In a letter believed to be from Osama bin Laden, and made public by al Jazeera, the Qatar-based TV network on Thursday, the West's most wanted man referred to "the crusader war against Islam." The world was now in two camps, he wrote, the one under the banner of the cross, and another under the banner of Islam. Yet the American and British Governments have been at some pains to insist that the war is not a war against Islam, but a war against terrorism.

So who is right? Well, both of them are right in a sense, although bin Laden only partly so. President Bush's misplaced use of the word 'crusade' notwithstanding, Osama bin Laden is not fighting Christianity; he is, however, fighting the West in its secular manifestation, and he is fighting on behalf of his faith, no matter what he conceives the tenets of that faith to be. As for the West, it perceives terrorism in non-religious terms, partly because it recognizes that bin Laden does not speak for all Muslims - not even for the majority - but more particularly because of the relationship of religion to the state in liberal democracies.

The gap in how the two sides perceive the struggle is explained by the fact that in general terms, Islamic societies have not carved out a secular sphere separate and distinct from a religious sphere. In principle, at least, the Islamic state is a theocratic state, and the law of the land should be the Sharia, i.e. religious law. It follows that in principle, at least, there is no dichotomy between the political and the religious, and historically speaking even where there was political dissent in Moslem societies, it expressed itself in a religious form. It is not for propaganda effect, therefore, that bin Laden's condemnation of the United States is couched in religious terminology; America, in his mental configuration of the world, is indeed the land of 'infidels.'

This does not mean to say that nowadays there are not some states with majority Muslim populations which are not secular. The classic case is Turkey, forced to secularize in the 1920s by Kemal Attaturk, whose structural reforms have survived him and appear entrenched. Many of the other secular states, in contrast, are probably a good deal less confident about their future form. The possibility always lurks that as with Algeria, which held a truly democratic election, the voters will return a fundamentalist party to power which seeks to abolish the very system which brought it to office. (In that particular instance the military overturned the election.)

To give another example, there is the case of Egypt, secularized by Gamal Abdel Nasser between 1956 and 1970. He espoused socialism, Pan-Arabism and the principle of 'Third World' unity, but this notwithstanding, neither Nasser nor his successors were or are democrats in the true sense. As it is, Egypt's Islamic fundamentalist opposition, in addition to terrorist acts at home, has supplied some of the brains and the brawn of the al Qaeda network.

The Western nations, in contrast, have been secular for many centuries, and are in no danger of being undermined or taken over by any Christian fundamentalist group, for example. Over time Western thought evolved along secular lines, divorced from the theological framework in which it had its genesis. When the West faces bin Laden, therefore, it feels it is defending the all too secular values associated with the modern liberal society such as democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and, yes, freedom of religion - all religions, not any one in particular.

It is, in short, the open society versus the closed one.

And bin Laden's vision, like that of the Taleban who are allied with him, is truly closed. Many of the latter are the products of the Pakistani madrassahs, which carry messages of hate for Jews on their walls, and whose students are brainwashed, not educated. No mathematics or literature teaching there, even although it was the Muslim world which gave the West its Arabic numerals, and introduced it to algebra. There will be no exposure to the history of Islamic society detailing the remarkable cultural achievements of the Ummayyad and Abbasid empires, and outlining the contributions of earlier Muslim scholars, some of whom influenced Western thought. The madrassah students will never learn about ibn Khaldun, a pioneer in the philosophy of history whose extraordinary work is currently enjoying a renaissance in the West. Had the Taleban met ibn Khaldun, they no doubt would have burnt his works and then measured his beard.

Despite the statements by highly respected Muslim clerics from various countries insisting that bin Laden's view of Islam is entirely misconceived, Muslim demonstrators from Indonesia to Nigeria to Pakistan have still elevated him to hero status. Whether they would actually choose to live under Taleban-style government or not, or would subscribe to bin Laden's notions of Islam or not, they have implicitly accepted the contention that the action in Afghanistan is an attack on their faith. To quote Mr Abdul Haq, the spokesman for a British radical Muslim group, there is but one Muslim nation "to the exclusion of all others," and Muslims have only one allegiance. No nation-state concept there.

And as for those millions of Muslims, who may very well disagree with American actions in Afghanistan, but who regard Osama bin Laden's views as totally unrepresentative of their faith - their voices are not yet rising above the clamour. Not even in Guyana. At the moment, it is Mr bin Laden who has the Muslim floor.

The fundamental secular freedoms which underpin the modern state represent the future direction of the world, even for Muslim nations and secular countries with majority Muslim populations. Independently of whether the United States has adopted the right strategy in confronting 'terrorism' or not, its preparedness to defend the principles associated with liberal democracy is certainly and undeniably right.

Mr bin Laden's is not the voice of the future. It is not a voice of hope, or respect for all peoples - let alone if those peoples happen to be female. It is not a voice concerned with human development in all its aspects, or appreciation for the variety of cultures in the world. It is most of all, not a voice of freedom or tolerance or understanding. It is, quite simply, a voice of oppression.