A number of contributions to the debate have been primarily preoccupied with the religious legitimization, and re-appropriation of a prevailing humanist position. Apologetic, at times, they emphasized the claim on behalf of religion that human rights are firmly grounded in the basic tenets of faith. In this context, little attention was paid to eliciting the difference between religious understanding and the secular-humanist approach.

Other contributions were meant to propose an alternative discourse on human rights, which stems from questioning reason as a source of law and upholding forcefully the primacy of revelation.

The human rights debate could not be facilitated by the existing confusion between asserting universally normative ethical values and the motives of political power. Nor could it achieve much progress in the context of conflicting hierarchies of rights and the opposition between the self-proclaimed universalist outlook and that which is depicted as culturalist and relativist.

Evidently, there are diverging opinions on the centrality or pre-eminence of civil and political rights of individuals over the rights of communities, including that of self-determination.

For its part, the disagreement over universality and relativity is marked by two equally-founded mutual criticisms.

On the one hand, the well-known double standard of many Western governments revealed in the selective advocacy of human rights functions as a means to consolidate the supremacy of powerful nations. Many countries in the South express a widespread resentment as they accuse Western governments of using human rights monitoring as a pressure tactic to interfere with and weaken unfriendly regimes while human rights abuses in friendly countries are not exposed.

On the other hand, the principles of national sovereignty and the right to cultural and religious difference is, in many instances, invoked in a way that conceals, or even justifies, despotism and repression in many countries of the South.

Moreover, and on a more specific note, the advocacy of human rights, especially those of minorities often approached from the angle of religious freedom, functions as a weapon of a religious community against another. On this question, a number of Christians and Muslims have worked together towards a common perspective, in the hope that it opens the way for effective collaboration.

The recent campaign against persecution of Christians in the Muslim world was examined as a critical case is point. The following reflections emerged from this Christian-Muslim examination.

The Western campaign, the proposed legislation in the USA, and the finger-pointing to countries and communities, is frequently depicted as a "crusade" and more often than not reactivates historical memories with their many unhealed wounds. It must be feared that it increasingly provokes general distrust between Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Westerners.

There are strong reasons to express anxiety when one sees the "crusade" impact negatively on Christian-Muslim relations in many countries, especially in Egypt. Notwithstanding all efforts in those countries which uphold co-citizenship and common national identity for people of different faiths, it would be naive to overlook the serious risk of a recurring Muslim perception of Christians as "aliens at home," local extensions of "Christendom," minorities protected and "used" by the West, in line with the old pattern of divide et impera.

Many people in the Middle East, including the small minority that is supportive or appreciative of the campaign, argue that the primary driving force and determinant in the condemnation of certain countries are political positions towards certain governments.

The de facto hierarchy established between countries and at times re-ordered, does not correspond to their comparative records of religious persecution as much as it reflects the considerations of political expediency.

It is true, however, that there are forces in the West, religious and political, which try to deal with the issue of religious persecution in a way ensuring that concern for human rights, including religious freedom, takes precedence over ideological and political motivations. We are aware that such forces underline that the defense of religious freedom is indivisible, no matter who the victims or the perpetrators of its violation are.

But the punitive logic which is increasingly invited does not promote tolerance, mutual trust and interreligious harmony. In most cases, it does not help the victims of persecution, which it claims to help. A logic of empowerment of the victims, a strategy of prevention through consciousness-raising, dialogue and inter-religious cooperation, is more effective.

Christians in many Arab and predominantly Muslim countries face a number of problems, most of which are of social, economic and political nature. These problems affect Muslims and Christians alike, but for the latter they are exacerbated by their dwindling numbers, the erosion of their influence in public life and their growing anxiety for the future of their children. A great number of Muslims are becoming increasingly aware that the predicament of Christians points to a global societal crisis. Dialogue and cooperation between Muslims and Christians, at various levels of shared living, need to be intensified in order to address the problems. An impediment of such relationship imperils the chances of improving the situation of Christians.

There are situations where Christians are targets of sectarian violence or victims of fanaticism and bigotry. But this is much less a consequence of discriminatory government policies than an expression of social prejudice or political strategies of radical opposition groups.

Freedom of belief and worship -- strictu sensu, guaranteed by law in most Muslim countries -- is not in serious jeopardy. Freedom of conscience, and more particularly the right of conversion from Islam, is problematic. While most countries do not enforce, by law and practice, the prescribed capital punishment of apostasy (hadd al riddah), conversion from Islam is quite often not tolerated socially. Such intolerance has taken, in a number of cases, extreme forms of violence. There have been cases where converts from Islam were not only discriminated against and harassed, but were subjected to legal sanctions on the grounds of disturbance of civil peace, social order or inter-communal harmony.

A re-examination of the meaning of apostasy, starting from a contextual-historical approach, as well as the reaffirmation of the right of belief (and unbelief), on the basis of the Quranic injunction "no compulsion in religion" and the Tradition of the Prophet (al Hadith), is on the agenda of Muslim-Muslim and Muslim-Christian discussions.

Be that as it may, the right to enjoy full freedom in carrying out evangelistic activities needs to be examined sensitively. The reference to evangelization evokes a painful history, in some cases continuing practices that are frequently denounced by Muslims and Eastern Christians who have seen foreign missionary activity in the context of a colonial and hegemonic design. They continue to perceive proselytism as a violation of religious freedom.

Dr Tarek Mitri is on the staff of the WCC and responsible for Christian-Muslim relations.