The question is Why? Is this just general oppression or does the Chinese government see a growing threat in the Koran, prayer, and mosque "sermons"? Maybe this is why sharia does not grant dhimmi status to al-mushrikin (idolaters), who must either convert or die: they don't make very good dhimmis.
"China Tightens Rules For Practicing Muslims," from All Headlines, October 19:
(AHN) - The Chinese government is attempting to limit prayer time and areas of worship for practicing Muslims in the northwestern part of the nation, which some see as an effort to control the growth of Islam.Highly edited versions where all violent references to al-mushrikin (polytheists, idolators) and kufara (infidels in general) have been deleted?Posted signs outside some mosques reportedly direct Muslims not to go longer than one half-hour in prayer and also not to pray outside of them, as well.
Khotan residents are also prohibited from worshipping at moques outside of their town, reportedly angering some citizens.
People who are upset with the rules do not express their concerns, however, for fear of retribution from the government.
China's rules on Islam stretch from public into other facets of life, as well, as only official versions of the Quran are acceptable to use and Imams are forbidden from teaching from the book in private.
Government officials have said the measures are necessary to contain forces from inside and outside China from tearing the region apart.Scholars outside the region argue that the tactics being used to stifle Islam could backfire and result in more terrorist groups and activities.
From a previous article on Jihad in China:
"There has never been a major terrorist attack in China, though the suppression of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang, and their dilution by non-Muslim Han, could both be considered acts more dangerous to Islam than anything the governments of Western Europe have done. Might the absence of a response be explained by the understanding that the Chinese government and people, unlike those in the West, would likely respond to any such attacks in a way that would permanently affect the continued existence of Islam in China?
Historically, in Xinjiang, cries of Jihad, as the Englishwoman and missionary Mildred Cable dryly noted in her wonderful "The Gobi," could be heard once every 30 years or so. The last major Muslim Jihad in that region was in 1930; it was bloodily suppressed. Foreign visitors to Xinjiang are always impressed by the superior hygiene of the Uighurs; they pay less attention to the unrest that Islamic tenets prompt. The Uighurs have houses that are neat and clean, the Chinese living cheek-by-jowl, per contra, are very unclean and un-neat. And no doubt the Uighurs have a point. But in the larger scheme of things, which from here on out is all that matters, Infidels have to take the side of Infidels, because in the end, alas, local Muslims with any axe to grind will not be immune to the larger message that Al-Jazeera and a thousand other sources of Muslim propaganda, helpfully translated into local languages, is spreading all over the world.
Outsiders sometimes extend to Muslims the same sympathy that they feel for the Tibetans. But the Tibetans make no claim to any place but Tibet. It is ironic that the destruction of the lamaseries, and of much of Tibetan culture, unique in the world, should be used to support the claims of Muslims, who are intent not on preserving various unique local cultures, but on extending Islam which, wherever it has gone, has actually worked to destroy the artifacts, and the historic memory, of everything non-Islamic.
One should be able to support an independent Tibet and yet support the suppression of any move by Uighurs for greater independence in Xinjiang. They are different things, that only superficially appear to make the same appeal. One situation involves Islam; the other does not. And that makes, as Robert Frost would put it, all the difference.
By all means support an independent Tibet. Tibet deserves independence. But when it comes to Xinjiang, it might be necessary at least for the short term for Infidels simply swallow any scruples and be on the side of China, even ruthless Communist China, imposing the will of the people of Han on the people of Hui, or something like that.
It is an Us-Them situation. That is what those who wish us Infidels ill are taught to believe, or most of them, and that is the way in turn, Infidels, out of self-preservation, must come to see things."
From article: as well, as only official versions of the Quran are acceptable...
Then not to worry, with the official version of the Quran, no one will develop a misunderstanding.
I wonder what the 'official' version looks like. Can you order one on Amazon?
Like Duh Swami, I wonder where could one get it. Ya think the good folks @ Quranbrowser.com will include it in their list of compilations? ;-)
Westerners have been taught to detest the idea of "us versus them". It is deeply offensive to the multicultural mindset, which is an extraordinary achievement for the enforcers of PC, who have placed "us" on the back foot in all matters.
India at Partition was an "us versus them" situation, exacerbated by the purveyors of pacifism. What can this episode teach us? PC teachers might say it can teach us the importance of "tolerance" and "respect for diversity". I would say it teaches us the importance of not being naive about "difference", and the utter fragility of multiculturalism, and to keep Muslims at arm's length, if possible.
We have so much history to draw on in our present situation. But we are wilfully drawing the wrong conclusions.
I'm with Hugh on this one.
On the one hand, I would like to see Western governments steadily and fearlessly pressuring China about its mistreatment and suppression of the Christians (who are NOT seditious, who are thoroughly Chinese in language, culture and loyalties) and all the various gross human rights abuses of dissidents, petitioners, etc., and about its imperial invasion and near-genocidal oppression of the Tibetans (who have every right to be independent - they and their region are geographically, culturally and linguistically distinct from the Flowery Kingdom, and always have been), and its refusal to accept that Taiwan is no longer a *part* of China any more, but a separate country, a *daughter* of China, who has been supporting herself for a good long while now and, indeed, offering a pretty good example (like Singapore) of what a non-communist Chinese polity can be, and become.
The free world could also be putting pressure on China re. its apparent willingness to treat with jihadist regimes such as Sudan and Iran, perpetrators of gross human rights abuses (a rebuke that could be made with much more moral consistency, if our own grovelling and jizya to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt were to cease altogether, first).
But on the other hand: as regards China's attempts to keep the jinn of Jihad firmly inside the bottle, and the lid screwed down tight - *that* should meet with approval.
The Spanish, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, Serbs, Jews, all who have shaken off dhimmitude and rolled back the Empire of Islam, have all had to take severe measures in order to secure themselves.
China's actions are not much different from those taken, in desperation, by the Spanish, in the past. And the Spanish can perhaps advise from out of their own bitter experience: harshness toward Mohammedan jihadists is proper and necessary, but do not make the mistake of confusing your targets - Christians in China are not Muslims and do not need to be suppressed in the same way, just as Jews in Spain were not Moors and should not have been persecuted nor exiled.
Free world governments expressing approval for Chinese suppression of Islam can show, as they do so, that they fully appreciate that Islam presents a real danger; that they know about the previous jihadist uprisings in China, in the 1860s as also in 1930, and the much earlier military assault by Islam, and its repulsion, which is summed up by Serge Trifkovic in Sword of the Prophet, thus (p. 109): "On the eastern front China's T'ang Dynasty saw off the Muslim armies as smartly as Charles Martel".
Behind Mr Trifkovic's laconic sentence lies, I am sure, a story of epic societal and civilisational self-defence that perhaps needs to be unearthed, examined, and shared.
Film-makers, take note. There might be a story there, blood and thunder battles of exotically-costumed warriors in spectacular landscapes - and let's put it this way - if you propose to film on location in China, I don't think you'll have to worry about jihadists making threats. Quite possibly the Chinese authorities would be perfectly happy to let film-makers depict T'ang armies trouncing jihadists and booting them back where they came from.
Let the Chinese know that the courage of their forebears, resisting the advance of the Jihad, is remembered and honoured.
The free world can intimate to the Chinese that we understand the nature of the foe, the music-destroying art-destroying woman-destroying monster which is Jihad and Sharia, and why harsh measures - in the case of that foe, and that foe only - are necessary.
Note the final paragraph in the article:
"Scholars outside the region argue that the tactics being used to stifle Islam could backfire and result in more terrorist groups and activities."
I wonder *which* scholars, exactly? Muslims or non-Muslims?
These 'scholars' are merely giving a version of the same old dhimmi argument that we hear everywhere - don't resist the Muslims' demands, don't criticise them, don't 'offend' them, don't 'profile' them, don't stop Muslims in airports and railway stations and question them, don't bug mosques or search them, don't even *suggest* that Islam and the Qur'an and Muslims might have something to do with acts of violent jihad...for if you do any of this, it will provoke 'extremism'.
Those 'scholars' would do well to remember a different approach, summed up by a splendid maxim concerning the way to treat Muslims, which appeared in an English-language newspaper in China, 100 years before the rise of communism.
I present it here, with the name of the poster who first unearthed it, for the benefit of any Chinese lurkers whom we may have on board at this point, and for lurkers and posters who have 'contacts' in China, or for that matter,in Taiwan, Singapore, and among the Chinese diaspora world-wide (if you are able to translate it into Chinese, go right ahead):
North China Herald, 1867, during a time when jihad revolts were happening in the west and south-west:
“If politeness and ceremony be observed toward Mohammedans,
they imagine they are feared and become arrogant;
but in showing severity and rudeness,
they are impressed with fear and respect, and they are supple and manageable.”
--North China Herald,1867
- Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 16, 2005 4:30 AM
China is right to do this. Governments should try to control what religious leaders are allowed to preach, and rein in any calls for a holy war. Islamists have done more than enough damage in Asia already.
By the way, Google's spell checker doesn't like the word Islamist.
"Scholars outside the region argue that the tactics being used to stifle Islam could backfire and result in more terrorist groups and activities."
So there you have it, do nothing and you get terrorism, or do something and you get terrorism.
Guess we should just do something then
Western "scholars" always talk like this: don't do anything!
Dumbledoresrarmy, I know the Chinese very well, and I know how they respond to firmness. I hate to sound racist, but orientals are all the same. We have to affirm our belief in our values. Then they respect us, and leave us alone.
If we are weak, they are quite happy to devour us. I say this as a person with Muslim friends. Yes, we have to remember they are human, we must not forget that. I have been to Sudanese parties where Muslims and Christians get on fine (well...almost); they are used to each other and we should not abandon the possibility that Muslims can be brought into the fold of our civilization.
PG - Yes, but -
I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists, however, all terrorist are Muslims.
The single largest group of people that have been killed in the Islamic are (700 AD to the present) are Muslims.
Islam suppresses intellectual inquiry, culture and commerce. I have seen some evidence that it lowers IQ. (I have only seen this theory once, I would also say that (to my knowledge) I have never seen it since.
The first victims of Islam are Muslims, in that they are unable to free themselves from the mental shackles of Islam. Once you take a position based on faith, you are unable to reconsider it based on new evidence. The problem with Islam is that it is based on a 7th century warlord's morality and ethics.
Unless Muslims can free themselves from the dead hand of the past, I am very pessimistic that they "can be brought into the fold of our civilization".
"Foreign visitors to Xinjiang are always impressed by the superior hygiene of the Uighurs." Maybe in 1930. Not now. A typical bathroom is a stick over a putrid pit. Imagine beds with biting fleas on them and roaches falling from the walls right onto you. People drinking coffee-brown water right out of the local stream that is also used for refuse and human waste. Buying sheep intestines strewn on the grown with flies and other bugs crawling and flying all around them. Sorry, Xinjiang is the most unhygienic place I've ever been to ever, and I've travelled the lenght and breadth of China.
Actually, tanstaafl, the only Muslims who aren't terrorists are those who are flat-broke and too nancy for real jihad. So all Muslims in the West are terrorists. The 4th pillar of Islam is zakat, which, contrary to popular belief, does not mean 'charity.' Maybe Raymond can affirm this for me. It means 'alms for jihad.' Muslims are required to donate $1725 or 2.5% of their income annually to jihad. That money can never pass through non-Muslim hands. Muslims, in fact, do not believe in chairty as a matter principle. They believe that whatever misfortunes befall people are either Allah's will or the fault of the group for not being Muslims or for not being good enough Muslims. Of course, when things happen to them they always blame the Joooos, the West, America, but that results from spinelessness and a deeply immoral culture and it's a different diatribe. But in the West they can donate to terror with much transparency because 99% of the mosques in North America and Europe, as well as the majority of the mosques in North and East Africa, are owned and run by the Muslim Brotherhood. So basically every Muslim you know is funding Hamas, whether or not they know it, and are responsible for genocide that occurs every day. There has never been a legitimate Islamic charity so they never could donate it to charity if they wanted to. So they're all terrorists and if they're not it's only because they're broke. Don't forget to mention that to everyone who dares defend Islam.
I think the 'Alms for Jihad' ebook is still available for download, free, on isohunt.
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with China on this. Islam MUST be handled by force as it has been proven that it cannot be handled in any other way.
The USA needs to make a similar move against Islam.
Ah, China!
Everything not permitted by the gov't is forbidden.
But even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.
"imposing the will of the people of Han on the people of Hui".
I think Hugh thinks this sounds cute, but I feel obligated to point out once again that Huis and Uighurs are completely different peoples: different ethnicity, language, culture, cuisine, etc. Yes, both groups are Muslims, and yes, they should be equally watched and supressed.
As this is I believe the third time I've asked Hugh to make a correction to this same article, and he has not responded, I trust he believes that in this case, a catchy turn of phrase outweighs accuracy.
From the Sunday Times, London
Beijing’s ‘war on terror’ hides brutal crackdown on Muslims
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article2116123.ece
It's getting hotter !!
"China indicates Uighur terrorists have close links with Pak"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/China_hints_at_Uighur_terrorists_close_links_with_Pak/articleshow/3624970.cms
Jeffs: Rats! You beat me to the punch on Uighur and Hui. Serves me right for teaching my government classes all day long.
Hui agitation in China tends to be for expanded civil rights. Further, there's a strong undercurrent of Chinese patriotism among Hui in both Taiwan and Mainland China (to say nothing of Kokang in Burma and the Golden Triangle region of Thailand). The Guangxi general Bai Chongxi (Pai Ch'ung-hsi) who was briefly defense minister under Chiang was Hui (his son, Pai Hsien-yung, is a famous "outed" gay writer in Taiwan). As a matter of fact, almost anyone surnamed Bai from northeastern Guangxi is probably Hui.
A good book on the subject is Dru Gladeney's _Muslim Chinese_, which came out in the 1990's.
Further, re the Uighurs, they are allied with Tibetan independence groups and have also stood up for the rights of Han (and other) Christians in central and eastern China. Uighur dissidents also argue that some of their people are Buddhist and "Manichaean Christian", the former to accommodate groups of Mongol lamaists living in Dzungaria and the latter a verbal figleaf to admit that some Uighur have turned to Evangelicalism in recent decades (there isn't really any identifiable survival of either Manichaeans or "Nestorians"[Church of the East] in Eastern Turkistan).
While Hugh is right to point out that global jihad intersects with totalitarian decay in East Turkistan separatism, the situation of Islam in China and its tie-ins with a number of dissident issues in that country (such as religious freedom in general) is highly complex.
Also, I will never accept Chinese governmental methods in my own country, the US of A. China is still very much an intellectual and spiritual colony of 19th century Germany, synthesizing the absolute worst in jackboot militaristic nationalism with Marxism.
Tanstaafi, I think I take back what I said about Muslims being brought into the fold of our civilization.
I had a long argument with a Muslim last night. Cost a lot, too. (International call.) Phew! Hopeless! He was unable to argue logically at all, even though he has been to university (in a Muslim country). When I talked about what was in the Koran, he said I needed a "guide". But surely, I said, "kill" means "kill". He seemed so reasonable when I met him, but the more I talk to him, the more pig-headed he sounds. He wants to come to the West, (desperately, he has said before) but will not acknowledge that Islam is at all responsible for the mess of his country, or other Islamic countries, none of which he wants to go to. I could go on, but I think you can imagine.
"I believe the third time I've asked Hugh to make a correction to this same article, and he has not responded, I trust he believes that in this case, a catchy turn of phrase outweighs accuracy."
-- from a posting above
I haven't responded because I don't see everything that is addressed to me, whether it is praise or, as in this case, blame. The mistake is the same one, from the same piece, written several years ago, which I merely re-posted because of its relevance to the article above. I didn't actually re-read it; I simply found it, and put it up.
I should also explain that since there are tens of thousands of postings here, and I don't go back to each one, and some I never see at all, there is undoubtedly a great deal, of both praise or, as in this case, blame, that I never see. Or I may see, fleetingly, when it is first put up, make a mental note to look into something and then reply, and then I don't. I forget. Other things distract me or take up my time.
I stand corrected -- by you -- and have apparently, on this very point, have been corrected twice before. Hui are not Uighurs, Uighurs are not Hui. I think I knew that, and I probably did -- you are right to guess so -- like to set the "people of Han" off against the "people of Hui." They, are, after all, separated by the Muslim/non-Muslim divide. But if one is writing about Muslims in China, the Uighurs and not the Hui deserve pride of place, and if one writes about first the Uighurs, and then the Hui, it may seem that one has confused the two in one's mind, and is not doing something else -- just enjoying the euphony, having fun.
PG, does that really surprise you? All Muslims, by definition, lack the logical faculties of brain-damaged five-year-olds. If they didn't they simply could not be Muslim. Not only could they never accept a 'religious' text which contradicts itself all over the place, but they would also recognize and take issue with the ridiculous circular logic all over the place, e.g., womn have no rights because they are 'deficient in religion;' Women are deficient in religion because I say so and it is commanded for them. Nevermind all the scientific and historical errors, which even if you have an Islamic (mis)'education' are too ridiculous for a thinking person to accept, like the 3 statements in the Koran and even more in the Hadith that clearly state or are based on the assumption that the Earth is flat. Muslims have no concept of unitary logic, or they could not accept that humans are created from clay, from water, and from a blood clot because, to anyone with any logical faculties, no two contradictory statements can both be true. They are raised believing that logical fallacies and outright lies = logic. Yet another reason why nobody who is educated in a Muslim country has or can ever be legitimately brought to the free world on a student visa, and Islamic PhDs are vastly inferior to Gualtemalan 1st-grade educations.