The Western rationalisation of the modern world has resulted in the relegation of religion and belief to the category of irrationality. While it would not be futile to challenge the philosophical foundations of the inadequate western rationality, the problem we are faced with as a result of the dominance of such rationality is much more practical and immediate. The western non-religious rationality presupposes the position of religion as the problem. Any solution based on religion or derived from religion is destined to be looked down upon. However, a solution uninterested in the problem is bound to meet failure.
Notwithstanding the overt and covert domestic and international political issues involved, the rise of militant extremism is at its very core a religious psychological phenomenon. The leaders of the militant religious outfits might be motivated by a desire for political or economic benefits, the adherents are made to believe that they are at the center of a cosmic religious struggle. The mindset is neither a product of an isolated psychological process, nor inspired by the religious texts. It is a consequence of the indoctrination process driven by the short-term expediencies in view of the domestic and international political environment. Tautological as it may sound, the religious extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan cannot be explained without the role that the United States played in the creation and exploitation of the same phenomenon.
If we arrive at a consensus on the point that militancy originates in the mind, it is not so hard to assume that the response to it should also attack the mind. Whereas the importance of security measures cannot be taken too lightly, the primary and durable response needs to be intellectual. If indoctrination has resulted in the creation of such a mindset, the de-indoctrination might be the only strategy to erase the stereotypes and misgivings.
The intellectual response can be in two contrasting ways: first, derived from the western modernization, secularism of politics and society may be adopted as an intellectual line of attack to offset religious extremism. If religion does not remain a determining factor in the lives of people, no one will kill in the name of religion. The same approach has been advocated by a portion of the Western intelligentsia as it has proved to be successful in various western states. However, secularism often comes at the detriment of certain social and cultural institutions that sustain the societal fabric. Some even contend that the very rise of religious extremism is a result of the failed attempts to impose the western scheme of secularism. Attempts at intellectual imposition of the secular values in a region that is hardly prepared for it would, in all likelihood, prove counterproductive. The appeal of secularism to Muslims and particularly to the Muslims under consideration is limited at best.  
Second and the more appropriate intellectual strategy is to counter Islamic extremism by projecting the moderate and the more existent face of Islam. Although this strategy has been mentioned frequently, it has never been appropriately implemented. The best means of putting this approach into practice is to bring the moderate ulema in the forefront of the debate for the soul of Islam. They are bearers of the greatest intellectual tradition in the human history – Islam.
As mentioned earlier, the Western post-Enlightenment ethos or the secular values do not have much of an appeal in the Muslim world. The views of prominent ulema, however, cannot be disregarded by the professedly religious section of the population. They are not only taken notice of, but they can also make inroads into the minds that have been packed with extremist ideologies after an indoctrination process of decades.
The opposition from celebrated religious scholars would also put the leaders of the extremist organization in a catch-22 situation: if they react furiously to the pronouncement of such uncontroversial scholars, they risk losing a substantial amount of support conceded to them by the more religious section of the population; and if they do not dispute the views of such ulema, their followers may question the ways they have adopted in their organizations.
The existence of such ulema and their differing standpoints is not a myth – as some consider it. The example of such a religious scholar closest to the epicenter of religious extremism, Fata, was Maulana Hasan Jan of the famous Dervaish Mosque, Peshawar. Not only was he a well-received political figure, he was also one of the most influential religious scholars of the area. His pronouncements were considered authoritative by religious circles across the board. His popularity was such that he defeated in elections the veteran and one of the most influential politicians of the NWFP, Wali Khan, at Charsadda – the hometown and stronghold of Wali Khan.
The views of Maulana concerning the situation that Pakistan and the international society are faced with were tailor-made for bringing about the demise of the religious extremists. He was above the sectarian divides that are so dear to the extremists. Consequently, devotees of all the Muslim sects admired him. More importantly, he considered suicide attacks in a Muslim country under Muslim administration completely unacceptable. For attacks on the non-Muslims, he gave sanctions only when there was no other fighting option available, and when a person would be sure of the rightfulness of the cause for which he was fighting and of the death that he would be faced with. Such a verdict actually rendered the attacks almost completely unpractical. Maulana was, sadly, assassinated by the same extremists. His assassination goes on to indicate that the extremists are threatened more by intellectuals like him than by the secular elites of the country.
Such an intellectual approach of countering the religious extremists through religious moderates, however, has its own arrangements. For such an approach, one has to accept the existence of Islam as a reality in the area not only at the present but also in the future. While the strategy may not be too difficult for a Muslim government to adopt, our American masters may not have the same opinion to it, as they see problem with the role of Islam in many fields, especially in politics.
The attempts at fashioning the society on the Western basis have failed previously, and are bound to fail in the future as well. Furthermore, such efforts produce extreme reactions like the ones we witness today. It is time for us to choose the gray area between the black and white in which our society has got divided.