The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islam in China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahsnave, Jmowbray27, Beedrumms.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there is an error. I highly doubt that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in China. I don't know the correct figure. Could the author have meant 'million'?
note by Khalifa Saleh, you are right it cannot be 1.2 billion. According to this source http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia_general.html China's Muslim population is 39.1 million. It estimates to around 3%. This is according to the 2005 records. (Sorry I didn't know where to reply) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.251.181 ( talk • contribs) .
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Yes, I believe that the author meant to say millions instead of billions. About 2 percent of the Chinese population is Muslim, which cannot be 1.2 billion. 2% of China's population is about 24 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyang420 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is no critique at all involved then I refuse to believe a word of it. Every good article has cited critics and debates related to the article in topic. This is to give a more reflected view of the case and to not make it seem like propaganda.
84.209.4.79 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking to organize a WikiProject focusing on creating and expanding articles relating to the Uyghurs, including their history, cultural life (including Islamic practices), politics (separatist movements past and present, overseas disapora, etc), as well as information about the Xinjiang area more broadly. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so any help interested parties can offer on this undertaking would be much appreciated, thanks! -- MC MasterChef 23:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article says there is no record of Chinese making the Hajj before 1861. Didn't Zheng He make a side trip to Mecca on his last voyage?
ςפקιДИτς 02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.247.137 ( talk) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"The Yuan Dynasty embraced Islam." What does this mean? A Chinese Emperor became Muslim? Made Islam the state religion? Instituted Sharia?
The Arab and Persian immigrants introduced polo, their cuisine, their musical instruments ... coincidentally, polo is not just a sport, but also a rice dish (the word itself is cognate to pilaf). Just to make things even more confusing, both the sport and the dish trace their origins to Central Asia. History records that the sport was popular in China around this time, but does anyone know about the dish? =) cab 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made a section listing general chinese islamic male/female names. It would be great if someone with the knowlege would expand it. Jidan 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
can any one tell me the correct no of muslims in china
Stop giving out faulty information of Muslims in China. There are probably three different citations on the number of Muslims that constitute China's religious demographics; and all three give very DIFFERENT numbers, ranging from 20 million to 200 million. Please give more accurate sources next time. Thanks.
the thing is that the populatin in china is speculative we should use all our resorces to clarifythat Madman 0014 10:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that someone put the Accuracy tag on this piece. There is only one official count of the population of China: the census. It is considered by demographers outside the the country to be very accurate, though like all censuses suffers from some undercount. In the case of Chinese Muslims, this article used to have some truly wild numbers in it (400 million!), but even after that was eliminated people were still citing the speculative 100 million number given in a BBC article, a number that has been given no foundation whatsoever. I would argue that the "best estimate" is the 20.3 million which is derived from the 2000 census and that to give wildly higher numbers is not responsible unless somebody can cite credible sources (but see next paragraph). (The BBC is credible perhaps but not on this subject since it seems to have pulled the 100 million number out of the air.). The 40 million number that someobody inserted recently (linked to another Wikipedia page) is nothing more than a WFG that is roughly double the count in the Chinese census. (But it's nowhere near the 100 million that the BBC put at the top end of its 20-100 million range, or the 400 million number that was here a couple of months ago, and that somebody else judiciously eliminated.)— --Mack2 22:12.
It seems to me that if there is to be a reasoned debate about the number of Chinese Muslims, it would have to focus not simply on the source of information but also on how "Muslim" is defined or determined. It has been conventional to count up the population of the 10 nationalities that are deemed to be Muslim nationalities, so that in effect all persons who are counted as members of those nationalities are assumed to be Muslims. That's where the 20.3 million figure comes from for the year 2000. I had also put in a citation from the 1990 census which somebody deleted for no reason that I can see of ca. 16.7 million (the figures are also cited in the article by Drew Gladney that I had listed but somebody deleted). However, if there were some way to actually count the number of believers in Islam, this number would be different, no doubt, from the count of people in the census who belong to the 10 Muslim nationalities. It could even be lower, however, since some of the members of those nationalities may not be believers. Could it be higher? Possibly, but on what factual basis would someone come up with a 40 million number? --Mack2 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The figure of 100 million comes from the two census taking during the more neutral period of china against religions, namely the china year book of 1938, which put the figure at 50 million, and the 1949 census under changkaishek who put the figure at 45-50 million. The figure of 100 million is derived from the total population of china doubling since then, and the expectation that the muslim population also doubled as per the example of everywhere else in the world. It is also based on the fact that Islam has been in China for the last 1400 years, and the seperate kindgom of what is now Qinghai, Gangsu and Nigxia being a muslim sultanate under the xibei san ma. see http://www.muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Five_Ma. And so it would be innacurate just to put the official government statistic of 20.6 million .
There is NO reason to put the accuracy of the current regime against the two earlier sources .one from the national government at the time, and the other from and independent source. Modern china has a long history of religious persecution , including the closure of mosques, churches etc. Have you ascertained how the figure of 20 million was derived. Was a national compulsory census taken? The figure of 100 million , is to be honest a more accurate figure.
lol, so the 1949 census was out of thing air, and the china year book was out of thin air, and the population growth is out of thin air. In 1949 they spent years with demographers inside and outside china to compile their figures. If there where 50 million muslims in China in 1949, and the population of china has doubled and in every single country in the world the muslim population has doubled, what happened to china. Did the muslim population shrink by a half whilst the rest of the population doubled. And if so would you trust the census of a government that reduced a muslim population by half. No the answer is quite simple the present census reflects the governments stance against religion and is totally innacurate.
Exactly, do not believe all they say on the tv!sry for my bad english 83.148.238.194 ( talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The insertion of totally unsubstantiated and implausible figures for the number of Muslims in China keeps on and on. Soon we will be back to the earlier claim that 1/3 of China's population are Muslims. Those who assert that there are as many as 100 million or even 200 million Muslims have to tell us where those Muslims are located -- are they hiding in the Gobi? Are they in the underground aqueducts of Xinjiang (I didn't see millions of people hiding there when I visited those aqueducts)?
The census of 2000 counted 20.3 million total population in the 10 nationalities that are commonly said to be "Muslim" nationalities. While conceivably there could be an undercount of the population of those groups, or perhaps there are some other Muslims among the Han population, what could possibly justify saying there are 80 to 180 million more than were counted in the census? Extrapolating from 1950 without any attempt to validate the original numbers just doesn't wash. Where are those people located if they are alive and living in China?
More important, the usefulness of this article on Islam in China shouldn't hinge on exaggerated claims of the number of adherents to Islam. Stick to what you can verify, while using some reasonable judgment. Don't just put numbers in because they are big and somebody said those are the right ones. And give some thought to what China would really be like, as you travel across it, if there were another 100-200 million Muslims. Wouldn't you see signs of this somewhere? Again, where are those "extra" people?
As an indication of how dishonest 81.179.191.7's insertions have been, look at the recent history. First he put in a claim that the Asia Times "corroborated" the BBC's range of 20-100 million Muslims. But he didn't give his source, so I deleted the reference. Second, he came back with the reference, which in fact did NOT corroborate the 20-100 million Muslim range; on the contrary, it said there are no reliable figures but the range is probably 20-30 million (not the 20-100 million asserted by BBC). (The BBC article, btw/ does nothing to explain where it got its figures. The 20 million figure plausibly came from the 2000 census.) In response to the misleading claim that Asia Times had corroborated the BBC, I quoted a full sentence from the Asia Times article that 81.179.191.7 himself had cited, so that 81.179.191.7 would not make more false claims based on that source. So 81.179.191.7 was caught in a deception. Then what happened? 81.179.191.7 made even more implausible claims -- even suggesting that there were 200 million Muslims in China. Well that figure was 10 times the number counted in the census, and 2 times the number in the BBC, and 6-7 times the maximum range mentioned in the Asia Times (a source that 81.179.191.7 presumably had thought credible this morning). If the Asia Times was so authoritative earlier today in giving a range of 20-30 million, why does 81.179.191.7 now contradict his own source and come in with totally fanciful numbers (the types of numbers there were given in this article a couple of months ago and deleted by other contributors).
Somebody in a position of responsibility needs to intervene here. --Mack2 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
When a government purposely plays down anything, it means there's *more* to it. The more emphasis of playing down / being vague, the larger the population actually is. The central governement is currently offering economic incentives to Han Chinese to relocate to Muslim areas in an effort to cleanse the majority and re-define. NPR News quotes local Uyghur construction workers receiving less than 1/8 the wages of the bussed-in Han Chinese, as well as the Central governement's killing of a prominent Uyghur businessman (died of a 'heart attack' while in police custody in his late thirties).
I think you need to be banned because you are clearly not capable of making any kind of intelligent comment. Begins a comment with "Some douchebag Muslim kid" Then ends it with "Do everyone a favor and kill yourself"!!! You sound a little childish yourself.
I think all the vandalisms are out of control. The official estimations (the 2002 census from the government, U.S. State Department estimations as well as CIA World Factbook estimations) all have been deleted, and instead, it was replaced by figures from unknown Islamic websites. -- 67.2.149.250 19:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has repeatedty put up the data for KMT government back in 1938/1949, which that somebody said has recorded 40 million Muslims.
Now look at the historical circumstances perspective.
Back in 1938, China was in full fledge war with Japan, Manchuria has long been occupied, Beijing and Shanghai, along with much of Hebei has already fallen to the Japanese, Tibet was effectively under British control, the Northwestern provinces were either controlled by the communist or local warlords, the effective area under KMT control was only the South and the Southwest.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War was at its closing stage. China had been in war for some years, KMT policy initiated hyperinflation, and the KMT governement was fast losing ground to the communist.
And that, were the years chosen for "FAIR" and "ACCURATE" census.
Well during the Communist reign there was bloody supression of numerous muslim uprisings in nanxian, lixan , hunan etc, etc. The government closed mosques, sent imams to jail, banned religious education etc, as was communist policy throughout the communist countries such as russia, vietnam, etc, etc.
If we are going to cite the current census - with no details of how it was peformed with no outside colaboration, etc, then it is entirely fair and accurate to put the 1948 census figures as well as the source from the china year book etc. Why should we reject these figures whilst putting in the communist figures, unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress the number of muslims in china on the wikipedia as well
Well, I guess you're right about those older censusses (probably not the correct plural) aren't completely trustworthy. But what about the most recent census? Are there any objective scientists who feel it's plausible / correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.51.236 ( talk) 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
Some Han supremacists - 205.188.116.204 - 67.2.148.228 - are desperately trying to get rid of Muslim participation totally from Chinese history. Why is it so difficult to accept Yuan and Mughal dynasties descended from Genghis Khan? Go read about Taimur, Olegu Khan, Kublai Khan, Babur, Akbar before vandalising this article.
I think there are some confusions that needs to be resolved here. The unsigned user above seems to think that if Central Asian warlords (Taimur) of later era who claims to have been descended from Genghis Khan or his families are Muslims, then Genghis Khan must be a Muslim. True, the founders of the Mughal Empire of India (Babur) are Muslims, and they claims to have been related to Genghis Khan (who is from several centuries earlier) through their ancestors marrying his descendants. But it does not mean that Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty are Muslims. Such claims are unfounded and are not accepted by most academics and historians.-- 67.2.149.88 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is turning into a bloody mess. All contributors are reminded to please support all your edits with a citation to a news article from a reputable organisation or a book. Otherwise, your additions or subtractions may be reverted. See WP:CITE. Put these back in the article only if and when you have sources for them.
Following is a list of what I have removed from the article so far. cab 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
references added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.184.64 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 November 2006
I don't understand why would anyone keep reverting the Demographic section back to the vandalized version done by various users (such as 81.154.252.34). The BBC link the section referred to is now defunct, which means we can no longer check the facts, and the other references (pointing to the 200 and 100 million population) has no electronic links and are cited poorly. Please do not removed references from the CIA World Factbook as well as the US Department of State's "International Religious Freedom Report". Replacing official census with websites that has no scholarly value is considered un-encyclopedic and do not fit the standards of neutarlity. For now, the demographic section will remain in the version with references support by The World Factbook. Other references are welcome, but please do not remove official or recognized figures.-- Balthazarduju 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd to name Ahmad from Kwarzm as Chinese Muslim, for he was not Chinese.
After all, we do not name Matteo Ricci as Chinese Catholic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.98.2 ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 November 2006
This portion of the BBC site, in addition to being unavailable from the link provided, is not your usual BBC. It is first of all unattributed, leaving us no reason to believe anyone stands behind this "reporting." It begins by stating as a matter of fact that Islam was "revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace by upon him)." Whatever the domain name, this is Dawah, not a credible source. The last germane BBC story I was able to find gave the figure of twenty million. Proabivouac 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
User 7day's idea is worth a try. as it is sucessesful on Islam in the United States Madman 0014 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The figure of 100 million is sourced from census figures under changkai shek, and the china year book, and the extrapolated. And so they form the basis of this figure. I would find it pretty suprising that the COMMUNIST figure of 20 million is correct, when Muslims have been in China for around 1300 years, and large parts of what is current China included annexed land that was predominantly Muslim, approximately 1/3rd of the whole of china. And so to follow the sensible route, we give the official COMMUNIST figure and the equally important alternative figure which is based on reliable and sourced information.
81.178.254.21 00:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Proabivouac You have already stated that you find the figure of 100 million unrealistic. I.e you have already adopted your position and are working from that position. During Chiang Kai-Sheks reign a census was taken which concluded 50 million, equally the China Year book gave the population of 48 million. this was 50 years ago. The population of China has trebled since then. Thus the BBC source (as well as many other sources, including tapes, islamic sites ) extrapolate the figure from a time when religion was not persecuted. It is just and fair AND BALANCED to include this additional information when giving the demographic figures. Perhaps you are unaware of the large history of Muslims in China, or that China 200 years ago took in 1/3 of its land mass by conquering majority muslim xinjiang and high percentage of muslims in Mongolia. It is also worth noting that Muslims are so numerous in China that over the last few hundred years they rebelled and created Islamic states in 4 provinces. So really I don't see any problem with a higher figure, and given their is sourced and references demographic figures, then they should be cited
81.179.112.201 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Proabivouac, you have vandalised this page many times now out of a
MW:POV stance that you revealed to me. You have also broken WIkipedias 3R rule. The wikipedia is here to provide balanced and NPOV information. If that means i have to flag your vandalism and revert wars, then that is what i have to do. I would have much prefered you to have been reasonable. Those demographics have been there for a long time now, and
User:CaliforniaAliBaba did an excellent job of stabalising the article, until you decided 100 million was an unrelistic figure. And as for the likes of
User:Striver, it is very clear that he follows a position of Just editing, just by looking at his contributions. I am afraid you have made this a personal issue, when it needent have been . But look on the bright side of things, at least this point is being discusses , which saves the article from being vandalised
81.179.112.201 06:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a sentiment here that there's no possible way the number of Muslims in China could have fallen. A prominent example in print is:
Obviously some editors here feel this way too. But I don't see how it's so unbelievable that the number of Muslims in an officially atheist country would fall over the course of six decades of communist rule. Especially in China, where a huge number of Muslims are Hui; Mandarin-speaking people who can blend in with Han Chinese and could even easily re-identify as such if it became advantageous to do so. I think all of us editing this article agree that Communists are generally not friendly to religion.
The appropriate demographic comparison is not to the Muslim world as a whole, but to the Communist countries therein, and specifically those where there was significant non-Muslim migration; for example, Kazakhstan is composed of 65 to 70% of members of traditionally Muslim ethnicities (see Demographics of Kazakhstan), but only 47% of the population identify as Muslims (see Islam in Kazakhstan). And even among those identifying as Muslims, the actual degree of adherence is spotty at best. For a specific example:
Comments appreciated. And let's all seek to observe WP:CIVIL, myself included. cab 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, most demographics based on religion are derived from the persons identification with that religion, as opposed to how much he fufills it. So for example the Communist census does not ask if they practice or not just whether they associate with a specific ethnic group, ie, hui, kazakh etc.
But in terms of muslim population growth, as defined by identification, YOu would find it hard pressed to find any example anywhere in the world where there is not growth but decline. ANd given the decline that would have to be undergone in china to drop the muslim population from 50 million 50 years ago to 20 million now whilst everyone else trebled, then this would be unprecidented in History
81.179.112.201 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People do not leave their belief through force, and especially not their identification as belong to a religious group , which is why most of central asia identify themselves as muslim regardless of whether they practice or not. 81.179.112.201 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People come and go from relgion, it is a natural cycle. however people do not leave their belief through oppression and force.
I have one question for you though. Where the majority Han population subject to the one child policy, and were the minorities subject to the same policy? Because if the Chinese population trebled from the 1950's and this was with one child policy to the majority han. Are you seriously suggesting that Muslim minorities shrunk by a 1/2 -1/3 without the one child policy whilst the majority han tripled??? Do you know that in 1955 There were more than 40,000 official mosques in China, that figure alone tells us there were 20-40 million Muslims during that time.
81.178.68.147 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
anyone feeling me on this one? the template tags here are a little overboard in my opinion, the real long tag, islam all the world, kinda mess up the flow of the article, I'm gonna take it out. UyghurKid023
I changed the format as the "Protestantism", "Catholicism", "Christianity" and "Buddhism" "in China" articles all begin with the histories of those religion in China and thus so should this article. The number of Muslims in China may be an important issue but the general format should not be changed for that reason.
Hi, I regret to inform you that there is absolutely no historical evidence that Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās ever went to China, and there is no archaeological evidence of mosques in China before the Song Dynasty. The story about the prophet's uncle going to China is a mere legend. If anyone has evidence to support it, please present it. Otherwise, let's not propagate legends as history, okay? For your reference, see Lipman, Familiar Strangers, p. 25. Also, the mosque in Canton has been dated by Dr. Kerr to 900 AD, see Broomhall, Islam in China, p. 110. Oh, and by the way, just because one author claims that it is historical doesn't make it true. Look up the author's sources and see if the author himself is not just propagating a myth. I have read the BBC article, and I think whoever wrote it didn't do their homework. It sounds neat, but is there any evidence?...I think not. The myth itself says that Waqqas actually went to China in response to the emperor having a dream of the Prophet in 621. Waqqas then took 30 copies of the Quran to China, the emperor edited them and propagated them throughout China before building a mosque. What evidence is there of a seventh century mosque in China? Do you think the emperor dreamed about the Prophet, sent to Arabia for him (before 1 AH), and edited the Quran? Rockemet, Stanford ( talk) 15:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) ~ You are absolutely right. If a companion of Muhammed entered into China, it would be mentioned in Islamic traditions; however, there is no mention of any companion going to China. -- 24.190.235.229 ( talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Many muslim generals like Ma Zhanao, Ma Qianling, Ma Anliang, Dong Fuxiang and Ma Julung defected to the Qing dynasty and HELPED the qing general Zuo Zongtang crush muslim rebels. Zuo even removed the Han from outside of Hezhou and relocated them because the muslims there joined him and helped him exterminate the rebels.
Someone with an anti qing agenda is trying to white wash history and make it seem as though the "evil qing dynasty wanted to exterminate all muslims so it went on a random genocide".
wrong- authors like Jonathan Neaman Lipman make it clear in their works that the rebellion was not started due to some random hatred of muslims or divide and conquer tactics, but because of infighting between various Sufi sects, the Jahariyya and Khafiya, and the Gedimu.
Many muslims were loyal to Qing, and Generals like Dong Fuxiang Ma Anliang and Ma Fuxiang even assited the Qing dynasty again in the Dungan Revolt (1895) in killing muslim rebels. Дунгане ( talk) 19:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Guderyean ( talk) 06:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Savadove, Bill. Aug 17, 2005. “Faith Flourishes in an Arid Wasteland; Muslim Sect in Ningxia Accepts Beijing's Authority and Is Allowed to Build a Virtual Religious State."
http://www.scmp.com/article/512501/faith-flourishes-arid-wasteland
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/a-tale-of-two-chinese-muslim-minorities/
http://books.google.com/books?id=04dlwzB2SvcC&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Population numbers
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-asia/#china
Family planning among Muslims in China. Many Muslims voluntarily limit themselves to one child.
http://ilookchina.net/2010/11/05/exemptions-in-chinas-one-child-policy/
Do not use this blog directly as a soure, but it contains references to reliable sources itself.
http://ningxiaunveiled.wordpress.com/family-planning/
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to duplicate Islam in China. Dougweller ( talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There are some problems about Ming dynasty Muslim claims and these need to be dealt with re NPOV, although I don't think that will stop all the vandalism. I've worked on Mu Ying (where I see vandalism from both sides):
Michael Dillon wrote "There is no suggestion in most western accounts of Mu Ying's career or the Chinese sources on which they draw that Mu Ying was anything other than a Han Chinese by origin, yet he has been included in the major series of studies of the lives of eminent Hui as a Muslim without any comment. The surname Mu is also common among Chinese Muslims and is probably derived from Muhammad, although it is normally written with a different Chinese character. The character used to write Mu Ying's surname is the one associated with washing the hair and which appears on signs in every mosque in China as the first character of muyu the ritual baths to be used before prayer." He concludes that "He was probably descended from an old Muslim family but there is no evidence that he was a practising Muslim." [1]
Jonathan Neaman Lipman notes that Mu Ying is among a number of generals "unambiguously claimed as Muslim by Sino-Muslim scholars" mentioning specifically Bai Shouyi. He writes that "There is considerable doubt among non-Muslim scholars as to the “Muslim” identity of most of these generals, but Sino-Muslims assert their “Huiness” unequivocally. Tazaka, Chugoku ni okeru kaikyo, 861, for example, questions not only Chang Yuqun’s identification as a Huihui but that of many others as well. F. Mote, in Goodrich and Fang, Dictionary, 1079-8}, indicates that we have no evidence that Mu Ying was born a Muslim, and the story of his adoption and upbringing in Zhu Yuanzhang’s intimate circle certainly indicates that he was not raised as one." [2]
These sources mention other generals.
Zheng He is one of those who were born into a Muslim family but seems to have abandoned his religion. Dougweller ( talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/rab2.pdf
Rajmaan ( talk) 14:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We are a group of undergraduate students who will be editing under the Relations with Non-Muslims for a class assignment. We would appreciate any insights or feedback from those who have been working hard on this article so that we can seamlessly add our work. Thank you! Jmowbray27 ( talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Early History
·"Another example of greater Chinese Muslim synthesis with other surrounding identities is how Muslim General Ma Bufang allowed polytheists to openly worship, and Christian missionaries to station themselves in Qinghai." What is “greater synthesis”? (Is there a lesser synthesis?) What is being synthesized? By whom? And for what purpose? Also, is Qinghai strategically important in some way? It could use a little explanation here.
·"In addition, the tradition of foot-binding was practiced by both Muslim and non-Muslims orders, noting the transcendence of greater Chinese culture across all communities of faith." Orders of what? Also, dangling modifier – a practice doesn’t “note” something. But a person could. Perhaps you mean indicating?
·"...as Chinese society operates in a more closed system." A system of what? More closed than what?
·"By speaking the same language they rely on each other and they are seen as having promising future living together." Is this a choice they’ve made together? Is it unusual to be speaking the same language when living in the same place? There are some implicit assumptions or contexts here that need to be made explicit. MonstreDélicat ( talk) 01:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Contemporary Relationships
·Xinjiang, has experienced repeated violence and other acts of intimidation mobilized by the Uyghur, especially over the past year Since "the past year" will be a moving signifier as time passes, you should find a way to specify which year you're talking about.
·This section is really well written on the whole, and you note that scholarship is hard to come by, but is there anything you can make connections to, re: scholarship on global rise of Islam, scholars' attempts to explain any phenomena with respect to the postsecular, etc.? MonstreDélicat ( talk) 02:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We do not think this article is ready to move beyond the C class, as it covers many different topics that we were not looking at and think that overall it needs more work.
Limitations of Article
In editing a smaller portion of a larger article, we had several instances where our research was repeated in the article, so we had to pay attention to redundancy and take into account the reader of the entire article and not just a single section. We do not think our section would warrant it's own article as good scholarship is sparse and it works to have it included in this larger article. It's hard to find sources from multiple perspectives. This is very important in understanding how Chinese Muslims live their religion and reflecting factual statements about Islam in China. We focused on current sources and did not use older good sources from the 1980s and 1970s as they would not reflect the current situation.
Future Editing
We hope future editors of this article will take into account the broadness of the subject and the variety of lived experiences of Chinese Muslims. We used current and historical events to show the interactions of Muslims and Non-Muslims and as events happen, this article should reflect these events. Future editors should be diligent in using current sources in reflecting modern situations. Be precise explaining motives behind current events, especially acts of aggression that are sensationalized in the media.
Jmowbray27 ( talk) 21:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/NaziaAngel1993/status/768782994920312832
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3ahcWIAE0nUe.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3a4BWYAAAKpC.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3bl7WIAAFRXM.jpg
06:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This section reads like a smear attack on Tibetans - /info/en/?search=Islam_in_China#Tibetan-Muslim_sectarian_violence
It needs to be rewritten. An excerpt from said section: Tibetans deliberately attack the Hui Muslims as a way to demonstrate anti-government sentiment and because they have a background of sectarian violence against each other
Whereas the cited source says this: Most of the incidents involve the Hui, who ethnically are Han Chinese but practice Islam. China's 9.8 million Hui and 5.4 million Tibetans historically have lived in proximity, at various times fighting, competing or intermarrying and collaborating. [1]
The author dropped neutrality in favour of a deliberately provocative stance and this needs to be rectified and entire article rewritten. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.83.3.42 (
talk) 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@HorseEyeJack (user page doesn't exist so cant link):
When reverting my edit, you said: "That source cant be used for statements of fact like that and the other piece doesnt support the text, it says nothing about churches in england"
The linked source literally says "The fact is, there are 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang, which means there is on average one mosque for every 530 Muslims. This ratio is higher than that in some Muslim countries and also higher than the number of churches per Christian in England."'
So that's literally a lie. You literally lied on Wikipedia, and this isn't the first time I've seen it.
And can you also explain your first statement, why cant the official statement of the Chinese ambassador to the UK not be used as a statement for fact like that?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is a citation from the WP:V page, from Princeton University: "To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data."
Thus, government statistics about the no.of mosques in Xinjiang can be cited as per WP:V
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with you on the quote. That it is quoted as a citation means it is part of WP:V. Its a citation on the page.
Moreover, US government sources are often used by Wikipedia - including by yourself on the Foreign Relations of China page, where you used the CIA.gov source (which btw, actually did contain a lie that Pakistan ceded Aksai Chin to China).
So the US government is reliable, but the Chinese government is not? Either both are unreliable, or neither are. Why the double standards? You can't have it both ways.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 17:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
What if we attribute the statement to the Chinese government directly? If the text says this: "According to the Chinese government, there are 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang, which means there is on average one mosque for every 530 Muslims...higher than the number of Churches in England", I believe that could enable us to arrive at a consensus. We'll make clear that this is what China is officially saying, and let the reader make up their minds. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 17:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. You arguments aren't very convincing. It all seems subjective, with little in Wikipedia's policies to support what you're saying. It seems you're here to simply push your anti-China perspective, not build an encyclopedia. You seem to think that the topic is that the Chinese government lies. But that's not the point (all governments lie, most of all the US). But that's not our judgement to make. We have to simply quote it, with adequate attribution, and let the reader make up their minds.
I believe that along with what you said above, we should quote the ambassador's comments as well, with proper attribution to him personally.
(and as for the clarification, when you said "other piece", I thought you meant that MFA statement, not the media article. Which you've subsequently made clear.
But that still doesn't change the pattern I see. Ever since I joined a week ago, you've been making disruptive reverts to my edits, even reverting changes you say you agree with - just because, it seems, you can. And than after opening a talk section you agree with the majority of the same changes you reverted! You appear to have a long history of approaching WP:PA with me (in just the one week I've been here), insinuating all sorts of things.
In that ANI page I linked, you accused the user Telsho and I of having the same positions, which is simply untrue. And I'm not the only user who has concerns. Multiple users on that page also raised issues with your behavior.
In this particular case, I'm willing to say that I assumed you were talking about the first source when you were actually talking about the second, it was not deliberate, but simply a misunderstanding (since you did not specify in your edit summary exactly which source you were talking about). I'm more interested in arriving at a consensus than about bickering and ad hominem attacks. Are you?)
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 18:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Also - can you send me the link where it says that CIA World Factbook is usable? I dont find it listed on the actual RS list. There are only discussions on it on the noticeboards. SO its at the same level as the Chinese MFA then, which is ALSO not listed? Either both are usable, or neither are. You can't have it both ways. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Government sources are government sources. Whether they come from Ministry X or Department Y doesn't matter. So it need not be silly if done properly. But that's neither here nor there.
The point is, if there is no blanket rule, its exactly as I said: its all Subjective. Editor A says government X is reliable and government Y is not. Editor B says government Y is reliable as government X is not. There's Wikipedia for you.
I, however, am neither A not B. I say, lets use both, but *attribute* them. That should make clear to the reader that these are government statements, without even needing to click on the link. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You're literally just making up rules at this point. Your agenda is pretty transparent. You need to do a better job of hiding behind Wikipedia guidelines. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 12:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
"The Silk Road, which was a series of extensive inland trade routes that spread all over the Mediterranean to East Asia, was used since 1000 BC and continued to be used for millennia. During this large period of time, most of the traders were Muslim and moved towards the East." Reading this, to me it implied that most of the traders since 1000 BC that used the Silk Road were Muslim, which isn't true right? Also it says the Road continued to be used for a millennia, wouldn't this mean that it was only used from 1000 bc to 0 ad? Which isn't true? And Islam didn't exist for a while after? Idk if anyone could help me maybe I'm misunderstanding but this sentence just seems wrong in a lot of ways. TablemannDanny231 ( talk) 15:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There is interesting text reported by Donald Daniel Leslie
In the Tongdian (801 C.E.), based on the report of Du Huan, taken to Baghdad after the battle of Talas in 751, won by the Arabs, we read:30
Arabia [Dashi] was originally part of Persia. The men have high noses, are dark, and bearded. The women are very fair [white] and when they go out they veil the face. Five times daily they worship God [Tianshen]. They wear silver girdles, with silver knives suspended. They do not drink wine, nor use music... Every seventh day the king sits on high, and speaks to those below saying: “Those who are killed by the enemy will be reborn in Heaven above; those who slay the enemy will receive happiness
here is the link: http://ciw.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/morrison59.pdf
the veil weared by Arab Women here are clearly reerencing Hijab or Burqa. and the mention of Every seventh day the king sits on high, and speaks to those below saying: “Those who are killed by the enemy will be reborn in Heaven above; those who slay the enemy will receive happiness", are clearly referencing caliph delivering Friday Sermon. i think it is worth to mention this in the history section. Ahendra ( talk) 09:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of redundant sections. For example, the "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" sections basically cover content that is already in the History section of the article or otherwise belongs there, and sections on the Uyghurs camps as well as the Tibetan Muslim conflict have been repeated more than once throughout the article with limited variation. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and the sections mentioned also should be consolidated. Dankmemes2 ( talk) 08:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what's the difference between the "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" with "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" BUT under the History section. Suggest to merge (and then trim for if any repetitive content). Or alternatively, we can move the entire section of the "History" heading into the History of Islam in China page, since this page is just too big anyway. And since the History of Islam in China page still contains the old repetitive work that one editor did. Two birds with stone. Danial Bass ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a fascinating account of how Eid al-Adha rituals led to Muslims/Hui becoming the usual butchers in western China not only for the imperial elite but also for mandatory state sacrifices to the Chinese gods (considered to be meat-eaters if not carnivores) and suspect Commies during the paranoid Nationalist era (since killing cattle could only be a plot to reduce agricultural output and undermine the state). It should probably be introduced here, as well as at religion in China, Chinese cuisine, and similar pages.
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islam in China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahsnave, Jmowbray27, Beedrumms.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think there is an error. I highly doubt that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in China. I don't know the correct figure. Could the author have meant 'million'?
note by Khalifa Saleh, you are right it cannot be 1.2 billion. According to this source http://www.islamicpopulation.com/asia_general.html China's Muslim population is 39.1 million. It estimates to around 3%. This is according to the 2005 records. (Sorry I didn't know where to reply) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.251.181 ( talk • contribs) .
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Yes, I believe that the author meant to say millions instead of billions. About 2 percent of the Chinese population is Muslim, which cannot be 1.2 billion. 2% of China's population is about 24 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyang420 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is no critique at all involved then I refuse to believe a word of it. Every good article has cited critics and debates related to the article in topic. This is to give a more reflected view of the case and to not make it seem like propaganda.
84.209.4.79 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking to organize a WikiProject focusing on creating and expanding articles relating to the Uyghurs, including their history, cultural life (including Islamic practices), politics (separatist movements past and present, overseas disapora, etc), as well as information about the Xinjiang area more broadly. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so any help interested parties can offer on this undertaking would be much appreciated, thanks! -- MC MasterChef 23:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article says there is no record of Chinese making the Hajj before 1861. Didn't Zheng He make a side trip to Mecca on his last voyage?
ςפקιДИτς 02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.247.137 ( talk) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"The Yuan Dynasty embraced Islam." What does this mean? A Chinese Emperor became Muslim? Made Islam the state religion? Instituted Sharia?
The Arab and Persian immigrants introduced polo, their cuisine, their musical instruments ... coincidentally, polo is not just a sport, but also a rice dish (the word itself is cognate to pilaf). Just to make things even more confusing, both the sport and the dish trace their origins to Central Asia. History records that the sport was popular in China around this time, but does anyone know about the dish? =) cab 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made a section listing general chinese islamic male/female names. It would be great if someone with the knowlege would expand it. Jidan 19:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
can any one tell me the correct no of muslims in china
Stop giving out faulty information of Muslims in China. There are probably three different citations on the number of Muslims that constitute China's religious demographics; and all three give very DIFFERENT numbers, ranging from 20 million to 200 million. Please give more accurate sources next time. Thanks.
the thing is that the populatin in china is speculative we should use all our resorces to clarifythat Madman 0014 10:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that someone put the Accuracy tag on this piece. There is only one official count of the population of China: the census. It is considered by demographers outside the the country to be very accurate, though like all censuses suffers from some undercount. In the case of Chinese Muslims, this article used to have some truly wild numbers in it (400 million!), but even after that was eliminated people were still citing the speculative 100 million number given in a BBC article, a number that has been given no foundation whatsoever. I would argue that the "best estimate" is the 20.3 million which is derived from the 2000 census and that to give wildly higher numbers is not responsible unless somebody can cite credible sources (but see next paragraph). (The BBC is credible perhaps but not on this subject since it seems to have pulled the 100 million number out of the air.). The 40 million number that someobody inserted recently (linked to another Wikipedia page) is nothing more than a WFG that is roughly double the count in the Chinese census. (But it's nowhere near the 100 million that the BBC put at the top end of its 20-100 million range, or the 400 million number that was here a couple of months ago, and that somebody else judiciously eliminated.)— --Mack2 22:12.
It seems to me that if there is to be a reasoned debate about the number of Chinese Muslims, it would have to focus not simply on the source of information but also on how "Muslim" is defined or determined. It has been conventional to count up the population of the 10 nationalities that are deemed to be Muslim nationalities, so that in effect all persons who are counted as members of those nationalities are assumed to be Muslims. That's where the 20.3 million figure comes from for the year 2000. I had also put in a citation from the 1990 census which somebody deleted for no reason that I can see of ca. 16.7 million (the figures are also cited in the article by Drew Gladney that I had listed but somebody deleted). However, if there were some way to actually count the number of believers in Islam, this number would be different, no doubt, from the count of people in the census who belong to the 10 Muslim nationalities. It could even be lower, however, since some of the members of those nationalities may not be believers. Could it be higher? Possibly, but on what factual basis would someone come up with a 40 million number? --Mack2 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The figure of 100 million comes from the two census taking during the more neutral period of china against religions, namely the china year book of 1938, which put the figure at 50 million, and the 1949 census under changkaishek who put the figure at 45-50 million. The figure of 100 million is derived from the total population of china doubling since then, and the expectation that the muslim population also doubled as per the example of everywhere else in the world. It is also based on the fact that Islam has been in China for the last 1400 years, and the seperate kindgom of what is now Qinghai, Gangsu and Nigxia being a muslim sultanate under the xibei san ma. see http://www.muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Five_Ma. And so it would be innacurate just to put the official government statistic of 20.6 million .
There is NO reason to put the accuracy of the current regime against the two earlier sources .one from the national government at the time, and the other from and independent source. Modern china has a long history of religious persecution , including the closure of mosques, churches etc. Have you ascertained how the figure of 20 million was derived. Was a national compulsory census taken? The figure of 100 million , is to be honest a more accurate figure.
lol, so the 1949 census was out of thing air, and the china year book was out of thin air, and the population growth is out of thin air. In 1949 they spent years with demographers inside and outside china to compile their figures. If there where 50 million muslims in China in 1949, and the population of china has doubled and in every single country in the world the muslim population has doubled, what happened to china. Did the muslim population shrink by a half whilst the rest of the population doubled. And if so would you trust the census of a government that reduced a muslim population by half. No the answer is quite simple the present census reflects the governments stance against religion and is totally innacurate.
Exactly, do not believe all they say on the tv!sry for my bad english 83.148.238.194 ( talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The insertion of totally unsubstantiated and implausible figures for the number of Muslims in China keeps on and on. Soon we will be back to the earlier claim that 1/3 of China's population are Muslims. Those who assert that there are as many as 100 million or even 200 million Muslims have to tell us where those Muslims are located -- are they hiding in the Gobi? Are they in the underground aqueducts of Xinjiang (I didn't see millions of people hiding there when I visited those aqueducts)?
The census of 2000 counted 20.3 million total population in the 10 nationalities that are commonly said to be "Muslim" nationalities. While conceivably there could be an undercount of the population of those groups, or perhaps there are some other Muslims among the Han population, what could possibly justify saying there are 80 to 180 million more than were counted in the census? Extrapolating from 1950 without any attempt to validate the original numbers just doesn't wash. Where are those people located if they are alive and living in China?
More important, the usefulness of this article on Islam in China shouldn't hinge on exaggerated claims of the number of adherents to Islam. Stick to what you can verify, while using some reasonable judgment. Don't just put numbers in because they are big and somebody said those are the right ones. And give some thought to what China would really be like, as you travel across it, if there were another 100-200 million Muslims. Wouldn't you see signs of this somewhere? Again, where are those "extra" people?
As an indication of how dishonest 81.179.191.7's insertions have been, look at the recent history. First he put in a claim that the Asia Times "corroborated" the BBC's range of 20-100 million Muslims. But he didn't give his source, so I deleted the reference. Second, he came back with the reference, which in fact did NOT corroborate the 20-100 million Muslim range; on the contrary, it said there are no reliable figures but the range is probably 20-30 million (not the 20-100 million asserted by BBC). (The BBC article, btw/ does nothing to explain where it got its figures. The 20 million figure plausibly came from the 2000 census.) In response to the misleading claim that Asia Times had corroborated the BBC, I quoted a full sentence from the Asia Times article that 81.179.191.7 himself had cited, so that 81.179.191.7 would not make more false claims based on that source. So 81.179.191.7 was caught in a deception. Then what happened? 81.179.191.7 made even more implausible claims -- even suggesting that there were 200 million Muslims in China. Well that figure was 10 times the number counted in the census, and 2 times the number in the BBC, and 6-7 times the maximum range mentioned in the Asia Times (a source that 81.179.191.7 presumably had thought credible this morning). If the Asia Times was so authoritative earlier today in giving a range of 20-30 million, why does 81.179.191.7 now contradict his own source and come in with totally fanciful numbers (the types of numbers there were given in this article a couple of months ago and deleted by other contributors).
Somebody in a position of responsibility needs to intervene here. --Mack2 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
When a government purposely plays down anything, it means there's *more* to it. The more emphasis of playing down / being vague, the larger the population actually is. The central governement is currently offering economic incentives to Han Chinese to relocate to Muslim areas in an effort to cleanse the majority and re-define. NPR News quotes local Uyghur construction workers receiving less than 1/8 the wages of the bussed-in Han Chinese, as well as the Central governement's killing of a prominent Uyghur businessman (died of a 'heart attack' while in police custody in his late thirties).
I think you need to be banned because you are clearly not capable of making any kind of intelligent comment. Begins a comment with "Some douchebag Muslim kid" Then ends it with "Do everyone a favor and kill yourself"!!! You sound a little childish yourself.
I think all the vandalisms are out of control. The official estimations (the 2002 census from the government, U.S. State Department estimations as well as CIA World Factbook estimations) all have been deleted, and instead, it was replaced by figures from unknown Islamic websites. -- 67.2.149.250 19:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody has repeatedty put up the data for KMT government back in 1938/1949, which that somebody said has recorded 40 million Muslims.
Now look at the historical circumstances perspective.
Back in 1938, China was in full fledge war with Japan, Manchuria has long been occupied, Beijing and Shanghai, along with much of Hebei has already fallen to the Japanese, Tibet was effectively under British control, the Northwestern provinces were either controlled by the communist or local warlords, the effective area under KMT control was only the South and the Southwest.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War was at its closing stage. China had been in war for some years, KMT policy initiated hyperinflation, and the KMT governement was fast losing ground to the communist.
And that, were the years chosen for "FAIR" and "ACCURATE" census.
Well during the Communist reign there was bloody supression of numerous muslim uprisings in nanxian, lixan , hunan etc, etc. The government closed mosques, sent imams to jail, banned religious education etc, as was communist policy throughout the communist countries such as russia, vietnam, etc, etc.
If we are going to cite the current census - with no details of how it was peformed with no outside colaboration, etc, then it is entirely fair and accurate to put the 1948 census figures as well as the source from the china year book etc. Why should we reject these figures whilst putting in the communist figures, unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress the number of muslims in china on the wikipedia as well
Well, I guess you're right about those older censusses (probably not the correct plural) aren't completely trustworthy. But what about the most recent census? Are there any objective scientists who feel it's plausible / correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.51.236 ( talk) 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
Some Han supremacists - 205.188.116.204 - 67.2.148.228 - are desperately trying to get rid of Muslim participation totally from Chinese history. Why is it so difficult to accept Yuan and Mughal dynasties descended from Genghis Khan? Go read about Taimur, Olegu Khan, Kublai Khan, Babur, Akbar before vandalising this article.
I think there are some confusions that needs to be resolved here. The unsigned user above seems to think that if Central Asian warlords (Taimur) of later era who claims to have been descended from Genghis Khan or his families are Muslims, then Genghis Khan must be a Muslim. True, the founders of the Mughal Empire of India (Babur) are Muslims, and they claims to have been related to Genghis Khan (who is from several centuries earlier) through their ancestors marrying his descendants. But it does not mean that Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty are Muslims. Such claims are unfounded and are not accepted by most academics and historians.-- 67.2.149.88 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is turning into a bloody mess. All contributors are reminded to please support all your edits with a citation to a news article from a reputable organisation or a book. Otherwise, your additions or subtractions may be reverted. See WP:CITE. Put these back in the article only if and when you have sources for them.
Following is a list of what I have removed from the article so far. cab 21:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
references added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.184.64 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 November 2006
I don't understand why would anyone keep reverting the Demographic section back to the vandalized version done by various users (such as 81.154.252.34). The BBC link the section referred to is now defunct, which means we can no longer check the facts, and the other references (pointing to the 200 and 100 million population) has no electronic links and are cited poorly. Please do not removed references from the CIA World Factbook as well as the US Department of State's "International Religious Freedom Report". Replacing official census with websites that has no scholarly value is considered un-encyclopedic and do not fit the standards of neutarlity. For now, the demographic section will remain in the version with references support by The World Factbook. Other references are welcome, but please do not remove official or recognized figures.-- Balthazarduju 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is absurd to name Ahmad from Kwarzm as Chinese Muslim, for he was not Chinese.
After all, we do not name Matteo Ricci as Chinese Catholic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.98.2 ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 November 2006
This portion of the BBC site, in addition to being unavailable from the link provided, is not your usual BBC. It is first of all unattributed, leaving us no reason to believe anyone stands behind this "reporting." It begins by stating as a matter of fact that Islam was "revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace by upon him)." Whatever the domain name, this is Dawah, not a credible source. The last germane BBC story I was able to find gave the figure of twenty million. Proabivouac 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
User 7day's idea is worth a try. as it is sucessesful on Islam in the United States Madman 0014 16:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The figure of 100 million is sourced from census figures under changkai shek, and the china year book, and the extrapolated. And so they form the basis of this figure. I would find it pretty suprising that the COMMUNIST figure of 20 million is correct, when Muslims have been in China for around 1300 years, and large parts of what is current China included annexed land that was predominantly Muslim, approximately 1/3rd of the whole of china. And so to follow the sensible route, we give the official COMMUNIST figure and the equally important alternative figure which is based on reliable and sourced information.
81.178.254.21 00:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Proabivouac You have already stated that you find the figure of 100 million unrealistic. I.e you have already adopted your position and are working from that position. During Chiang Kai-Sheks reign a census was taken which concluded 50 million, equally the China Year book gave the population of 48 million. this was 50 years ago. The population of China has trebled since then. Thus the BBC source (as well as many other sources, including tapes, islamic sites ) extrapolate the figure from a time when religion was not persecuted. It is just and fair AND BALANCED to include this additional information when giving the demographic figures. Perhaps you are unaware of the large history of Muslims in China, or that China 200 years ago took in 1/3 of its land mass by conquering majority muslim xinjiang and high percentage of muslims in Mongolia. It is also worth noting that Muslims are so numerous in China that over the last few hundred years they rebelled and created Islamic states in 4 provinces. So really I don't see any problem with a higher figure, and given their is sourced and references demographic figures, then they should be cited
81.179.112.201 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Proabivouac, you have vandalised this page many times now out of a
MW:POV stance that you revealed to me. You have also broken WIkipedias 3R rule. The wikipedia is here to provide balanced and NPOV information. If that means i have to flag your vandalism and revert wars, then that is what i have to do. I would have much prefered you to have been reasonable. Those demographics have been there for a long time now, and
User:CaliforniaAliBaba did an excellent job of stabalising the article, until you decided 100 million was an unrelistic figure. And as for the likes of
User:Striver, it is very clear that he follows a position of Just editing, just by looking at his contributions. I am afraid you have made this a personal issue, when it needent have been . But look on the bright side of things, at least this point is being discusses , which saves the article from being vandalised
81.179.112.201 06:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a sentiment here that there's no possible way the number of Muslims in China could have fallen. A prominent example in print is:
Obviously some editors here feel this way too. But I don't see how it's so unbelievable that the number of Muslims in an officially atheist country would fall over the course of six decades of communist rule. Especially in China, where a huge number of Muslims are Hui; Mandarin-speaking people who can blend in with Han Chinese and could even easily re-identify as such if it became advantageous to do so. I think all of us editing this article agree that Communists are generally not friendly to religion.
The appropriate demographic comparison is not to the Muslim world as a whole, but to the Communist countries therein, and specifically those where there was significant non-Muslim migration; for example, Kazakhstan is composed of 65 to 70% of members of traditionally Muslim ethnicities (see Demographics of Kazakhstan), but only 47% of the population identify as Muslims (see Islam in Kazakhstan). And even among those identifying as Muslims, the actual degree of adherence is spotty at best. For a specific example:
Comments appreciated. And let's all seek to observe WP:CIVIL, myself included. cab 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, most demographics based on religion are derived from the persons identification with that religion, as opposed to how much he fufills it. So for example the Communist census does not ask if they practice or not just whether they associate with a specific ethnic group, ie, hui, kazakh etc.
But in terms of muslim population growth, as defined by identification, YOu would find it hard pressed to find any example anywhere in the world where there is not growth but decline. ANd given the decline that would have to be undergone in china to drop the muslim population from 50 million 50 years ago to 20 million now whilst everyone else trebled, then this would be unprecidented in History
81.179.112.201 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People do not leave their belief through force, and especially not their identification as belong to a religious group , which is why most of central asia identify themselves as muslim regardless of whether they practice or not. 81.179.112.201 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
People come and go from relgion, it is a natural cycle. however people do not leave their belief through oppression and force.
I have one question for you though. Where the majority Han population subject to the one child policy, and were the minorities subject to the same policy? Because if the Chinese population trebled from the 1950's and this was with one child policy to the majority han. Are you seriously suggesting that Muslim minorities shrunk by a 1/2 -1/3 without the one child policy whilst the majority han tripled??? Do you know that in 1955 There were more than 40,000 official mosques in China, that figure alone tells us there were 20-40 million Muslims during that time.
81.178.68.147 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
anyone feeling me on this one? the template tags here are a little overboard in my opinion, the real long tag, islam all the world, kinda mess up the flow of the article, I'm gonna take it out. UyghurKid023
I changed the format as the "Protestantism", "Catholicism", "Christianity" and "Buddhism" "in China" articles all begin with the histories of those religion in China and thus so should this article. The number of Muslims in China may be an important issue but the general format should not be changed for that reason.
Hi, I regret to inform you that there is absolutely no historical evidence that Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās ever went to China, and there is no archaeological evidence of mosques in China before the Song Dynasty. The story about the prophet's uncle going to China is a mere legend. If anyone has evidence to support it, please present it. Otherwise, let's not propagate legends as history, okay? For your reference, see Lipman, Familiar Strangers, p. 25. Also, the mosque in Canton has been dated by Dr. Kerr to 900 AD, see Broomhall, Islam in China, p. 110. Oh, and by the way, just because one author claims that it is historical doesn't make it true. Look up the author's sources and see if the author himself is not just propagating a myth. I have read the BBC article, and I think whoever wrote it didn't do their homework. It sounds neat, but is there any evidence?...I think not. The myth itself says that Waqqas actually went to China in response to the emperor having a dream of the Prophet in 621. Waqqas then took 30 copies of the Quran to China, the emperor edited them and propagated them throughout China before building a mosque. What evidence is there of a seventh century mosque in China? Do you think the emperor dreamed about the Prophet, sent to Arabia for him (before 1 AH), and edited the Quran? Rockemet, Stanford ( talk) 15:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) ~ You are absolutely right. If a companion of Muhammed entered into China, it would be mentioned in Islamic traditions; however, there is no mention of any companion going to China. -- 24.190.235.229 ( talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Many muslim generals like Ma Zhanao, Ma Qianling, Ma Anliang, Dong Fuxiang and Ma Julung defected to the Qing dynasty and HELPED the qing general Zuo Zongtang crush muslim rebels. Zuo even removed the Han from outside of Hezhou and relocated them because the muslims there joined him and helped him exterminate the rebels.
Someone with an anti qing agenda is trying to white wash history and make it seem as though the "evil qing dynasty wanted to exterminate all muslims so it went on a random genocide".
wrong- authors like Jonathan Neaman Lipman make it clear in their works that the rebellion was not started due to some random hatred of muslims or divide and conquer tactics, but because of infighting between various Sufi sects, the Jahariyya and Khafiya, and the Gedimu.
Many muslims were loyal to Qing, and Generals like Dong Fuxiang Ma Anliang and Ma Fuxiang even assited the Qing dynasty again in the Dungan Revolt (1895) in killing muslim rebels. Дунгане ( talk) 19:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Guderyean ( talk) 06:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Savadove, Bill. Aug 17, 2005. “Faith Flourishes in an Arid Wasteland; Muslim Sect in Ningxia Accepts Beijing's Authority and Is Allowed to Build a Virtual Religious State."
http://www.scmp.com/article/512501/faith-flourishes-arid-wasteland
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/a-tale-of-two-chinese-muslim-minorities/
http://books.google.com/books?id=04dlwzB2SvcC&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan ( talk) 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Population numbers
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-asia/#china
Family planning among Muslims in China. Many Muslims voluntarily limit themselves to one child.
http://ilookchina.net/2010/11/05/exemptions-in-chinas-one-child-policy/
Do not use this blog directly as a soure, but it contains references to reliable sources itself.
http://ningxiaunveiled.wordpress.com/family-planning/
Rajmaan ( talk) 05:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to duplicate Islam in China. Dougweller ( talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There are some problems about Ming dynasty Muslim claims and these need to be dealt with re NPOV, although I don't think that will stop all the vandalism. I've worked on Mu Ying (where I see vandalism from both sides):
Michael Dillon wrote "There is no suggestion in most western accounts of Mu Ying's career or the Chinese sources on which they draw that Mu Ying was anything other than a Han Chinese by origin, yet he has been included in the major series of studies of the lives of eminent Hui as a Muslim without any comment. The surname Mu is also common among Chinese Muslims and is probably derived from Muhammad, although it is normally written with a different Chinese character. The character used to write Mu Ying's surname is the one associated with washing the hair and which appears on signs in every mosque in China as the first character of muyu the ritual baths to be used before prayer." He concludes that "He was probably descended from an old Muslim family but there is no evidence that he was a practising Muslim." [1]
Jonathan Neaman Lipman notes that Mu Ying is among a number of generals "unambiguously claimed as Muslim by Sino-Muslim scholars" mentioning specifically Bai Shouyi. He writes that "There is considerable doubt among non-Muslim scholars as to the “Muslim” identity of most of these generals, but Sino-Muslims assert their “Huiness” unequivocally. Tazaka, Chugoku ni okeru kaikyo, 861, for example, questions not only Chang Yuqun’s identification as a Huihui but that of many others as well. F. Mote, in Goodrich and Fang, Dictionary, 1079-8}, indicates that we have no evidence that Mu Ying was born a Muslim, and the story of his adoption and upbringing in Zhu Yuanzhang’s intimate circle certainly indicates that he was not raised as one." [2]
These sources mention other generals.
Zheng He is one of those who were born into a Muslim family but seems to have abandoned his religion. Dougweller ( talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
http://library.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/read/rab2.pdf
Rajmaan ( talk) 14:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We are a group of undergraduate students who will be editing under the Relations with Non-Muslims for a class assignment. We would appreciate any insights or feedback from those who have been working hard on this article so that we can seamlessly add our work. Thank you! Jmowbray27 ( talk) 19:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Early History
·"Another example of greater Chinese Muslim synthesis with other surrounding identities is how Muslim General Ma Bufang allowed polytheists to openly worship, and Christian missionaries to station themselves in Qinghai." What is “greater synthesis”? (Is there a lesser synthesis?) What is being synthesized? By whom? And for what purpose? Also, is Qinghai strategically important in some way? It could use a little explanation here.
·"In addition, the tradition of foot-binding was practiced by both Muslim and non-Muslims orders, noting the transcendence of greater Chinese culture across all communities of faith." Orders of what? Also, dangling modifier – a practice doesn’t “note” something. But a person could. Perhaps you mean indicating?
·"...as Chinese society operates in a more closed system." A system of what? More closed than what?
·"By speaking the same language they rely on each other and they are seen as having promising future living together." Is this a choice they’ve made together? Is it unusual to be speaking the same language when living in the same place? There are some implicit assumptions or contexts here that need to be made explicit. MonstreDélicat ( talk) 01:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Contemporary Relationships
·Xinjiang, has experienced repeated violence and other acts of intimidation mobilized by the Uyghur, especially over the past year Since "the past year" will be a moving signifier as time passes, you should find a way to specify which year you're talking about.
·This section is really well written on the whole, and you note that scholarship is hard to come by, but is there anything you can make connections to, re: scholarship on global rise of Islam, scholars' attempts to explain any phenomena with respect to the postsecular, etc.? MonstreDélicat ( talk) 02:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We do not think this article is ready to move beyond the C class, as it covers many different topics that we were not looking at and think that overall it needs more work.
Limitations of Article
In editing a smaller portion of a larger article, we had several instances where our research was repeated in the article, so we had to pay attention to redundancy and take into account the reader of the entire article and not just a single section. We do not think our section would warrant it's own article as good scholarship is sparse and it works to have it included in this larger article. It's hard to find sources from multiple perspectives. This is very important in understanding how Chinese Muslims live their religion and reflecting factual statements about Islam in China. We focused on current sources and did not use older good sources from the 1980s and 1970s as they would not reflect the current situation.
Future Editing
We hope future editors of this article will take into account the broadness of the subject and the variety of lived experiences of Chinese Muslims. We used current and historical events to show the interactions of Muslims and Non-Muslims and as events happen, this article should reflect these events. Future editors should be diligent in using current sources in reflecting modern situations. Be precise explaining motives behind current events, especially acts of aggression that are sensationalized in the media.
Jmowbray27 ( talk) 21:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/NaziaAngel1993/status/768782994920312832
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3ahcWIAE0nUe.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3a4BWYAAAKpC.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqZ3bl7WIAAFRXM.jpg
06:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This section reads like a smear attack on Tibetans - /info/en/?search=Islam_in_China#Tibetan-Muslim_sectarian_violence
It needs to be rewritten. An excerpt from said section: Tibetans deliberately attack the Hui Muslims as a way to demonstrate anti-government sentiment and because they have a background of sectarian violence against each other
Whereas the cited source says this: Most of the incidents involve the Hui, who ethnically are Han Chinese but practice Islam. China's 9.8 million Hui and 5.4 million Tibetans historically have lived in proximity, at various times fighting, competing or intermarrying and collaborating. [1]
The author dropped neutrality in favour of a deliberately provocative stance and this needs to be rectified and entire article rewritten. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.83.3.42 (
talk) 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@HorseEyeJack (user page doesn't exist so cant link):
When reverting my edit, you said: "That source cant be used for statements of fact like that and the other piece doesnt support the text, it says nothing about churches in england"
The linked source literally says "The fact is, there are 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang, which means there is on average one mosque for every 530 Muslims. This ratio is higher than that in some Muslim countries and also higher than the number of churches per Christian in England."'
So that's literally a lie. You literally lied on Wikipedia, and this isn't the first time I've seen it.
And can you also explain your first statement, why cant the official statement of the Chinese ambassador to the UK not be used as a statement for fact like that?
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is a citation from the WP:V page, from Princeton University: "To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data."
Thus, government statistics about the no.of mosques in Xinjiang can be cited as per WP:V
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with you on the quote. That it is quoted as a citation means it is part of WP:V. Its a citation on the page.
Moreover, US government sources are often used by Wikipedia - including by yourself on the Foreign Relations of China page, where you used the CIA.gov source (which btw, actually did contain a lie that Pakistan ceded Aksai Chin to China).
So the US government is reliable, but the Chinese government is not? Either both are unreliable, or neither are. Why the double standards? You can't have it both ways.
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 17:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
What if we attribute the statement to the Chinese government directly? If the text says this: "According to the Chinese government, there are 24,400 mosques in Xinjiang, which means there is on average one mosque for every 530 Muslims...higher than the number of Churches in England", I believe that could enable us to arrive at a consensus. We'll make clear that this is what China is officially saying, and let the reader make up their minds. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 17:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. You arguments aren't very convincing. It all seems subjective, with little in Wikipedia's policies to support what you're saying. It seems you're here to simply push your anti-China perspective, not build an encyclopedia. You seem to think that the topic is that the Chinese government lies. But that's not the point (all governments lie, most of all the US). But that's not our judgement to make. We have to simply quote it, with adequate attribution, and let the reader make up their minds.
I believe that along with what you said above, we should quote the ambassador's comments as well, with proper attribution to him personally.
(and as for the clarification, when you said "other piece", I thought you meant that MFA statement, not the media article. Which you've subsequently made clear.
But that still doesn't change the pattern I see. Ever since I joined a week ago, you've been making disruptive reverts to my edits, even reverting changes you say you agree with - just because, it seems, you can. And than after opening a talk section you agree with the majority of the same changes you reverted! You appear to have a long history of approaching WP:PA with me (in just the one week I've been here), insinuating all sorts of things.
In that ANI page I linked, you accused the user Telsho and I of having the same positions, which is simply untrue. And I'm not the only user who has concerns. Multiple users on that page also raised issues with your behavior.
In this particular case, I'm willing to say that I assumed you were talking about the first source when you were actually talking about the second, it was not deliberate, but simply a misunderstanding (since you did not specify in your edit summary exactly which source you were talking about). I'm more interested in arriving at a consensus than about bickering and ad hominem attacks. Are you?)
Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 18:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Also - can you send me the link where it says that CIA World Factbook is usable? I dont find it listed on the actual RS list. There are only discussions on it on the noticeboards. SO its at the same level as the Chinese MFA then, which is ALSO not listed? Either both are usable, or neither are. You can't have it both ways. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Government sources are government sources. Whether they come from Ministry X or Department Y doesn't matter. So it need not be silly if done properly. But that's neither here nor there.
The point is, if there is no blanket rule, its exactly as I said: its all Subjective. Editor A says government X is reliable and government Y is not. Editor B says government Y is reliable as government X is not. There's Wikipedia for you.
I, however, am neither A not B. I say, lets use both, but *attribute* them. That should make clear to the reader that these are government statements, without even needing to click on the link. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You're literally just making up rules at this point. Your agenda is pretty transparent. You need to do a better job of hiding behind Wikipedia guidelines. Honoredebalzac345 ( talk) 12:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
"The Silk Road, which was a series of extensive inland trade routes that spread all over the Mediterranean to East Asia, was used since 1000 BC and continued to be used for millennia. During this large period of time, most of the traders were Muslim and moved towards the East." Reading this, to me it implied that most of the traders since 1000 BC that used the Silk Road were Muslim, which isn't true right? Also it says the Road continued to be used for a millennia, wouldn't this mean that it was only used from 1000 bc to 0 ad? Which isn't true? And Islam didn't exist for a while after? Idk if anyone could help me maybe I'm misunderstanding but this sentence just seems wrong in a lot of ways. TablemannDanny231 ( talk) 15:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There is interesting text reported by Donald Daniel Leslie
In the Tongdian (801 C.E.), based on the report of Du Huan, taken to Baghdad after the battle of Talas in 751, won by the Arabs, we read:30
Arabia [Dashi] was originally part of Persia. The men have high noses, are dark, and bearded. The women are very fair [white] and when they go out they veil the face. Five times daily they worship God [Tianshen]. They wear silver girdles, with silver knives suspended. They do not drink wine, nor use music... Every seventh day the king sits on high, and speaks to those below saying: “Those who are killed by the enemy will be reborn in Heaven above; those who slay the enemy will receive happiness
here is the link: http://ciw.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/morrison59.pdf
the veil weared by Arab Women here are clearly reerencing Hijab or Burqa. and the mention of Every seventh day the king sits on high, and speaks to those below saying: “Those who are killed by the enemy will be reborn in Heaven above; those who slay the enemy will receive happiness", are clearly referencing caliph delivering Friday Sermon. i think it is worth to mention this in the history section. Ahendra ( talk) 09:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of redundant sections. For example, the "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" sections basically cover content that is already in the History section of the article or otherwise belongs there, and sections on the Uyghurs camps as well as the Tibetan Muslim conflict have been repeated more than once throughout the article with limited variation. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and the sections mentioned also should be consolidated. Dankmemes2 ( talk) 08:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what's the difference between the "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" with "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" BUT under the History section. Suggest to merge (and then trim for if any repetitive content). Or alternatively, we can move the entire section of the "History" heading into the History of Islam in China page, since this page is just too big anyway. And since the History of Islam in China page still contains the old repetitive work that one editor did. Two birds with stone. Danial Bass ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a fascinating account of how Eid al-Adha rituals led to Muslims/Hui becoming the usual butchers in western China not only for the imperial elite but also for mandatory state sacrifices to the Chinese gods (considered to be meat-eaters if not carnivores) and suspect Commies during the paranoid Nationalist era (since killing cattle could only be a plot to reduce agricultural output and undermine the state). It should probably be introduced here, as well as at religion in China, Chinese cuisine, and similar pages.