islamic scholar Zakir Naik, he said that a person is a fundamentalist if he follows and adhere to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory. For a person to be good doctor he should know, follow and practice the fundamentals of medicine. For a good mathematician he should know, follow and practice the fundamentals of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist he should know, follow and practice the fundamentals of science. Same is the case of Muslim who knows, follow and practice the teachings of Islam in his life. The world “Islam” is derived from the word “salaam “which means peace, so, Islam is the religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace. So the blame of the west over Islam and Muslims is nothing but a misunderstandings and wrong propagation.¹⁶

Creating a clash will not necessarily make things better for the parties in the struggle. Those who present each side are not necessarily the best representation of each side’s community. Nothing will us to avoid a clash but a genuine justice, sustaining rights, commitment to values and morals-even in wars if we are obliged to enter war. and involve more killing of the people, and more corruption of the earth. It is particularly unfair if overlooking some forms of aggression is done selectively, using double standards. We believe that Islam is the truth, but it is unrealistic to want the entire world to become Muslim. We are not capable of doing this, and it is not part of our religion to force others to accept our perspectives. ¹⁷ This is our shai’a based option: choosing not to fight but to start a dialogue. Here it is to be noted, that western cultural imperialism cannot be good option for different religious community, especially for Muslim world. They should be free to follow, practice and preach their own culture without any interference and meddlesomeness from the west on the basis of bayonet or force. West or any other community has no right to impose its will on the Muslims of the world because it is anti democratic and anti secular way. Every religion is free to propagate its religious norms and gospels. But conversion on the basis of force and fraud is not allowed in Islam. Islam never supports conversion on the basis of force. History taught us that the guarantees of security will not be achieved exclusively through the use of force. Guarantees that have come through force have contained the seeds of their own collapse and failure because they bring anger and frustration to one party, and arrogance and overconfidence to the other party. However, when guarantees of security are built on justice, they have true opportunities fo0r endurance. At this significant crossroad in the history, we invite all free thinkers to initiate a serious dialogue for the well being of both camps. A dialogue that will keep our peoples away from conflict and will pave the way for a better world for our posterity and future generations, who expect a lot from us.

The first recommendation and advice of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was for the leader to fear God and to do all good things for his army. He advised them also:

Battle all infidels. Invade lands, but do not betray people, or be hardhearted. Do not kill brutally and do not kill children. If you confront the infidels, offer the infidels, three alternatives: (a) to convert Islam; in that case stop fighting them and acknowledge their choice; (b) to not join Islam but pay tribute to be protected by Islam; in that case you should accept their choice and stop fighting them; (c) to fight them them by the might of God. ¹⁸

Islam was always a religion of peace and tolerance and it will be always same. The life of the prophet is the best example of justice, peace, tolerance, brotherhood, and equity. I want to cite the example of the Fatah Makah when prophet Mohammad (PBUH) pardoned the worst enemies of Islam. He said; today you all are free and no compensation will be taken from you, even the person who entered the home of Abu Sufian is also free. There is another best story of the his mercy with a woman who were always putting a mud over prophet, one day when lady did not come to commit the same evil, prophet realized why didn’t she came. When prophet asked some people than he got news that lady is sick today. Prophet visited her home and asked her how do you feel. When a woman saw the character of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) she embraced the Islam by seeing the character, kindness, tolerant approach, and mercy of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).¹⁹

Islam was never a militant or terrorist or fundamentalist in its principles, it is simply a projection and misunderstanding of the western scholars and some others who are their allies. It was always a religion of peace and harmony but its irony that enemies of Islam had always attacked over through wrong projections. ²⁰The wrong projection of global Islamism and fundamentalism is a major blame over the Muslims of the world. These scholars are doing this in order to get fame among the leaders of west and to collect their self-interest through blasphemy. America was never declared a terrorist country while majority of the Muslim countries were attacked and demolished by them. I consider the George W. Bush one of the biggest terrorist in the world. What was his role in Iraq nothing but to kill innocent children, woman, old men and to destroy the properties of Iraqi people who have no guilty to be punished by the dictator and criminal Bush, it was only a struggle to capture oil and other natural resources from the land of Iraq.²¹ Whenever America is going to attack over any country of the world first what America does that is wrong projection about that country over which they are going to Attack so war and criminality is being changed into a just crusade than they attack. No reasonable person can have a claim to say that attack over Iraq and Afghanistan is a just and moral crusade. ²²Why not America is being declared a terrorist country when it supports Israel to crush innocent Palestinians who did no guilty but they want to protect their motherland which their heritage. Why not Israel is being declared terrorist country which had a illegal control over the land of Palestinians? Why not international community is going to accept this reality that Israelian state is illegal occupation of the land of Palestinians people? Why not people of the world understand that who is the real culprit, criminal and biggest terrorist.Why always wrong is being projected right? Why not right is being projected right? This is time to search truth and to reach on truth without fear of criminal. These are the questions which are needed to be answered only then peace can be built up.

There is need for the west to understand Islamic teachings and principles they will reach on truth. But truth can be perceived only by those who are interested to find out truth. Can America tell the real truth to the world? But it needs humanitarian vision to justify the reality. The comments of “rogue states” and the phrase “either you are with us or against us”²³ used by western leaders and scholars about the Muslim world is nothing but a misunderstanding and wrong projection which has no real basis. There is provision among the west and its allies that if there will be war on one it will be considered a war against all. America got a lot of benefit by this phrase. It can be said that American hegemony and monopoly is not a good option for the small and underdeveloped states. Why they are not being allowed to survive in the modern world? There is only one thing that creates a problem in a multicultural world that is dominance of one on others. Multiculturalism will be considered a best option when every culture will have a right to survive as far as its activities are concerned.²⁴

Islam is the most tolerant and peaceful religion of the world. It always adopts peaceful means to transform its enemies into friends. We read Almighty Gods words which say: “Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better. Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate.”²⁵ And we read the words of the prophet (PBUH), who asserts: “Kindness graces what it touches, and disgraces what it touches not. For God is a kind and loves kindness and gives to kindness what he gives no to violence.” As far as the notion of jihad is concerned, it can be explained as defensive notion and a preventive one.” It is also prophet’s prophecy that “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you. But don’t transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Therefore, the concept of jihad is a defensive notion and it is just a struggle or war in all of the world’s civilizations. It is way out to fight and control criminalities, injustices, barbarism, and insecurity from the side of enemies of Islam over Muslims; It is platform to liberate oppressed Muslims from the clutches of oppressions and to free them. It is just war against evil. As west declares that their war is just crusade, why not Muslim have right to call Jihad (Pious Struggle)? ²⁶

CONCLUSION:

In summation, firstly, it can be said that any blame over any religious community is anti-democratic and anti-secular slogan. Blame is the policy which is against the policy of “Live and let live”. Secondly, the custodians of democracy and human rights should not do anything wrong that change democracy into dictatorship and political pathology. Thirdly, to attach terrorism with any religion is illogical and against the principle of multiculturalism. Everybody knew that religion teaches human and moral principles not criminality. It is religion which gives a human touch to politics and makes it pure and tolerant. Fourthly, being the citizen of the world, everyone needs to trust on other people, without creating any differences. Every human is needed to control and minimize the terrorism and to be a watchdog and protector of his other fellow; this thing will be a collective effort to protect the present generations as well as posterity from the threat of terrorism. Fifthly, the great powers and its leaders should consider themselves humans first and try to work for the benefit of entire humanity. Sixthly, it is the responsibility of the UN, Civil society, And other International Organizations to maintain peace and security in the world. Last but not least, there is need of dialogue between the religious intellectuals to minimize their differences and try to find out the way to protect entire humanity without any nepotism and malice. Today’s, dialogue can be a way forward to minimize the gap between the different religious communities. Everyone should consider that only within a peaceful world humanity can survive, without peace the world would be nothing but a hell.

REFERENCES:

1. Sammuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Rethinking of World Order, Penguin Books India, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 209-18.

2. Shayk Muhammad, Husayn Fadlallah, Joseph Massad; “Terrorism, Islam and the Intifada”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31. No. 2- 2002, p. 83.

3. Avner Falk, “Islamic Terror Conscious and Unconscious Motives”, Praeger Security International, West Port, Connectcut, London, 2008, PP. 1-3.

4. Ibid., p. 2

5. Ibid., pp. 210-11.

6. Ibid., pp. 211- 14.

7. Ibid., pp. 217-18.

8. Ibid., pp. 217-18.

9. Graham E. Fuller, “The Future of Political Islam”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 2 March- April, 2002, pp. 52-53.

10. Ibid., 53.

11. Dr. Obaidullah, Fhad, Terrorism Resistance and Islam, Serial Publications, New Delhi, 2007, pp. 264- 282.

12. Ibid., pp. 277-279.

13. Ibid., pp. 280- 281.

14. David Blankenhorn, Ab. Dou Fillali, Ansary Hasssan I. Meneimh, And Alex Roberts, Rowman and Littlefield Publication, INC. New York, 2005, pp. 71-74.

15. Ibid., p. 107

16. Ibid., p. 106.

17. Ibid., p. 105.

18. Ibid., p. 103.

19. Ibid., p. 101.

20. Ali. A. Mazrui, Islam and the United States: Streams of Convergence

21. Stands of Difference, Third World, Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 5. 2004,pp. 793-820.

22. Husayn Fadlallah, “11 September, Terrorsim, Islam, and the Intefada” Journal of Palestine Studies.xxxi No. 2, 2002, p. 83.

23. Fawaz A. Gerges, “Islam and Muslims in the Minds of America” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 588, Sage, July, 2003, pp. 73-86.

24. Gram E. Fuller, “The Future of Political Islam” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 2, Mar-April, Council of Foreign Relations,- 2002, pp. 48-60.

25. Stephen Vertigans, Militant Islam, A Sociology of Characteristics, Causes, And Consequences, Routledge Taylor and Frances, London, 2009, pp. 35-85.

26. Maghnad, Desai, Rethinking Islamism, The Ideology of the New Terror, I.B.Tauris, 2007, pp. 88-131.

Received on 13.06.2011

Accepted on 11.11.2011