RATTLE the gorilla's cage and watch it explode with fury, shaking its enclosure but unable to reach its tormentor. Rattle it harder and the beast will beat its chest in rage, hurting only itself.

As a nation, we tend to react in somewhat similar fashion when somebody rattles our cage. Witness the recent show of self-abusive and futile rage when the Frontier Post carried a blasphemous letter e-mailed by somebody with a Jewish name. Instead of letting the law take its own course, mobs were out on the streets the next day to destroy the newspaper's printing press.

The photographs of the bearded, unkempt individuals who carried out this vandalism did not suggest literacy in any language, so it is clear that they had not been personally offended by the letter.

The whole incident reminded me of the violence that took place in the wake of the publication of Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses': for some reason, a mob of zealots attacked the American Centre in Islamabad, probably unaware of the fact that both the author and his publisher were British. None of them had read the book, and yet three of the demonstrators were prepared to lose their lives and scores of them suffered injuries in protesting against a literary work they knew nothing about.

I am not trying to justify either Rushdie or the author of the recent blasphemous letter to the Frontier Post. The point here is that instead of maturely ignoring a provocation or taking judicious, well-considered action, we have a tendency to react in a predictably violent, knee-jerk fashion that brings us and our faith no credit. Granted that those making up vigilant mobs are usually uneducated and often unemployed; but these dregs of humanity give Islam a bad name.

My limited understanding of the faith leads me to believe that the worst crime a Muslim can commit is to kill another Muslim.

And yet we continue slaying each other with a ferocity matched only by the bloodlust sown by our forefathers over the centuries.

From Algeria come gruesome stories of Islamic rebels (and allegedly, shadowy government agencies) putting entire villages to the sword. In Afghanistan, the Taliban subject their own people to all kinds of medieval horrors.

Here in Pakistan, one group of zealots kills members of another with a grim ruthlessness usually seen in civil wars. Indeed, Islamic history has been written in blood.

True, much of human history has been similarly stained in crimson. But whereas the last half century has witnessed serious efforts in the West to avoid the use of force to settle disputes, governments, groups and individuals in much of the Islamic world continue to threaten each other with violence instead of using dialogue and discourse to defuse tensions. The language used is often bellicose and strident instead of moderate and soothing.

'Jihad' is a concept that has been much misused to justify and rationalize violence. When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, both sides declared jihad against each other, and millions of young men fell in the name of a common faith. The two sides fighting in Afghanistan these last several years are both Muslim and claim to be waging jihad.

Over ten years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait in a badly misjudged move for which its people are still paying a heavy price. Saddam Hussein, normally a secularist, immediately invoked Heaven's blessings and altered the national flag to include a Koranic verse, apart from using other religious symbolism on the electronic media. The Kuwaiti ruling family which fled into exile also called upon the Maker to restore their kingdom, urging Arabs to unleash a jihad on the invading Iraqis.

In all these cases where Muslims have fought Muslims in the name of jihad, very little has been achieved apart from the slaughter of the faithful. The Islamic community has been weakened and entire nations bled white.

Apart from fighting other Muslims, leaders have constantly used force to subdue their own people. Amnesty International documents the excesses committed by repressive governments in the Islamic world, and its annual report makes very depressing reading. For some reason, violence is the common thread running through Islamic history and geography.

After the Frontier Post was attacked by a mindless mob, the writer of the offensive letter wrote again to various Pakistani papers, claiming that the violence in Peshawar had only proved his point.

For us, anything faintly derogatory about our religion acts as a red rag. Surely our faith has the inherent strength to withstand petty slurs from ignorant bigots. Within Pakistan, we have enacted the Blasphemy Law which has led to a large number of non-Muslims being prosecuted just on unsubstantiated allegations. It is difficult to believe that anybody in his right senses would deliberately say or write anything against Islam in Pakistan.

So for our zealots to take up cudgels against members of the minority communities is as unnecessary as it is counter-productive.

For the umpteenth time, General Moinuddin Haider, the interior minister, has threatened action against anybody displaying arms. This statement was clearly aimed at the jihadi parties which have consistently ignored these empty injunctions.

Now he has also declared that the government will not allow these groups to solicit and collect donations for jihad. Predictably, they have unanimously and vociferously rejected this out of hand, branding the minister an agent of the West.

Given the fact that General Musharraf has time and again made a distinction between jihad and terrorism, it is difficult to see this government having the stomach to take on these outfits, specially given its track record of backing down before them whenever they have confronted it.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the writ of the state does not extend to extremist religious groups and jihadi forces, encouraging them to acts of violence against each other as well as those we witnessed attacking the Frontier Post office.

The current issue of Newsweek carries a cover story on terrorism, and in it, General Musharraf has been quoted at calling extremists only "an irritant."

According to him, "They are not a serious threat to this government or stability." But the same story on Pakistan continues: "The entire top leadership of Tanzeemul Ikhwan is drawn from retired army officers, and hundreds of current officers and soldiers attend its ideological training sessions."

The same issue of the weekly profiles a retired Major Ehsan ul-Haq who trained as a commando with the Pakistani Special Services Group and the American Green Berets.

While fighting in Afghanistan, he says he and his men were aided by "angels in white gowns riding on horseback in the air." But what happens when these angels help both sides?