Extensive areas of Muslim communities can be found in Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, and Ningxia provinces. Many of my friends come from these beautiful lands. My younger friends perform poorly at Han schools and come from poor families. However, they have the ability to study abroad in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries. They have told me that schools in these countries offer favorable conditions to attract Muslim students from China.
One of my friends explained he was offered the chance to study in a religious school in Pakistan after graduating from high school. Upon returning to China from his studies, he found no place to practice what he had learned and moved to Saudi Arabia to work. Although a Chinese national, his religious conviction is so deeply entrenched that he harbors strong feelings against Chinese authorities due to their ethnic and religious policies. Yet he reacted enthusiastically to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt. Young Chinese Muslims like him believe that the electoral success of the Muslim Brotherhood is an indication of an Islamic awakening among the Egyptian people.
I once asked him in jest which side he would support if a conflict broke out between Egypt and China.
He remained silent.
This intriguing silence has caused me great concern. If religious interest is put above national interest, China’s security will be at risk. What’s more, this is a challenge that originates from some invisible force.
For many years, China has been investing heavily in infrastructure, education, and other areas to boost productivity in the western regions where many ethnic and religious minorities reside. No one can deny that a lot has been accomplished. Despite these successes, an election thousands of miles away in Egypt can quickly negate Chinese patriotism that the government has been instilling for decade. Why?
Last February the Muslim Brotherhood was among the fiercest critics of China and Russia’s decision to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an end to government-sanctioned violence in Syria. Branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Syria, for instance, branded China and Russia as “accomplices of [Assad’s] massacre,” and even claimed Beijing and Moscow bore full responsibility for the violence in Syria.This rare criticism coming from the Muslim world, which has usually been on friendly terms with China, is not something that can be easily dismissed. If this is any indication, China’s “tightrope walking” foreign policy may find it hard to navigate a Middle East with newly empowered publics.
For several decades the Hosni Mubarak regime in Egypt followed its predecessors’ lead in outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak was lauded in China as “an old friend of the Chinese people.” During his rule, Mubarak visited China on nine separate occasions. One could argue that China’s Egypt policy was built entirely on its relationship with Mubarak and therefore was bound to change once he was ousted.
Now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over Egypt, in what way will they view China given Beijing’s past friendship with their sworn enemy?
Chinese Muslims cheered for the Muslim Brotherhood’s electoral victory, not just out of support for their religious brethren, but also because of their own dissatisfaction with their own government’s domestic, ethnic, religious and foreign policies.This dissatisfaction is weaved together with the larger Chinese public’s frustration at the lack of political and economic reforms in their country.
What happened in Xinjiang is also a persuasive case.
After the plane-hijacking incident in Xinjiang, quiet whispers could be heard from all corners bashing China’s authorities. Indeed, some Muslims in western China did not believe the official government account of what happened, and noted on Weibo, a Chinese micro-blogging website, that the passengers’ stories often contradicted each other. Although the bloggers did not directly support the hijackers or their actions, it’s clear from their effort to read between the lines that they despise government propaganda. Some even quoted foreign Muslim organizations to imply the entire hijacking had been fabricated by Beijing.
China’s ethnic and religious policies in its western regions face a peculiar dilemma. If China tries to push economic development and Chinese nationalism too strongly, it inevitably provokes a religious-oriented backlash. Yet if China fails to invest enough resources in areas like development and education, this could give Sunnis and Shias abroad opportunities to exploit, as Chinese Muslims seek opportunities in those countries. China’s west has already become the battleground of overt and covert struggles among various political and religious forces.
China may therefore need to modify its religious and ethnic policies in order to keep up with changing times. If China fails to adjust its policies, the silence or murmurs heard among its Muslim population might gradually begin manifesting themselves in angry protests in the model of the Arab Spring. But another issue arises. Namely, if China carries out large-scale reforms and weakens its authoritarian rule, conflicts in these border regions might escalate with the ensuing instability undermining economic development.
Finding a happy medium is a challenge that the government and indeed every Chinese citizen who puts their nation before other affiliations must grapple with. Happiness cannot just be measured in material goods but should also have a spiritual dimension as well. Perhaps to some extent, and for certain people living in certain regions, spirituality is of paramount importance.

Mohamed Kamal
I have met many Chinese Muslims here in Cairo, Egypt and they all love and value their country dearly.
I fail to see why the author of the article wishes to falsly accuse an entire religious minority of treason and lack of loyalty to their country. I find this absolutely despicable.
But are China's Muslims enduring large discrimination and mistreatment at the hands of both the government and the Han majority? Absolutely. All citizens, be they a religious/ethnic minority or otherwise, must be treated fairly and respectfully by the government, and have their human, political, expressio, and freedom of worship rights respected.
Oro Invictus
I’ve mentioned this before on The Diplomat, but I have to reiterate how odd I find it that how few people acknowledge how similar governments, particularly autocracies, and religions are. All governments are predicated on certain immaterial ideals with their own set codification of morality and such, guided to varying extents by organizational figureheads; autocracies, though, take this a step further as, unlike representative governments, their power is based on some immaterial “right” to rule and the nature of their rule is not to be questioned lest one be condemned as a “heretic”. Indeed, it comes as no surprise autocratic governments are more hostile to religions than representative ones for, as this article alludes, both of them draw power from the same well; both rely on some greater power which confers morality and right, such that the two necessarily conflict.
Similarly, this is why the principle of separation of church and state are so oft ingrained in representative governments, as the two cannot function in tandem as each derives power from a separate source (a metaphysical entity/concept and the people, respectively). Granted, this is not always practiced without fail, as one needs only look at the “Cult of Personality” which surrounds such figures like George Washington (who, in particular, was almost effectively deified in early American history and still retains some degree of that aura to the present date) and the utilization of native religious identity to galvanize support to see such incidences of lacking demarcation in such societies; still, if we use basic scientific logic, which indicates that, while individuals can believe in higher things guiding personally, rational decisions must ultimately be guided by consensus rather than any dogma associated with some immaterial concept/entity or ruler who claims power through such means, then we can see representative governments (while still similar to religions by virtue of the hierarchal and idealistic dogma associated with the concept of governments themselves) are at least different enough such that the concept of separation between church and state is not a mistruth. Conversely, authoritarian nations, even more so for those which claim to be atheist rather than theocratic or such (as this makes them a religion unto themselves rather than a governance based on an interpretation of a religion [even though, technically, atheism IS a religion, as it is a codified series of beliefs in regard to a metaphysical concept, the commonality being one of deism]), are in many ways identical to a religion in function.
In this, the PRC’s vendetta against religion, while unsurprising for the above reasons, is extremely hypocritical, for what is the PRC but the world’s biggest theocracy? What is (though, it is with great distress as a socialist that I use the CPC’s following term of its practice of ultra-capitalism) “socialism with Chinese characteristics” but a religion and dogma which much not be questioned as it would be a sin to do so? Is the CPC not a three-million strong clergy, whose power, like the religion itself, must not be questioned by virtue of right to rule granted by some inviolate and unseen power? How similar are the descriptions by the PRC government of those who do not accept the imposed beliefs of the CPC, such as foreign entities and internal dissenters, of how religions describe heretics? What is Mao but a messiah who “cast off” the “heretics” (see: foreigners) and opened the way for the “salvation” of the Chinese, with “saints” like Deng serving to amend the original credo to ensure control from epoch to epoch?
And, like those most dogmatic religions, when confronted with questions such as these which undermine whatever logic for rule they may have contrived, the CPC can only threaten fire and brimstone rather than provide any rational refutation, something which seems far more characteristic of some eschatologically-obsessed cult than the “government guided by logic and science” that they claim themselves to be.
ImperiumVita
My compliments on a very thoughtful and well argued post. I agree fully. I had touched on the semi-deification of Mao Zedong in my own thoughts, but you manage to build the more complete ananlogy. I think it also fits with Chinese view of their own history, i.e. China with 5000 year roots as the center of enlightened civilization, and the unfit barbarian masses beyond. In that respect the religion encompasses China beyond the CCP. Though the CCP has done its best to conflate itself with "China" in the popular mindset, it has also been very successful at twisting that foundational Chinese religion by incorporating CCP leaders as further objects of worship. It also further explains the intense desire to restore China to that historically prominent position, which amounts to a quest for the "Holy Grail" of righteous vindication.
ImperiumVita
Realisticly, does the author (and other Chinese) honestly think a few decades of infrastructure, "instilled patriotism," and stability (under the gun), will make non-Chinese in territories historically conquered by the Chinese Empire suddenly give up thier own identities and love the Chinese?
This is the problem. The Chinese Communist Party will not admit that it is as good as a foreign occupier in Xinjiang, and in Tibet. The people have a different culture and feel they do not have a personal stake in the government in Beijing, or in the "Chinese" nation.
The author's proposal that China "modify its religious and ethnic policies in order to keep up with changing times." would be a step in the right direction. But its likely real political reforms -such as freedom of speech, greater regional autonomy, and possibly elections- are needed to give these populations genuine buy-in to the Chinese nation.
Lachlan
ImperiumVita while i acknowledge your point about chinese territories being reluctant to to express patriotism to anoccupying and often repressive foriegn power, i fail to see how this relates to islam and china, those terrirories in paticular Tibet are largely buddist or in the case of Xingjiang Toaist.
Jacques Huynen
Muslim tradition and Islamists have always used the concept of the "Nation of Islam". Islam is also a global political project even if it doesn't have anything in common with that of the United Nations. In fact it is exactly the reverse and aims at the global dictatorial domination of Islam, itself being dominated by Arabs, since nobody can assume to understand the Koran if he does not speak or understand Arab.
The_Observer
The Muslims had the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire, neither of which conquered China.
In China, the Muslim Uighurs are just one minority group amongst many in a 95% sea of Han.
For the Chinese, it is very simple. Muslims should follow the civil law, accept modernization, get an education and live their lives in peace. If the Muslims want to stir up trouble then the PLA will come down on them like a tonne of bricks.
John Chan
All religions are about God, faith, and obedience, they are not about reasoning, liberty, justice and equality; all religion believers are religion first, and everything else second; all religions are acting against their founders in spirit and essence.
Through the history, majority of violence and atrocity were carried out in the name of religion. Muslims believe Islamic non-believers can either choose the Quran or facing a sword.
If the author believes giving the religions a free hand then the religion believers will be put the nation first instead of religion, he is naïve beyond reasonable, he definitely has no clue about religion.
Beway
This article seem to appear straight out from the Strange Tales of Liaozhai (聊斋志异), a folk tradition story telling on a series of captivating, colorful stories, where the boundary between reality and the odd or fantasy is blurred