Aspecto Judicial

Identity cannot be bound to territory, especially in the contemporary era where events like the ‘war on terror’ transcend national territories and inform global notions of threat and risk. Although Naussbaum (1994 cited in Khatib, 2003) states that globalization has led to questions regarding the significance of the nation, the role of the state remains of upmost importance given that it is primarily through the state that citizenship and thus legal rights are enacted. However, it could be argued that globalization has made cosmopolitanism a more useful perspective.

According to Kaldor (2003), globalization is a process which includes exclusion, fragmentation and homogenization and integration, interconnectedness and diversity. Kaldor (2003) goes further in arguing that since the loss of legitimacy by post colonial states many wars have been fought in the name of establishing political identity so that power can be achieved. In the contemporary era identity has become

36

of global significance and through the need to establish power global identities have come to represent a growing source of exclusion – to the extent that differences of identity have been used to legitimise exclusion and war. The existence of identity as causes of war has led Young (2003, p.390) to argue that ‘not only are there strong parallels between the dynamics of crime and the desire to punish, but that there are close similarities between violence associated with ‘common’ criminality and the violence of war and terrorism’. In both cases labels of identity act to exclude, perpetuate injustice and lead to acts of oppression and aggression. Kaldor (2000) remarks on how social formations which exclude on the basis of identity are of a transitional nature meaning that on the basis of identity one can be an outsider in their own national territory in which they are a citizen but also an outsider beyond their national territory and this is a defining feature of new wars. In this way it is possible to appreciate Gilroy’s use of the word diaspora – Hudson states

‘Gilroy suggests diaspora as a concept that better represents identity in the world. He talks of diaspora, not in the usual sense of the great dispersals of peoples who share ethnicity, culture and history (such as a Jewish diaspora or an African diaspora), but in the sense of a diffused experience and understanding of identity’ (Hudson, 2008, p.280).

Given that exclusion and injustice are prevalent in the nation state and beyond, it is possible to comprehend how they can act to unite understandings of identity and experiences between individuals that do not share citizenship to the same country but share a religious identity.

37

The ‘war on terror’ has accelerated the rate at which experiences and understandings of identity are shared between Muslims. As Bosworth, Bowling and Lee (2008, p.263) argue the ‘new’ security agenda of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism ‘has become seen as the ‘dark side’ of globalization linking migration to crime, smuggling, terrorism and the policy issues of ‘law and order’ across the globe’. The ‘war on terror’ has accelerated the need for global harmony, tightened the negative discourses associated with Muslims’ Islamic identity and impacted Muslims’ own perceptions of unity. The use of cosmopolitanism can facilitate an understanding of these processes and the umma identity through allowing Muslim citizens to relate their feelings of belonging and attachment to identities beyond the state territory.

The umma represents the global community of Muslims and according to Sadiki (2002, p.49)

‘Islam today is a truly globalised and polycentric community with more than one billion adherents, representing different regions, nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, languages and social classes, and varying degrees of social mobility and literacy’.

Sadiki (2002) argues that the events of September 11th are an example of bad globalization because they have disempowered Muslims. What Sadiki (2002) means, is that the ‘war on terror’ has acted to exclude and marginalize Muslims. Therefore, shared experiences of injustice as based on Islamic identity have unified the umma. The ‘war on terror’ transcends localization and globalization leading to what Ehteshami (1997, p.180 cited in Khatib, 2003, p.392) calls ‘the emotional, spiritual

38

and political response of Muslims to an acute and continuing social, economic and political crisis’. In this way globalization and global events like the ‘war on terror’ do not just lead to a stronger sense of shared identity but also impact emotions and feelings thereby meaning that events across the globe can feel as personal as events that are local. The umma identity can thus be an identity which exacerbates pain but also provides unity. For example, recent research by Hussain and Choudhury (2007) found that amongst British Muslims there has been a shift to a more universal Islam which downplays cultural differences. Therefore, although the umma identity represents a global point of unity for Muslims this is not at the expense of a cosmopolitan identity as one is based on Islam and the other on humanity and human rights. This research will explore the different notions of these global identities and how they interact with Muslims perceptions of citizenship, belonging and unity to both their British and Islamic identity.