Former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's alleged links with the so-called Islamic extremists have been receiving increasing attention after his supposed contribution towards the rise of radical Islam in Malaysia was first suggested by an article in the Washington Times last week, [#2] 'Turmoil in Malaysia'[/#] .

[The article is a commentary piece written by Amy Ridenour, president of the right-wing (and not non-partisan, as claimed) National Center for Public Policy Research.]

Several parties see the article's suggestion of Anwar as the chief instigator of instability in this country, as also providing a reasonable explanation - or a probable cause, at the very least - for the increase in Islamic militancy in the country.

In a letter ('US should not be fooled into backing Anwar', Aug 20) to malaysiakini , Ashvin Raj, in support of Ridenour, argues that Anwar is implicated in the rise of militant Islam in Malaysia, not only via his links with PAS, but also through his past actions in promoting a more Islamic administration.

Ashvin cites Dr Chandra Muzaffar's book Islamic Resurgence in Malaysia , which describes Anwar as a "major figure... in the government's Islamisation programme".

He argues that Anwar was responsible for "Islamic banking... Islamic insurance... (and) the International Islamic University... around that time, dakwah or Islamic missionary activities were aggressively promoted using the official radio and television channels."

Furthermore, "... as education minister, Anwar was responsible for Islamising the education syllabus: Islamic civilisation was introduced in schools and world religions were taught with a pro-Islamic bias (and) in the textbooks, other religions were portrayed in a negative light in comparison with Islam."

This observation is misleading.

Anwar's rise to power coincided with the rise of Islamic revivalism, which was, and is, a global phenomenon.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's act in bringing Anwar into the government was both an acknowledgment that there was an Islamic resurgence in Malaysia, and a shrewd move calculated to appease conservative demands and allow the government to stay relevant in the face of those demands.

Anwar then, was the perfect vehicle through, and with which the government enhanced its Islamic credentials.

He was responsible for the Islamisation initiatives, but they were collectively acts of government that were designed to get into the good books of increasingly conservative Malay voters.

The introduction of these initiatives helped project the image of an Islamic government, one that was in tune with the religious aspirations of the Malay community.

More significantly, they allowed the government to moderate domestic conservatism and head off the influence of Islamic extremism and radicalism from abroad.

Armed with near impeccable Islamic credentials (in the eyes of the Muslim Malays, at least), the government even managed to pump in liberal doses of 'worldliness' into the religious outlook of the Malays and shape their conception of the 'good' Muslim.

The ideal? None other than Anwar himself: Here was a not only a Muslim Malay man who could spout Quranic verses at will, was in good standing with highly respected Islamic scholars such as Egypt's Dr Yusuf Qardhawi, and could give a sermon during Friday prayers, here was also a man who was deputy prime minister of Malaysia, friends with World Bank president James Wolfensohn, and one who looked good in his Italian-cut suit.

PAS had no answer to the government's extensive Islamic programmes and, more importantly, it had no one quite like Anwar Ibrahim. However, there was a risk. Anwar was also the single point of failure in the entire scheme. Take him out and everything would come tumbling down. And it did.

Why does it now seem that the government has so little credibility when it speaks on Islam? Why have the Malays switched their support to PAS?

There is no need to do an in-depth analysis of these problems as the answer is simple enough: The man who "took care of business" is no longer around and there is no one in Umno that can take his place.

Then who is to blame for the rise in Islamic militancy? No one and everyone.

No single person is fully responsible for inciting the advocated violence, which has nothing to do with Islam. To brand Anwar as a "radical Islamic fundamentalist" who is the root cause of the increase in groups calling for the violent overthrow of a legitimately elected government would be giving the man too much credit.

If he is guilty, then so is Dr Mahathir for roping him into the establishment and setting the stage for the mess that we are in now, though it would be unfair to put the blame squarely on the prime minister, for he needed to act quickly as PAS were also courting Anwar.

But no one can claim to be entirely innocent, as many parties are at least partially responsible.

The government, for depriving the people of outlets for their anger and frustrations by cracking down on demonstrations and banning political ceramah .

The media, for their incessant attacks against the opposition, which has desensitised the people to such an extent that when they do bring up genuine issues, the people shrug it off as " sandiwara " (charade).

PAS, for breathing so much hatred into its ceramah .

Our formal Islamic education system, which is so out of touch with reality that it should not be surprising to find misguided Mujahidin, Black Metal Satanists and teenaged rapists among the Muslim Malays.

Parents, for failing miserably in giving their children a proper Islamic upbringing, which, in Islam, is their responsibility in the first place.

But most of all, the militants themselves, for why should anyone else be responsible for their actions?