ISLAM is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. If I keep repeating this mantra, perhaps my two young daughters, who flew to London with their father yesterday, will stay safe from harm.

It's nonsense, of course. Only probability will protect them - the fact that in a city of more than five million people, they are statistically unlikely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Constantly chanting truisms about Islam being opposed to violence will not stop inadequate young men intent on destruction. It doesn't matter whether the mantra about Islam and peace is repeated by myself, a Muslim academic or a mullah. It will not work. It's simply not enough.

Muslim leaders are told they must condemn more. But they do, in fact, condemn the perpetrators after each atrocity - usually by distancing the suicide bombers from their religion, saying they are criminals, not Muslims.

Such condemnation is now so predictable it becomes formulaic - along with the inter-faith press calls with other church leaders. The impression is given that the fear of a backlash against the community concerns them more than the fact that their religion is churning out such misanthropic young men. It is simply not good enough to say the terrorists are "not real Muslims"- any more than you could say that the Crusaders were not true Christians. All the big world religions have, at some point in their history, attempted to spread their message through slaughter, conquest and terror. Muslim leaders need to acknowledge the problem and make real efforts to confront and eradicate it.

An impression is given, with each heartfelt condemnation, that this is happening. The Muslim Council of Britain, a moderate organisation which certainly speaks for the majority of the faithful in this country, was last year praised for attempting to tackle extremism by publishing a pamphlet called Rights and Responsibilities. The coverage of this little book's launch suggested that, as well as telling readers how to deal with harassment and racism, it reminded them of their duty to oppose terrorism. And it does, in passing.

The book opens with a robust condemnation of "the unleashing of a virulent strain of Islamophobia".

It says blame lies with: "Media reports and the misconceived wars against Afghanistan and Iraq [which] have all contributed to the undoubted increase in prejudice we face on a day-to-day basis."

It offers advice on how to ensure your child receives Islamic instruction in the classroom, the right to wear Islamic dress to school, what to do if searched by the police, how to complain about biased media reporting. Only one page mentions terrorism. It does not acknowledge or address the links between terrorism and fundamentalist preaching at all.

It simply repeats a verse from the Koran warning against spreading disorder on Earth and gives a hotline number. If anything, the pamphlet is more likely to feed the flames of extremism than quench them.

It is easy to blame the media. But with each terrorist attack, journalists interview members of the community who express their horror and revulsion. The television footage from Leeds included interviews with white and Asian neighbours expressing real surprise that "nice, quiet, ordinary lads" had apparently been fostering murderous plans. The overall tone was one of shock, that British boys from suburbia could do this. It certainly wasn't saying: "Typical Muslims - we thought as much." This applies even to the tabloid press. The Sun editorial yesterday urged its readers to keep calm, reminding them the bombers are unrepresentative of the community and concluding "every brick the thugs throw, every blow they strike against Muslims, hands bin Laden a small victory".

British Asians, like other minorities in this country do, of course, suffer racist attacks, not helped by the media campaign against immigrants. There has also been a tendency for some politicians to exploit racism by attacking asylum-seekers. This has a negative effect of all non-white citizens, even those settled here for decades.

This column has drawn attention to that on a number of occasions, just as it has condemned the actions of British and American troops in Iraq.

But suggesting that social alienation, unemployment, racism or British foreign policy is an excuse for suicide bombing just does not wash. Lots of people have grievances. Think of those of Afro/Caribbean origin. Their continent remains the poorest in the world, partly as a result of the colonial legacy, the propping up of Cold War dictators and exploitation by multinational companies - particularly in arms manufacture and mineral extraction. The international community ignored the genocide of black people in Rwanda, in Darfur, in Uganda and Congo. Historically, they were enslaved by Europeans and Americans. Until recently, they were officially classed as subhuman in South Africa. Within living memory they were segregated and lynched in the southern United States.

They have suffered considerable discrimination in this country and America, where their young men often drift into crime and gun culture.

Yet this community, for all its legitimate historical and contemporary grievances, has not taken to bombing innocent commuters on underground trains. Instead of turning on the modern world, people of African descent have helped define it. Its young people are icons of popular music, sport and entertainment. They are dynamically creative, constantly reinventing their art forms with each new generation. In Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, they have given us the most inspiring political leadership of the past century.

Islam is not uniquely persecuted, so perhaps its leaders should askwhether the cult of victimisation is helping their community. Why is this religion so unable to accept criticism - as dramatically demonstrated by the murder of Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh, whose unrepentant killerwas convicted this week? Why do they feel threatened by diversity? Why have we not seen the rise of a secular Islam, despite the efforts of a brave bunch of tolerant Muslim intellectuals in Britain and America? Why are its "leaders" always religious and male?

More importantly, why do a small but growing minority of its young people follow clerics who preach pathological hatred? My colleague Melanie Reid was criticised for making this point. But it has been made previously by Muslims, such as the columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who asked, after the Beslan atrocity, what it was about her religion which inspired such barbarism.

It is true that the great Islamic empires of the Middle Ages were places of tolerance, civilisation and learning. But it is equally true that influential strains of the religion, such as the Salafists who dominate education today in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, espouse a narrow, hateful philosophy. This tradition dismisses non-Muslims as infidels or kafirs - lesser beings - and dreams of re-establishing The Caliphate, a pure Islamic empire from Spain to the Far East. It does not need an invasion of Iraq to justify killing - though that is a useful recruitment tool. It is on the increase, it is undeniably Islamic, and it must be stopped. Good Muslims can do that, but first they must acknowledge its existence and inf luence.