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.