''I couldn't even read them all. There's at least 1,000. Maybe more,'' said Mansur Escudero, secretary-general of the Islamic Commission of Spain. ''The tone was nearly all the same: 'It's about time someone did it. Bravo!' ''

The fatwa, issued on the anniversary of the Madrid train bombings that claimed 191 lives, was believed to be the first cleric-sanctioned condemnation directly against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. But it highlights a wider, critical dialogue emerging across the Islamic world.

Moderate Muslims are increasingly turning to Islam's sacred core - the Quran and the laws and traditions it inspires - to defend their views and discredit radicals as part of a ''counter-jihad'' for Islamic hearts and minds.

Terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and other militant groups add urgency to the ideological debate, which challenges the dominance of Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist Wahhabist strain that has used its wealth and influence to mute moderate Islamic voices.

''The long and painful silence of moderate theologians and experts in Islam jurisprudence - who had been bought off or intimidated into silence - is finally starting to break apart,'' said Khaled Abou El Fadl, an authority on Islamic law at the University of California, Los Angeles. ''We are seeing signs of a counter-jihad.''

The March 11 fatwa by Spain's highest Muslim authority and the deluge of support messages appeared to touch the frustration among mainstream Muslims. But the response was dominated by those outside the Middle East, suggesting the centers of moderate influence reside outside traditional Muslim areas.

From Canada: ''Thank you for taking a stand.''

From the United States: ''I'm glad that someone of authority in Islam is taking a stand and demanding their religion back from the terrorists who have hijacked it.''

From Australia: ''This is important. This has the possibility for real impact.''

From Mexico: ''All good Muslims are with you.''

''This shows the Muslim world is tired of the harm that radicals and terrorists are doing to Islam,'' said Escudero, whose declaration carried the support of Muslim leaders in Morocco, Algeria and Libya. ''We hope this will inspire others to speak out.''

But this, however, risks even more friction with Islam's radical fringe, who have long used their own Quranic interpretations to justify attacks on non-Muslims and others.

A group calling itself Al-Qaida in Iraq - the name Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi gave his organization after he aligned himself with bin Laden - mocked the Spanish fatwa and ridiculed a four-day international counterterrorism conference held in Madrid.

''Allah has promised us victory. . . . Terrorizing enemies of God is our faith and religion, which is taught to us by our Quran,'' said a statement purportedly posted by the group on an extremist Islamic Web site March 12.

But the Quran, much like the Bible and many other religious texts, is open to interpretations on many levels.

No issue presents more of a conundrum than suicide attacks. Most Islamic scholars categorically denounce taking one's life, citing the clear Quranic dictum: ''Do not kill yourself.''

But deep divisions occur over what is justified ''martyrdom'' in Islam's defense. The debate winds through such flashpoints as the Palestinian intifada, the insurgency in Iraq and suicide bombings linked to al-Qaida around the world.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, a tape was broadcast showing bin Laden citing the Hadith - the record of the words and deeds of Islam's founder, the Prophet Muhammad - and saying the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and the destruction of the World Trade Center were for the glory of Islam. Later proclamations have also been filled with Quranic references.

''There needs to be an awakening that radicals are manipulating the Quran for their own narrow motives,'' said Omid Safi, professor of philosophy and religion at Colgate University.

In a far corner of a Cairo mosque recently, a scholar read from the 57th sura, or chapter, that urges Muslims to spend freely to defend the faith.

In one verse, martyrs are blessed for achieving ''their reward and their light.'' In another, non-Muslims are called the ''owners of hell fire.''

''What do you make of this?'' the reader, Abdul Abdullah, asked a group of young men in a far corner of the grand al-Azhar mosque.

The students began to bicker. A defense for Palestinian suicide bombers, a few said. Nonsense, argued others, who called it outdated allusions to Islam's early struggles. They cited a line saying ''compassion and mercy'' rise above all other virtues.

''The message,'' Abdullah said, ''is to be both a lamb and a lion when it is needed. This is the balance.''

Less than a month later in New York, Amina Wadud, a female professor of Islamic studies, challenged Muslim traditions of male-led worship by leading Friday prayers to draw attention to her belief that the Quran ''puts men and women on equal footing'' and needs reinterpretation.

Many Islamic leaders, however, decried the highly publicized service by Wadud, who teaches at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik told followers that ''enemies of Islam are using women's issues to corrupt the community.'' Extremist Web sites have appealed for a fatwa to slay Wadud, but it appears no credible Islamic authority is willing to go that far.

Conflicting interpretations of Muslim duty are nothing new. Factions have quarreled and clashed since the death of Muhammad nearly 1,375 years ago.

In recent decades, however, some moderates felt that publicly opposing radicals would harm Islamic unity, an opening that allowed the vocal militant minority to prevail.

''Radicals learned long ago the power of trying to interpret the Quran in their favor. Moderates are now rushing to do the same,'' said Azzaz Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London. ''This battle gets down to the very essence of what it means to be Muslim.''

In December 2003, Indonesia's highest Islamic authority, the Ulama Council, declared terrorism and suicide bombings illegal under Muslim law, but left room for ''holy war'' if the faith is under attack.

The declaration came after bomb blasts blamed on an al-Qaida-linked Southeast Asia terrorist group killed 202 people, mostly foreign tourists, on the resort island of Bali in 2002. In August 2003, a suicide bomber attacked the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, killing 12.

In Yemen, where 17 Americans were killed in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, inmates linked to radical factions have held meetings with Supreme Court Judge Hammoud al-Hitar - who is also a senior cleric - who tries to convince them they are violating Quranic teachings. Nearly 250 prisoners have been freed after renouncing violence.

But some scholars believe moderates need to work on even deeper levels. Exchanging fatwas and denunciations with radicals does little to make lasting reforms, said Abdullahi An-Na'im, an expert in Islamic law at Emory University in Atlanta.

He believes Islamic leaders in places with more tolerant traditions, such as Indonesia, need to show more autonomy and confidence to set new priorities in the faith.

''If moderates use the same methods as the radicals it just reinforces an aggressive, authoritarian paradigm,'' An-Na'im said. ''Islam needs a new approach: to get away from the Islam of the Middle East being the only point of reference.''

Abou El Fadl of UCLA, however, believes moderate Muslims also need to make a difficult choice: press their views with the same conviction as radicals.

''In other words, they must be willing to fight for the faith and die for the faith,'' he said. ''They must be willing to make that expense. Otherwise, the contest for the soul of Islam will not be between equal forces.''