So Xinjiang in on the Western news again. In the last few days, articles have appeared at Reuters, Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, to name just a few…
Here is an excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor:
The worst violence in the Chinese province of Xinjiang in many months erupted earlier this week between ethnic Uighur Muslims and Chinese police, as the Holy Month of Ramadan began.
Between 18 and 30 people were killed and more injured in an attack on a police checkpoint in Kashgar, an ancient Muslim city along the storied Silk Road through Central Asia.
A Radio Free Asia dispatch corroborated by the New York Times says that the incident happened on Monday. A car driven by Uighurs refused to stop at a checkpoint, then backed up hitting a police officer and breaking his leg. Two people emerged from the car and stabbed unarmed traffic police, at which point other assailants joined in what became a larger fray.
RFA quotes a local policeman Turghun Memet, saying:
By the time armed police reached the scene, three more suspects had arrived by sidecar motorcycle and attacked the checkpoint and police cars with explosives, killing one regular police officer, another traffic policeman and one auxiliary officer… At that point, our [armed officers] arrived and killed 15 suspects we designated as terrorists.
The Times writes that:
A police officer, who did not give his name because he was not permitted to talk to foreign news organizations, confirmed [the clash] and sent a photo of a document, which he said was a police notice…It said that 15 attackers and two police officers had been killed and that the police had seized more than 100 firebombs, seven explosive devices and three large knives.
Relations are tense between Xinjiang’s 40 percent ethnic Uighur population and Chinese authorities. Turkic-speaking Uighurs accuse Beijing of making them second class citizens and of efforts to strip them of their cultural identity, and of repression and policies hostile to their faith of Islam.
Last fall a prominent Uighur scholar, Ilham Tohti, was arrested and later sentenced to life in prison. Human rights organizations objected that Mr. Tohti was a moderate who had tried to bridge differences and create dialogue.
It’s unclear what spurred Monday’s attack, which wasn’t reported in China’s official media. But it comes amid a series of prohibitions and official strictures on Muslim behavior during Ramadan.
In recent weeks, reports Pakistan Today, Uighur officials and community leaders were asked to take an oath not to fast, part of the religious requirement for devout Muslims. And restaurant owners in Xinjiang were told to keep their establishments open all day or face visits by government inspectors.
In recent days, [Chinese] state media and government websites in Xinjiang have published stories and official notices demanding that party members, civil servants, students and teachers in particular do not observe [Ramadan] something that happened last year too.
One “government worker” in Xinjiang told RFA, a US government-funded news service, that the latest attacks were correlated with Ramadan because of laws in the locality that apparently forbid children and youth under 18 from joining any formal religious observance.
“I think this is the first reaction to this year’s Ramadan restrictions,” he said. “If such restrictions were implemented in other parts of the [Muslim] world, they would have led to bloody incidents on a mass scale, but we Uyghurs are a defenseless and helpless people and this is the reaction.”
The narrative – as it’s been the case all to often – is of bad old China suppressing another hapless minority.
I have never been to Xinjiang nor do I have any special privileged information to the region. However, from what I read (including linked articles above as well as articles such as this from the Daily Sabah), I know information as perpetrated cannot be but distorted and biased and want to take the opportunity to shed some light on interpreting spotty information.
In particular I want to focus on the accusation that the Chinese government is oppressing Uighur’s cultural and religious identity … and the presumption that the Chinese only have themselves to blame for pushing certain Uighurs to rebel.
Beards and Scarfs
Consider for example the many reports that Muslims men are forbidden from wearing beards and women from wearing scarfs in Xinjiang. These are presented as self-evidence facts of religious and/or cultural oppressions.
The facts on the ground however is much more nuanced. The Chinese government has not “banned” all beards, for example: only the more non-traditional (complete untrimmed facial beard), and not the traditional beards wore by Uighurs. The non-traditional form of beard has been recently brought in from other Muslim nations and is often associated with areas under Sharia Law. The Chinese government has traditionally not cared one way or the other about what beard Uighurs wore, but recently – i.e. in the last couple of years – it has gotten into “regulating” these type of beards … primarily because these beards have taken on a political meaning.
Similar things have occurred for headscarf wore by women. The traditional headscarf wore by Uighurs in Xinjiang are not banned, only the non-traditional headscarf brought from other Muslim nations that have taken on – in the eyes of local officials – political overtones.
It is well known that in France and other countries throughout Europe Muslim head veils are banned. While that practice is not without controversy, it is not deemed per se a suppression of religion or personal freedom. Many people accept the proposition that head veils in Europe has taken on such political meaning that displaying it openly in public can be too oppressive on the public and is incompatible with an open civic atmosphere not tied to any religion.
But when the Chinese government takes a similar stance, they are categorically denounced as oppressive tyrants. Even if one suspects that some Chinese officials are using people’s fear of Islam as a pretext for suppressing Islam, it still doesn’t excuse the wholesale discounting of the official Chinese perspective and categorical one-sided rants of the Chinese tyrants suppressing Uighur customs and/or religion.
Halal Food
There have also been other accusations such as that Chinese government forcing Uighur stores to sell all types of food, not just “halal” food (see, e.g., Daily Sabah article linked above). These facts too are reported as self-evident facts of oppression. Reality too again is more nuanced.
“Halal” foods are food products that are deemed permissible to eaten by Muslims under a broad set of Islamic guidelines. The notion is similar to the concept of “Kosher” food under the Jewish faith. In practice though, because of the broad nature of these traditional guidelines, and the application of what is “Kosher” or “halal” in modern society depends not on some objective criteria, but on whether some food had been “certified” by a certain local Rabbi or Imam or religious institution.
When Chinese government looks at an entire neighborhood where Uighurs are the main constituencies, I can see their predicament. What do you do when all stores refuse to sell a wide range of foods or sell only a narrow range of food? What do you do when a local Imam or temple gains sufficient power to dictate what produce is sell in the local markets?
When a religious majority get to control the local economy, I can see why local officials – depending on the local circumstances – may become concerned about stores only “halal” products or refusing to sell any but “halal” products, the idea being that the local Imam – however revered – should never, for example, replace the health ministry.
Are regulations prohibiting types of stores in certain locales from selling “halal” only products per se an infringement of religion?
In the U.S., there are “Scientology” practitioners who believe that God is living and will heal all believers and thus would refuse and withhold medical treatment for themselves as well as their children. However, no matter how deeply some people may believe in “faith healing,” no one accuses the government of suppressing religion in prescribing minimum and “reasonable” medical responsibilities on its citizens, Scientology practitioner or not.
Something similar is going on with the Chinese government in Xinjiang.
Public Praying and Fasting
There has also been reports that the Chinese has banned Uighurs from praying and fasting and that food places are required to remain open during Ramadan. Again, these facts too are reported as self-evident facts of oppression.
But the truth is that the government has only banned praying and fasting in certain public places – such as government offices and schools – and only in certain locales (i.e. not blanket across all of Xinjiang), and only recently (i.e. the last few years).
Throughout most of PRC’s history, the government has never had any problems with Uighurs praying or fasting … in their homes or in public. The basis of the recent bans – including those requiring stores in certain locales to be open during Ramadan – arise yet again from the political overtones public praying have taken recently in some areas of China. It is a shame that certain elements of Islam and hence Uighur culture has been politicized by radical groups such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. It is not unlike what the Dalai Lama has done with Tibetan culture … politicizing it and using it as a basis for separatist ideology and movement.
Yet none of this context is ever evoked in recent International reporting of Xinjiang (or Tibet…). Everyone points a figure at the government, crying suppression of religion or culture.
To simply report any “regulations” on religious or culturally motivated acts as intrusions of the “state” is a gross biased representation of facts on the ground. Such reporting completely ignores the possibility that for many in China, it is religion that has grossly intruded into the sphere of the State, that has unbecomingly hijacked the civic life of China, that is threatening the very notion of what it is to be China. International reporting of Xinjiang today deafeningly ignores the white elephant in the room that is political Islam, of the role they should play in “modern” society – communist or not.
Political Islam
The topic of the role of politics for Islam is beyond the scope of this post. I will not do the dis-service of caricaturing the issues by pigeon-holing the topic in terms of noble-deafening ideals of “separation of church and state” or “freedom of religion.” But it is a vast gross stretching of the truth to accuse the Chinese government of “politicizing” Islam in Xinjiang (see e.g. again links above). Political Islam is a global phenomenon rooted in a long tradition. The phenomenon would have arisen – and threatened China – even if the Chinese government had chosen to do nothing to counter such movements.
China has some 140 million Muslims. Most of them – including Uighurs – have traditionally practiced “moderate” forms of Islam where Islam is not too politicized (despite some commentators’ argument that Islam has always been more about politics than religion). With the global politicization of Islam, China – and the broader world – is still trying to balance – even as it modernizes – the role the party, religion, and individual citizens play in modern China.
Whatever the balances are ultimately struck in each locale, there will need to be many more discussions … in China – yes – but also throughout the Middle East, S. Asia, Europe, Africa,, Russia, and even the Americas. I hope this post has re-opened doors of discussions that so many others have previously slammed shut.
hahaha says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgBxuPnfgUE
there is some kinda corruption with halal food in china.
imam would only call halal food if the animal are slaughter by imam.
so what happen this meat are more expensive and give the imam more power and money. i wise chinese goverment ban halal food make by imam. why most of these imam have no idea how to slaughter an animal. and cost animal suvering. also making local butcher out of jobs. there job is at the moskee not in the slaughter house.
N.M.Cheung says
With the violence of ISIS spreading from Europe to Tunisia and Kuwait, I don’t think Xinjiang is very much in the news as U.S. has much less sympathy toward Muslims in general. I do think Chinese government policy is changing toward a hardline stance against the Uighurs. The problem is partly the fault of the old policy of ignore and neglect. The local officials avoid any friction and coddling to sweep problems under the rug. As Han Chinese felt government was favoring the Uighurs at their expense. The economic reforms and the coming of internet increases the mixing of people and sharpen the conflicts. The new policy of force and investment will gradually erode the attraction of those extremists, but meanwhile some violence are inevitable.
Allen says
Normal government regulation or religious suppression: Per NYT – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/us/a-church-of-cannabis-tests-limits-of-religious-law-in-indiana.html.
Can government prohibit “churches” that uses marijuana as part of its services? Do government have a legitimate “health” concern about marijuana use? Do churches have a legitimate “religious” right to use marijuana?
Or how about: can government prohibit “churches” from rejecting gays and lesbians from its services? Do churches have a legitimate “religious” right to preach that being gays and lesbians is fundamentally wrong?
We are just talking about “social” issues here … we haven’t touched on churches that cause a “national security” issue …. Or that intrinsically pose an existential threat to a nation…
Allen says
As a point of reference, here is an NPR report on how French Law ‘Laicite’ Restricts Muslim Religious Expression.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/04/390757722/french-law-laicite-restricts-muslim-religious-expression
Allen says
As yet another point of reference, here are two recent stories on the political side halal meat in France.
1. http://www.thelocal.fr/20140723/french-prison-will-not-be-forced-to-serve-halal-meat
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-france-halal-meat-drama-enters-election-campaign/2012/03/06/gIQA6gN1uR_story.html
Allen says
Finally, an NPR story just yesterday trying to put a good spin on how Muslims in French school might feel their freedom of expression are more suppressed than ever before….
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/02/419246113/in-secular-french-schools-one-group-wants-to-talk-religion
Allen says
The point of my previous three comments is not to “detract” or “distract”.
In my ways, I don’t care the sh*t about what happens in France. But given that the West is drunk in the notion that it – including France – is “free” and does not “oppress” – I want to use the above stories for people to reflect: is there really a “right” answer? Is there per se suppression or per se no suppression in France?
Then … using similar logic for Xinjiang … can we really give a per se answer for the Chinese practices in Xinjiang?
Ray says
There’s a catch though, the Muslim immigrants to France are portrayed as stubbornly refusing to adopt the way of the host country.
In China, pretty much all stories related to the Western Region (the original name of Xinjiang which was known for nearly two thousand years in history) portrayed the Uighur Chinese as the natives braving assimilation by other immigrating Chinese.
However, you raise a good point though. In the west, separation of religion and state is called secularism, which is good. In China, it is called suppression of religious freedom which is bad.
The number of mosque in Xinjiang also increased from 9,000 to 25,000 between 1984 and 2009.
http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/17/content_2761116.htm
Also China is home to some of the oldest mosques in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_China
On a side note, after the surrender of Japan, mosques also started being built on Taiwan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_Taiwan
Here are a couple of famous Nationalist generals who are Muslim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Chongxi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Bufang
Allen says
Good point.
The narrative of Han invading Xinjiang is historically inaccurate … and of Xinjiang as the homeland of the Uighurs is also inaccurate. It is a land where many different peoples met. I don’t think any group can claim it as an exclusive homeland. I don’t think if it’s just a perception, but the recent narrative seem to focus more on “suppression of freedom” rather than some sort of “illegal occupation.”
As far as “freedom” is concerned, I don’t think history plays much of a role.
I mean, we really want to make history as part of “freedom” issue, then what about the U.S. It is clear that the U.S. as we know it today is a foreign entity that took over the traditional land from traditional people. Does freedom in the U.S. mean that the traditional native people get extra attention, extra freedom…
I don’t think liberty as we understand it depends on history at all…
Except, of course, as applied to China…, which may be your point after all!
Allen says
Going back to the issue about whether “freedom” for a group depends on who is there first, the more I think about, the more I am convinced that it cannot.
If it does, in France, then all they have to say to the Muslims is that hey, Christianity came first, so you butt out.
A realist may chuckle and say … well, this is the hidden reality!
But if one must go with this logic, then why go with the pretense of freedom. Why not just say, ok there is a Christian norm here, and a Muslim norm must be subservient to the Christian norm and be done with. Why invoke freedom at all?
Ray says
Yes, what you said on the history of Xinjiang is true but it still doesn’t discourage many MSM from portraying an invasion of the Han Chinese. As for “freedom” in the western sense it might well be defined as the freedom of the strong to do to the weak. Affirmative action has always been a political tool and it is not about freedom or equality. The sorry state of the First Nation people in the US, Canada, Australia etc is proof that if it is symbolically implemented it could do more harm than good. Is it a coincidence that native people in those countries have life expectancy that is a couple decade lower than national average due to extreme high rate of substance abuse?
In Switzerland, they have enacted a building code disallowing certain type of building style to be constructed. It is mostly against Middle Eastern mosque style building. The argument used is that it is against the ‘historical tradition” of the country. Which basically is what many so-called nationalist or right leaning group is about. They are very outspoken against the so-called multiculturalism policy of accepting immigrants from all over the world.
When you speak about Christian norm, what about pagan norm. Paganism was in Europe first isn’t it? So basically it is a shell argument. There is no absolute freedom, every country draw a line somewhere. As to what kind of freedom one gets, it is down to the society acceptance. Every long time resident of China realized that the average citizen doesn’t lack “freedom” compare to its European counterparts. In some ways, the norm is the same, some not that much and others quite a world of difference. Even if we are talking of Christian norm, what denomination norm should we follow?
That’s why I feel China is ahead in this area, pragmatism trounced the hollow discussion of so-called freedom and democracy. If we cloak all argument under the freedom vs autocracy then China would still be stuck in the Anti-Right movement of the 1950s or anarchy of CR. What works for a society might not be good for a certain group of people but many times hard decision has to be made. We see hard decision being made all over the world. For example, if the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is simply being debated on merit, on how it would benefit the world, it probably would not have happened. Same with Korea, Vietnam and other intervention. However, if the discussion is cloak under false pretense of freedom, human rights etc than the one with so-called moral high ground would always win the argument.
I think I have wandered too far and I will get back to the simple basic. Let’s focus on dress code and religious observation. For dress code, the argument of freedom vs religion is actually false. For example, a Punjabi man wearing a turban, a monk wearing a robe, should it be banned? Burqa is banned because its detractors say it is demeaning to women, and possibly a good disguise for terrorist. However, if freedom is used as an argument, it is anything goes! So if a women or men decided to cover themselves up, it is against freedom if any law is to ban that. What about going topless for women? How short is a mini skirt considered too short? Can swim wear be wear in the street? You see, freedom simply cannot be used as argument for dress code. The Indian army allows beard but most European military does not allow that. If dress code is argue under reality on the ground and practicality then it would make more sense.
As for religious observation, should a civil servant on public pay observed the Ramadan fast? Or is it more proper if that person want to practice it take an unpaid holidays and do it on his own time? What about children, is it appropriate for them to be taken to place of religious worship?
Ray says
Here are some new update.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/05/us-china-turkey-idUSKCN0PF08L20150705
http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/turks-attack-koreans-by-mistake-during-anti-china-protest
Charles Liu says
I for one did not know Eid is a paid holiday for Muslim minority in China:
http://www.bjethnic.gov.cn/xinwenzhongxin/gsgg/20150703/2374.shtml
Here, Beijing Ethnic Affairs Commission announcement, noting the allowance of religious holiday and comp time for those who work on Eid, for involved minorities.
Allen says
Two recent stories are worth mentioning, both relating to “political Islam” around the world.
Again, the issue is not that “political Islam” is good or bad per se, but to duly acknowledge its existence around the world, including in China. Given that it is “political”, regulation of it is per se not a violation of “human rights.” Whether such regulation is “good” or “bad” depends on analysis of policy, not on narrow red lines such as – hey they “banned that beard”!
The “threat” from political Islam to China emanates everywhere, including from nations such as Turkey, who are supposedly to be warm toward China…
1. http://atimes.com/2015/07/passports-for-uyghurs-story-shadows-turkeys-relations-with-prc/
2. http://www.wsj.com/articles/fears-grow-over-islamic-states-influence-in-southeast-asia-1437106924