Is there a 'Muslim world'?

Over the past few months I've been doing some research into the law of genocide. In law, genocide is considered 'the crime of crimes', so what interests me is how this crime identifies its victims. If genocide is at the apex of criminal acts, then it stands to reason that its victims are at the apex of victimhood. Much of the literature I've read focuses on how to identify membership in one of the 'protected groups' which are based on race, ethnicity, religion and nationality.

Fundamentally genocide is about removing the humanity of the persons deemed worthy of extermination. It is because they are not fully human that these people are not considered worthy of existing alongside the perpetrators of genocide. Hypothetically it is conceivable that someone will try to eradicate a particular group not because they perceive them to be inferior but merely because it is considered 'expedient'. But as far as I am aware, the massive scale that genocide implies always means that contempt for the livelihood of the intended victim far surpasses any 'rational' consideration of expediency. Put another way, in reality, genocide always requires the ritualistic dehumanisation of the victim, typically by contrasting them from the group on whose behalf the genocide is perpetrated. Here, the image of Nazi 'scientists' recording the differences between the size and shape of 'Aryan' and 'non-Aryan' skulls comes to mind.

I hope by now it is clear that any analysis of genocide therefore directs ones attention towards the question of human identity. Recently I was reading a few blogs on Islam and contemporary politics, both by Muslims and by non-Muslims. Given my current intellectual framework has been structured around my research, I began asking myself - what is this Muslim world that people keep referring to?

Now I will refrain from mentioning any blogs by name, if only because it is not useful to single out a few names when there are so many other candidates. Also, I don't wish to target anyone in particular lest this serve to demonise them and divert my message. But one thing that has become clear to me on reading these blogs is that this notion of 'the Muslim world' is largely a fabrication created for the purpose of claiming authority to speak on a particular issue believed to have universal or near-to-universal importance. Let me unpack these assertions.

Mahmood Mamdani spoke about this eloquently when he explained:

cultures do not grow in separate containers called civilizations. The claim that they do should be seen as part of an attempt to politicize culture, to harness culture to a political project.

There are a number of blogs by Muslims, for Muslims, on topics of interest to Muslims. The best of these blogs give a space for the thorniest of topics, topics like homosexuality and women's rights. Yet even most of these blogs tend to omit stories from countries which are predominantly Muslim. For example, I rarely see stories on African countries which are predominantly Muslim, apart from Egypt. I rarely see stories on predominantly Muslim South East Asian countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, on Bangladesh, or predominantly Muslim Central Asian nations. And so on.

I think there is an element of racism in this. Perhaps even an Arab-centric racism, not always practiced by Arab Muslims, which is something of an echo of the period many centuries ago when an ostensibly imperial Islam had imperial ambitions on much of the world known to it (Europe, Asia, Africa). But more than that, I think the main reason is ignorance and expedience. I say ignorance and expedience because I think these two things are linked.

Now I don't believe there is any deep, dark agenda behind this. Not at all. I think it has more to do with the way people, all of us, construct our universalist narratives. When you create a system based on value-statements (like civilisation, good and bad people, etc) it becomes necessary to universalise them. Otherwise these value-statements can become quite meaningless outside the four walls of the room where you chanced upon the ideas in the first place.

The problem in the present situation comes from a fairly ignorant and idealised understanding of what it is to be Muslim. By this I mean that there is an assumption that everything I do as a human I also do as a Muslim. Further, certain cultures are considered to be more representative of Islam than others. Lastly, the people who write about issues of interest to Muslims, and who claim to speak on behalf of Muslims, simply have no frame of reference to deal with issues stemming from the 'periphery' of the Muslim world. It is worth noting here that most of the references I do find on Islam in the periphery focus on things like female genital mutilation or the more oppressive elements of Sharia. In other words, they are wholly negative portrayals which seem to imply that these peoples are somehow less civilised. Of course, it is also important to note that there is no such thing as the periphery of the Muslim world save for the peripheries we construct in our heads.

So it seems that much of the Muslim world is neglected in the coverage of matters of interest to Muslims.

But all of these are just symptoms. They do not represent the root cause. I think the root cause for the relegation of much of the world's Muslim population is the simple fact that there is a lack of meaningful connection between most Muslims. I am not saying there aren't any connections. Of course there are, plenty of them. But these connections are no more powerful than other connections we all have with other people who are not necessarily Muslim (ie we have a relationship with these people and whether or not they are Muslim is not relevant to the relationship). Indeed, usually the connections we have with people have very little to do with religion.

Furthermore, I think our strongest connectons have very little to do with organised religion, but the immediacy of our social borders. Religion does play a role in this. But it is usually the intimate religion of quiet reflection or catching up with friends after Jumma prayers. That there are constant attempts by some who claim to speak with authority to sweep all of us under the one religious tent says a lot for the innate understanding that the authority people derive from organised religion is tenuous and artificial. That is not to say it cannot be very powerful. It often is. But it is also inorganic and needs constantly to be maintained. All forms of hegemony are simultaneously on the brink of destruction and renewal, even if their overall direction is towards assent or decline.

There is much more to say on this topic, but a lack of time precludes me from continuing in much more detail. For the moment, I shall leave you with this. I would suggest that the universalist invocation of 'the Muslim world' serves a political purpose. That purpose may not be an agenda. It may be a statement with political dimensions; a political statement. Whatever it is, it should be understood to be an attempt at speaking with authority that is not in and of itself authoritative. What we learn from such statements should be as much from what these statements do not say as what they do.

I hope there is some food for thought here.