A companion, perhaps uncertain of the direction of the subject of dhimma in my recent column suggested that I should also write about persecution of Muslims in "secular" countries like France and Turkey.

I think Muslims do not have to be in a "secular" country to be persecuted. Judging by the 2003 Suaram human rights report, Malaysian Muslims do not have to leave home, where we allegedly claim Islamic governance, to have their religious human rights violated. Secular countries too can be authoritarian and undemocratic. For the record, there are evolving understandings to the term, "secular" in the contemporary discourse on religion and rights.

I would like to echo a concern by Muslim scholar and human rights defender, Abdullahi Ahmed An Naim (Sudan). In the Future of the Shari'ah Project, which he hopes to complete by this year end, An Naim thinks that Muslims must contend with principles of human dignity and justice as embodied in human rights principles.

This interrogation, according to An Naim, is regardless of the "us against them" credo of the Bush administration or even of the September 11 incident in New York. It is critically important for Muslim societies to invest in the rule of law and protection of human rights and this is unlikely to happen if traditional interpretations that support notions of dhimma amongst others, are maintained.

While An Naim has very particular views on the future of Sharia and the synergy and interdependence of human rights, religion and secularism, there are scholars before him who have reconstructed the 7th century Muslim notion of dhimma. Two of them are Sayyid Qutb from Egypt (1906-1966) and Rashid al- Ghannushi of Tunisia (1941). Their views have a large following. Ghannushi was granted political asylum by Britain in 1993. Nasser ordered Sayyid Qutb's death on the gallows in August 1966.

Interpretation

Both Qutb and Ghannushi did not premise their work on human rights perhaps possibly because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948 is perceived to be a "Western". Both were preoccupied in any case, with the imperialism or hegemony of the West seeping into the Muslim world.

Some commentators have categorised them as 'revivalists' who emphasise ijtihad or scriptual interpretation. Both believed in the Sharia state; that is Sharia as the foundation of law and politics. Both also believed that non-Muslims are assured of equal rights in that Islamic polity.

Critique to the 7th century dhimma notion included the fact that interpretation of the foundational texts is human in nature which Muslims in time elevated as divine laws. The founding jurists of the Sunni school themselves never claimed divine inspiration. Social changes and political circumstances of their times influenced their interpretations. For example, a founding jurist like Malik of Medina who died in 795 did not live among non-Muslims because there were none in Medina where he lived or non-Muslims had converted to Islam. This was not the case for Abu Hanifa of Baghdad (d. 770).

Qutb, the key figure of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) of Egypt, was born in a village with a mixed Muslim and Christian population. He had a Western style elementary education in his village and continued his education in Cairo. His highest formal education was from the teacher-training institute of Dar al-Ulum in Cairo in 1934.

He began writing at the age of 19 when he worked for a newspaper in Cairo. His work mostly comprised of literary criticism, poetry, novels and articles dealing with political, social and intellectual reform. He was arrested and imprisoned several times in Egypt.

His last book, Ma'alim fi al-tariq (Milestones) was written and published in 1964 when Qutb was in jail. In Milestones, Qutb rallied against 'jahiliyya' that is the condition of any place or society where opposition and transgression dominate over freedom, justice and equality. He died for his writing, his political affiliations and the following he commanded. Nasser who ordered Qutb's death was Qutb's revolutionary friend in a coup d'etat of 1952.

Ghannushi studied philosophy at the University of Damascus (1968). He spent a year in the Sorbonne in France. He was imprisoned by Bourguiba in Tunisia twice in 1984 and 1987, for attempting "to reform 'secular' Tunisian society on the basis of Islamic values and principles". He saw the tension in Tunisia as a political conflict between the people and the rulers "who have turned the state into a tool for repression". He was served with a life sentence in 1987 but was released. He sought asylum subsequently after living in Europe as a political exile.

Both Qutb and Ghannushi viewed justice (adl) as the basis of citizenship rights. The main objectives or the core ideas of Islam is the establishment of a just society or just order. Both quoted extensively from the Qur'an for this premise. There is no limit to the means of achieving justice. The means are renewable and developable in step with the development of social conditions and human achievement. Justice can be achieved regardless of religious affiliation.

Both appear to support a general rule that appointments to public office in a Sharia state should be on the basis of expertise and qualifications. However, the position of the country's leader is considered a 'religious' position and is reserved for a Muslim (and I suppose a Muslim male although both did not specify gender); equal but not the same rule?

For readers who are vaguely informed of the views of these two scholars, I have noted a short reference to both at the end of this article. The two preceding paragraphs summarise their positions. For the record, Qutb cites 114 verses and 23 hadiths (reported sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) and I have lost count on the number of Ghannushi's text references.

As a Muslim and a human rights activist, I am quite sceptical of the continuous regurgitation of pious platitudes. We should be more concerned as to why ideas of equal citizenship (or freedom of conscience and religion) do not seem to be realised in some 40 Muslim majority countries worldwide claiming to be secular, claiming Islamic governance or the Sharia state. We cannot blame the scholars (and I mean scholars who are engaged in the debate and not the kind on both sides of the divide who are content with name-calling), who do not claim divinity in any case. Their scholarship represents their views in the light of their particular political and social conditions.

Pluralistic political community

Our non-Muslim fellow (equal) citizens may claim that they may have similar or more persuasive notions of justice founded in their religious or philosophical beliefs. If we share common values on a range of issues, should the notion of religion or one particular religion over others, matter for law and policy purposes?

An Naim would probably say this is where civil society should redefine the nature and application of secularism in a nation-state. Secularism, he argues, is a principle of public policy for organising the relationship of religion, state and society to ensure governance, pluralism, stability and development. Secularism has evolved as the means for ensuring the possibility of pluralistic political community among different religious communities.

An Naim opines that secularism as a public policy principle has the ability to safeguard political pluralism, despite differences in the understanding and application of the principle under various regimes of government. How that is achieved is a product of a contextual negotiation.

Human rights and secularism are needed to encourage and facilitate internal transformation within religious traditions in order to overcome religious- based objections or reservations about human rights standards or secular principles. Freedom of religion or belief is an important human right in itself. Secularism alone is insufficient for political stability.

"Religion has certainly been at least as destructive as purely secular foundation of political community throughout human history and in all parts of the world."

The proposed tripartite relationship between human rights, religion and secularism is intended to supplement the minimal normative content of secularism as the necessary basis of national and global pluralism of political communities.

The objective is to emphasise the need for synergy and interdependence among religion, human rights and secularism "in order to guard against the risks of religious as well as secular authoritarianism and oppression." In addition this tripartite relationship seeks to enhance the positive value of each of these three paradigms for its own rationale by mediating the tension between them.

Khaled Abou El-Fadl who teaches law at the University of California, identify human rights as the most formidable moral challenge confronting Islam in the modern age. This is not because Islam is prone to causing or inducing behaviour that violates human rights.

The plague facing Muslims

The cause, according to El Fadl, relates to the political realities that have plagued Muslims. This include the hegemonic power of the West, the destruction of traditional institutions of authority and learning in most Muslim polities, colonialism, the persistence of highly despotic governments, Western hypocrisy in human rights and the rise and spread of supremacist exceptionalism in modern Islam.

Muslims should re-imagine their religious covenant which defines the obligations and entitlements of human beings in order to centralise the imperative of human rights.

"The idea of a limited government in Islam is as effective as the constraints and limitations that the subjective interpreter is willing to place upon such a government. In other words, the Sharia, or the Islamic text is not in and an end of itself a sufficient guarantee of human rights".

"Unless the conception of government is founded around core moral vales about the normative purpose of the Sharia and unless there is a process that limits the ability of government to violate those core moral values, the idea of a government bound by Sharia remains vague".

El Fadl is one of many contemporary scholars arguing that any law made by the state, regardless of its origins and basis, is 'pure law' and is not sacred. States do not make religious laws. What is being enforced is not "God's law". Being state law, it can be re-thought, deconstructed and re-developed.

"As long as the law relies on the subjective agency of the state for its articulation and enforcement, any law enforced by the state is necessarily not God's law. Otherwise, we must be willing to admit that the failure of the law of the state is, in fact, the failure of God's law and, ultimately, God himself. In Islamic theology, this possibility cannot be entertained."

This acceptance and realisation by Muslims, according to El Fadl, will represent a major advancement in the attempt to justify a paradigm of human rights in Islam.

References:

An Naim, Abdullahi A. (2004), The Future of the Shari'ah Project (a work in progress) Manuscript with author.

An Naim, Abdullahi A. (2003), " The Synergy and Interdependence of Human Rights, Religion and Secularism", Joseph Runzo et.al (eds), Human Rights and Responsibilities in the World Religions. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. For the purposes of this column, I am referring to a later version of this article with the author.

El-Fadl, Khaled A. (2003), " The Human Rights Commitment in Modern Islam", Joseph Runzo et.al (eds), Human Rights and Responsibilities in the World Religions. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications.

Sayed Khatab (2002), "Citizenship Rights of Non- Muslims in the Islamic State of Hakimiyya espoused by Sayyid Qutb", Islam and Christian-Muslim relations. Vol. 13. No. 2. p. 163

Saeed, Abdullah (1999), " Rethinking Citizenship Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State: Rashid al-Ghannushi's contribution to the evolving debate", Islam and Christian-Muslim relations. Vol. 10. No. 3. p. 307