China's detainment of Muslim Uighur minority

[FaxModem1]

This article is a few months old, but I figure it's worth discussing:

Vox

China’s brutal crackdown on the Uighur Muslim minority, explained
China pushed back against international criticism at a UN human rights panel on Tuesday.
By Jen Kirbyjen.kirby@vox.com Updated Nov 6, 2018, 7:34pm EST
SHARE

A Uighur man makes bread at a local bakery on July 1, 2017, in Kashgar, in China’s far western Xinjiang province. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
China was sharply criticized for its mass detention of members of the Muslim Uighur community at a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting on Tuesday — but the country pushed back, saying that the condemnation was politically motivated.

Western governments, including those in Europe, the United States, and Canada, had the harshest words for China. The United States chargé d’affaires Mark Cassayre demanded that China “abolish all forms of arbitrary detention” for Uighurs and other Muslims minorities, and that China release the “possibly millions” of individuals detained there.

China’s Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng dismissed these and other comments as “politically driven accusations from a few countries that are fraught with biases.”

China has detained as many as 1 million Uighurs in so-called “reeducation centers” and forced them to undergo psychological indoctrination programs — like studying communist propaganda and giving thanks to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Chinese authorities have also reportedly used waterboarding and other forms of torture on the ethnic minority.

The Chinese government, however, claims that the camps are merely vocational and training centers intended to combat extremism, and that they’re teaching detainees useful and valuable skills. On Tuesday, Le, the foreign minister, made similar arguments. “This protects the human rights of the vast majority, while also saving these people,” he said. “It’s another important contribution of China’s to the global counterterror field.”

Members of the UN Human Rights Council from Africa and the Middle East didn’t offer vocal criticism, but the confrontation between China and Western UN member states is the latest development in a long-simmering crisis. Here’s what you need to know.

China is targeting the Uighur Muslim community

Javier Zarracina/Vox
Xinjiang, where about 10 million Uighurs and a few other Muslim minorities live, is an autonomous region in China’s northwest that borders Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Mongolia. It has been under Chinese control since 1949, when the communist People’s Republic of China was established.

Uighurs speak their own language — an Asian Turkic language similar to Uzbek — and most practice a moderate form of Sunni Islam. Some activists, including those who seek independence from China, refer to the region as East Turkestan.

Once situated along the ancient Silk Road trading route, Xinjiang is oil- and resource-rich. As it developed along with the rest of China, the region attracted more Han Chinese, a migration encouraged by the Chinese government.

But that demographic shift inflamed ethnic tensions, especially within some of the larger cities. In 2009, for example, riots broke out in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, after Uighurs protested their treatment by the government and the Han majority. About 200 people were killed and hundreds injured during the unrest.

The Chinese government, however, blamed the protests on violent separatist groups — a tactic it would continue to use against the Uighurs and other religious and ethnic minorities across China.

Xinjiang is also a major logistics hub of Beijing’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, a trillion-dollar infrastructure project along the old Silk Road meant to boost China’s economic and political influence around the world. Xinjiang’s increasing importance to China’s global aspirations is likely a major reason Beijing is tightening its grip.


All of which means China has increasingly tried to draw Xinjiang into its orbit, starting with a crackdown in 2009 following riots in the region and leading up to the implementation of repressive policies in 2016 and 2017 that have curbed religious freedom and increased surveillance of the minority population, often under the guise of combating terrorism and extremism.

The Chinese government justifies its clampdown on the Uighurs and Muslim minorities by saying it’s trying to eradicate extremism and separatist groups. But while attacks, some violent, by Uighur separatists have occurred in recent years, there’s little evidence of any cohesive separatist movement — with jihadist roots or otherwise — that could challenge the Chinese government, experts tell me.

China’s “de-extremification” policies against the Uighurs
Uyghur Life Endures in Kashgar’s Old City
An ethnic Uighur man has his beard trimmed after prayers on June 30, 2017, in Kashgar, in Xinjiang. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
China’s crackdown on the Uighurs is part of a policy of “de-extremification.” It’s generated repressive policies, from the banning of certain Muslim names for babies to chilling reports of torture and political indoctrination in so-called “reeducation” camps where hundreds of thousands have been detained.

Communist China has a dark history with reeducation camps, combining hard labor with indoctrination to the party line. According to research by Adrian Zenz, a leading scholar on China’s policies toward the Uighurs, Chinese officials began using dedicated camps in Xinjiang around 2014 — around the same time that China blamed a series of terrorist attacks on radical Uighur separatists.

China escalated pressure on Muslim minorities through 2017, slowly chipping away at their rights with the passage of religious regulations and a counterterrorism law, according to the Uyghur Human Rights Project, a pro-Uighur group based in Washington, DC.

In 2016, Xinjiang also got a new leader: a powerful Communist Party boss named Chen Quanguo, whose previous job was restoring order and control to the restive region of Tibet. Chen has a reputation as a strongman and is something of a specialist in ethnic crackdowns.

Increased surveillance and police presence accompanied his move to Xinjiang, including his “grid management” policing system. As the Economist reported, “authorities divide each city into squares, with about 500 people. Every square has a police station that keeps tabs on the inhabitants. So, in rural areas, does every village.”

Security checkpoints where residents must scan identification cards were set up at train stations and on roads into and out of towns. Authorities have reportedly used facial recognition technology to track residents’ movements. Police confiscate phones to download the information contained on them to scan through later. Police have also confiscated passports to prevent Uighurs from traveling abroad.

Some of the targeted “de-extremification” restrictions gained coverage in the West, including a ban on certain Muslim names for babies and another on long beards and veils. The government also made it illegal to not watch state television and to not send children to government schools. The government reportedly tried to promote drinking and smoking, because people who didn’t drink or smoke — like devout Muslims — were deemed suspicious.

Chinese officials have justified these policies as necessary to counter religious radicalization and extremism, but critics say they are meant to curtail Islamic traditions and practices.

The Chinese government is “trying to expunge ethnonational characteristics from the people,” James Millward, a professor at Georgetown University, told me. “They’re not trying to drive them out of the country; they’re trying to hold them in.”

“The ultimate goal, the ultimate issue that the Chinese state is targeting [is] the cultural practices and beliefs of Muslim groups,” he added.

What we know, and don’t know, about the detention camps
Uyghur Life Endures in Kashgar’s Old City
A Chinese flag flies over a local mosque closed by authorities in June 2017, in Kashgar, in the far western autonomous region of Xinjiang, China. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
“Reeducation camps” — or training camps, as the Chinese have called them — are perhaps the most sinister pillar of this de-extremification policy. Experts estimate as many as 2 million people have disappeared into these camps at some point, with about 1 million currently being held.

The Chinese government first denied these camps even existed. When confronted about them at the United Nations in August, officials claimed they were for the “assistance and education” of minor criminals. China’s state-run media has dismissed the reports of detention camps as Western media “baselessly criticizing China’s human rights.”

But China has since stopped pretending that the camps aren’t real. Instead, the government is trying to cast them as both lawful and innocuous. In October, Chinese officials effectively legalized the “education camps” for the stated goal of eradicating extremism. Later that month, a government official in Xinjiang — who was himself an ethnic Uighur — compared the detention centers to “boarding schools” and its detainees to “students.”

“Many trainees have said they were previously affected by extremist thought and had never participated in such kinds of arts and sports activities. Now they realize how colorful life can be,” Xinjiang governor Shorat Zakir reportedly told Xinhua, the state-run news agency.

The fact that the Chinese government is spreading misinformation makes it difficult to find out what’s really going on, but leaked documents and firsthand accounts from people detained at the camps have helped paint a disturbing picture of the camps.

Millward, the Georgetown professor, said the Chinese authorities see the camps as “a kind of conversion therapy, and they talk about it that way.”

A source also told Radio Free Asia that a Chinese official had referred to the “reeducation” process as similar to “spraying chemicals on the crops. That is why it is general reeducation, not limited to a few people.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Josh Chin and Clément Bürge, who documented the increasingly oppressive state surveillance in Xinjiang in a December 2017 report, described one of these detention centers:

One new compound sits a half-hour drive south of Kashgar, a Uighur-dominated city near the border with Kyrgyzstan. It is surrounded by imposing walls topped with razor wire, with watchtowers at two corners. A slogan painted on the wall reads: “All ethnic groups should be like the pods of a pomegranate, tightly wrapped together.”

Those detained in the camps are often accused of having “strong religious views” and “politically incorrect” ideas, according to Radio Free Asia. But Zenz, the researcher, said people are often detained for arbitrary reasons.

“Many Uighur-majority regions have been ordered to detain a certain percentage of the adult population even if no fault was found. Detentions frequently occur for no discernible reasons,” Zenz said of the detainees.

Though Chinese government officials might try to paint these “reeducation camps” as enriching experiences, a report published in October by the French news service Agence France-Presse undermined that narrative.

The report described camps where thousands of guards carrying spiked clubs, tear gas, and stun guns surveil the detainees, who are held in buildings surrounded by razor wire and infrared cameras. AFP journalists also reviewed public documents that showed government agencies overseeing the camps purchased 2,768 police batons, 550 electric cattle prods, 1,367 pairs of handcuffs, and 2,792 cans of pepper spray.

Inside these camps, detainees are reportedly subjected to bizarre exercises aimed at “brainwashing” them, as well as physical torture and deprivation.

The Washington Post published an account from Kayrat Samarkand, who was detained in one of the camps for three months:

The 30-year-old stayed in a dormitory with 14 other men. After the room was searched every morning, he said, the day began with two hours of study on subjects including “the spirit of the 19th Party Congress,” where Xi expounded his political dogma in a three-hour speech, and China’s policies on minorities and religion. Inmates would sing communist songs, chant “Long live Xi Jinping” and do military-style training in the afternoon before writing accounts of their day, he said.

“Those who disobeyed the rules, refused to be on duty, engaged in fights or were late for studies were placed in handcuffs and ankle cuffs for up to 12 hours,” Samarkand told the Post.

At a July hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China — a special committee set up by Congress to monitor human rights in China — Jessica Batke, a former research analyst at the State Department, testified that “in at least some of these facilities, detainees are subject to waterboarding, being kept in isolation without food and water, and being prevented from sleeping.”

“They are interrogated about their religious practices and about having made trips abroad,” Batke continued. “They are forced to apologize for the clothes they wore or for praying in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

A lot of criticism but very little action
This UN panel is the latest international body to harshly criticize China’s detainment of the Uighurs. But China has continued to push back against human rights allegations, and there’s no sign that Beijing appears ready to shift its policies.

Zenz suggested in August that increased international pressure might prompt China to disguise their reeducation regime a bit more, or possibly tone down its policies. But so far, the country has pursued the former, trying to portray these centers as “colorful” cultural and educational experiences, rather than arbitrary detention centers.

“China’s stance at the moment is more one of justification, distraction, and defiance,” Zenz wrote.

Some lawmakers in the United States are trying to draw attention to the plight of the Uighurs, including pushing the Trump administration to sanction Chen, the strongman leader of Xinjiang, and other officials and businesses complicit in the detention and surveillance of citizens.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), who co-chair the Congressional Executive Commission on China, sent a letter in August that called on the US government to sanction Chen, the strongman leader of Xinjiang, and other officials and businesses complicit in the detention and surveillance of citizens.

The Congressional Executive Commission on China, under the leadership of Rubio and Smith, has also continued to push for action. In October, the committee released a report detailing human rights violations in China, with a particular focus on the plight of the Uighurs. Those lawmakers are pushing bipartisan legislation that would force the Trump administration to condemn these “reeducation centers” and push for sanctions.

But the State Department, when asked by reporters in November whether the US was considering sanctions against China for its treatment of the Uighurs, said it would not preview any possible sanctions, but said the US remained alarmed at the situation in China.

“The United States will continue to demand transparency and access for diplomats and journalists to Xinjiang,” deputy State Department spokesperson Robert Palladino said, “and we urge China to immediately release all those arbitrarily detained in these camps.”

So, China detains it's Muslims, in actions that seem rather barbaric. How does this compare to European and US treatment? What does this mean, long term, for China? What does it mean, short term?

Discuss

[mr friendly guy]

This was debated already on spacebattles
https://forum.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... 042/page-3

The debate ranged on how large the numbers are, no one doubts China detains political prisoners, its just the numbers come from dubious sources (yes, people did backtrack the claim from one member of the UN panel, not the entire panel). One side resurrected the thread after all the Chinese side members said what they wanted to say and left the thread.

However if you want to talk about the detention of Muslims, and how does that compare to the west, lets go.

1. It appears to be targeted at Uyghurs as an ethnic group rather than Muslims as a religious group. The largest Muslim group in China is the Hui, who have pretty sweet deals as the Chinese buy them off in return for loyalty. Give them nice mosques, some politically correct language etc. Fun fact, they use a euphemism to describe pork, because it might offend muslims, which in the West would be lambasted as political correctness gone mad. The euphemism for prok translates as "small meat," and they use these two characters instead of the word for pork. This is used in areas where they are reasonable numbers of muslims such as Xi'an and I have also seen it used in Nanning.

Now this equating Uyghurs with being the only Muslims, or China targeting this "Muslimness" is a little bit ignorant consider the kiddie gloves the PRC gives to other muslim groups who aren't separatists, or have members committing acts of terrorism. This isn't just a mistake on western reporters, its pretty much a narrative they spin. Because its cool to point out people are Islamophobic, so why not?

When combine with laughable reports like China bans Ramadan (LOL) while their own mouthpiece was showing Muslims celebrating it (kind of defeats the purpose of banning if you don't promote banning it is good, don't you think), or China forces Uyghurs to be atheist (remember that headline, when it turned out the communist party banned its members from being religious, but not the wider community), it just says to me that certain media outlets are out to spin a narrative which sells.

So get this out the way. Uyghurs are not the only Muslims in China, nor are they the largest Muslim group, and its questionable whether China does what it does because of anti Islam sentiment. Which leads to my point two, another reason China does what it does.

2. Separatism
The uyghurs have a reputation of separatism, since Soviet times, due to the actions of the Soviet union trying forment separatist tendencies. Naturally Chinese leaders are wary of that. The East Turkestan Liberation Organisation was deemed a terrorist organisation by the Bush administration. So there is an element of terrorism here in the separatism.

It doesn't help that US government based organisations like the "National Endowment for democracy," openly helps Uyghur separatists like Rebiya Kadeer, who engages in pretty sloppy propaganda.* It just looks like great power politics, and similar to when the US funded Tibetan terrorists, er I mean freedom fighters to attack Chinese targets in the 50s and 60s. Another reason why China wouldn't give a shit.

* Kadeer crowning moment was showing a video broadcast earlier on CNN about an Iraqi girl being bashed, and then said that was Han Chinese assaulting a Uyghur. She had another awesome moment on Al Jazeera when the journalist asked about Uyghur violence. She showed a prepared picture of peaceful protesters and argued against the narrative of violent Uyghurs. Unfortunately for her, it turned out to be Han Chinese protesters in another province. No I am serious, google her example on Al Jazeera.


3. The issue with Uyghurs is not just the separatist issues, its the "Arabisation," of Uyghurs. Let me give you an example, one that is also a controversial and prominent issue in the west in discussions. If you look back at old magazines from the 50s to the 90s, you can find what Uyghur women wore over the ages (you can find my post in spacebattles with the link). Give you a hint, they didn't cover themselves in the burka or even the hijab. Now we are starting to see that, and China responds by banning it. Sounds familiar, I mean we had the banning of minarets and talks about ban the burka. You can argue that freedom of choice should allow them to wear the burka, but you can't simultaneously argue that china is trying to destroy their traditions, because its not their tradition to wear the burka.

From China's prospective, the Arabisation is worrisome because of association with fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. They didn't start off using current methods. They did try promotional campaigns about traditional Uyghur costumes and now they are using stronger measures. You might argue that these are not that well correlated with extremism, that is you can have lots of muslims wearing burkhas or men growing beards who aren't extremist. However its grossly simplistic to describe what is happening as anti Islam.

This is not helped by point 4.

4. Terrorism. Or as the Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation calls it "terrorism" with "inverted commas."

You see, when its done against China (and Russia too) its suddenly not the same, as this complaint is not new. China has pointed out the hypocrisy of this years ago. As mentioned, a separatist organisation is recognised as a terrorist organisation. Again, given the blatant hypocrisy of the West in regards to terrorism, why the hell would anyone listen to what you say when they fight it. Does this type of argument sound familiar? Does another ally of the west have this same argument? Oh wait, its Israel's attitude towards Leftist. And lets be frank, they do they a point.

Here is the thing even Western media has pointed out. When they started this crack down, the number of terrorist attacks have dropped. The same argument Israel uses. The last terrorist attack in China was in 2016 as per the time I write this.

5. Racism
Now here is another point. When we get a story on China coming hard on a particular group, the Western media will spin it as some predominantly motivated by anti religious, or racism (The Diplomat, I am looking at you). A Chinese nationalist will argue that its because of separatism, and do you see Muslims who aren't separatist being subject to harsh measures. Do you see non Han or ethnic groups in the PRC who look quite different from Han Chinese eg Tajiks, Russians (yes they are an ethnic in the PRC people), Tatars descriminated against. No, but the Diplomat tried to view it through the lens of race theory ie Uyghurs look quite different from Han, so racism.

Now I am sure there are ethnocentric Chinese and racists (had the misfortunate of encountering some online), but the government is doing what its doing based on fighting separatism rather than because racism. They are quite open about talking about Uyghurs that have reached high positions and use it as point of pride. Naturally Ughurs who don't like the government argue that those Uyghurs are just puppets. Hey is that racism of low expectations.

6. The future. Are Uyghurs going to be integrated?

Has the Chinese government succeeded in integrating ethnic groups into the larger Chinese national identity (as opposed to ethnic identity) who were hostile to the Chinese in the past. Before I answer that, how many ethnic minorities are in China. 5, 10, 25, 40... The answer is 55 ethnic minorities out of 56 ethnic groups. How many of them do we hear about persecution in Western media? Do we hear anything about the Zhuang, Manchus , Hui, even those ethnic groups are larger. The Who? Yeah that's what I thought.

Now you might say, well aren't some of these groups integrated before the rise of the Chinese communist party. True, like the Hui, so that made it easier for them. But there are others, like the hostile mountain people (IIRC its the Yi) whose territory the PLA had to flee through to escape their enemies during the civil war. Where are the Yi now? They are quite integrated now.

So China has an ability to integrate people into its society given time, including Muslims (like the Hui, who have a longer time of it, and lots of intermarriage). Whether you agree with their integration methods, its another matter. But given their track record, there is a decent chance they can succeed. Tibet and Xinjiang are harder, no just because of different culture, but logistics. The richer part of China is the east (as that was the first part that opened up), and Xinjiang and Tibet are to the West. In fact for a long time, Chinese strategies viewed Xinjiang as a part of trade for time in the event of Soviet attack, rather than an inalienable part of the country. So the idea is, if Uyghurs benefit from a developing China, then they are more likely to see themselves as part of the nation rather than apart from it. Income inequality has been stated by Uyghurs themselves as a source of grievance.

Have there been Uyghur success stories? Yeah. I am have been told, Uyghurs with good employment opportunities go to richer cities like Beijing and Shanghai for example. Some have lived there so long they consider themselves Beijingers or locals. China itself believes it can improve standard of living by getting Uyghurs to work in factories in richer provinces than staying in what is still a backwater by Chinese standards. No its not secret, they are very open their plan. You can even see documentaries on this.. where Chinese propaganda shows ...... most of the Uyghurs do not want to go. Wait, some people here expected me to say it shows they are so happy and shit like that right? The point is, China thinks they way to go is to equalise economic outcomes, and those Uyghurs that did travel elsewhere to work in factories, are no doubt paid better than subsistence farming. Of course they also think people with suspicion of rebelling warrants a visit, so there is that.

Another problem is, when the lingua fraca is mandarin, a lot of uyghurs don't speak it, particularly if you live in Uyghur dominated parts of Xinjiang. That limits advancement. Now here is a controversy. Should universities teach in mandarin, or also use an ethnic minority language. After all, the general rule is, higher education leads to better jobs. If you say, keep mandarin university since that what most people speak, and make sure ethnic minorities learn mandarin, great where do we start? No I am serious here. Do you teach in the Uyghur language and Mandarin as a second language? What about other subjects like maths, science etc.

Take a step back here. If you learnt science, maths etc in English, but learnt Finnish as a second language and did ok, would you do well in a university science course taught in only Finnish? Would your Finnish be good enough? Some people will succeed, some not due to the language barrier. Here is the conundrum. China has decided to try teaching Uyghur language as a course, Mandarin as a second langauge, but other subjects like maths and science, will now be taught in Mandarin. You can guess how this will be spun by ahem Western media. Time will tell whether this approach succeeds.

Now there are some professions Uyghurs seem to do well in, modelling. No I am not kidding, you can find articles on that. So clearly these people have integrated into the system.

Just to end my little spiel as someone who watches a lot of Chinese fantasy type shows, I have noticed over the last few years, more and more Uyghur actresses are starring in shows. Its kind of obvious because they look different, and pretty stunning. The most famous one is Dilraba Dilmurat who has won numerous awards in China. And she also boycotted Dolce and Gabanna over their racism, so that makes her more cool in my book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilraba_Dilmurat

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm a little uncertain as to what your overall argument is? While I understand in general that Western media outlets will oversimplify the issue, or misinterpret certain things, a lot of your post is reading to me like you are justifying the mass internment of the Uighur with "It's not racist, it's PROGRESS!" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what it is reading like to me, as evidenced by your point number 6. Which, well, you are literally making the same argument that was used to justify chattel slavery, the genocide of the American Indians, and other such atrocities. So, if this ISN'T your intention, maybe you should clarify more concisely what your stance on the issue is?

One additional point I'd like to make: modern China has a tradition of tolerating organized religions, only up to the point that said religion does not present itself as a threat to the political and cultural hegemony of the state. You somewhat dance around this fact when you are trying to demonstrate that the actions of the Chinese government aren't "anti-Islam". While in a strict sense, this is true, as China tolerates more apolitical Muslim groups, it doesn't change the fact that the Chinese government is more than ready to clamp down on any movement (Islam OR otherwise) that is perceived as offering a distinct ideological alternative to that of the state. I mean, you even point out yourself how China tolerates Muslim groups that aren't "Arabized" (as you put it, meaning adoption of the burka and so on), but draws the line at such Arabization (meaning they are fine with Islam as long as it is isn't "too" Islam). That this isn't strictly "anti-Islam" doesn't make it any more progressive, as it's still a concerted effort to dismantle any potential opposition. It feels to me like a bit of a red herring to say "This oppression isn't Islamophobic, so it's fine."

[mr friendly guy]

I'm a little uncertain as to what your overall argument is?

I didn't realise pointing out a few misconceptions constitutes an overall argument.

While I understand in general that Western media outlets will oversimplify the issue, or misinterpret certain things, a lot of your post is reading to me like you are justifying the mass internment of the Uighur with "It's not racist, it's PROGRESS!" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what it is reading like to me, as evidenced by your point number 6. Which, well, you are literally making the same argument that was used to justify chattel slavery, the genocide of the American Indians, and other such atrocities. So, if this ISN'T your intention, maybe you should clarify more concisely what your stance on the issue is?

I am pointing out that the motivation isn't racism, nor is it because of progress, its anti separatism.

You need to know what motivates someone to come to some sort of deal. If geopolitical rival one does things in response to what you did, it could be negotiated. If you believe geopolitical rival one does something, because they are evil, then there is less room for negotiation.

I am not saying targeting people just for having separatist views is necessarily correct, nor the best way to fight separatism, but that's no excuse for lazy reporting and false narratives. I will also say, I don't have a problem with a country fighting separatism in and of itself, especially since the majority in Xinjiang don't want independence. And yes, since the majority are non Uyghur, even if every adult Uyghur wanted independence, they still will be outnumbered.

As to point 6, what specific part of it do you think can be used to justify the genocide of American Indians. Because most of what China does to integrate minorities since the end of the cultural revolution, is to boost the standard of living, give affirmative action to minorities, give them money etc. Using tactics like banning the Burkha is only a recent move. When you consider most ethnic minorities aren't in the middle of rebelling especially ones which certainly have the numbers to cause a not too small disturbance, you have to say that its largely worked.

One additional point I'd like to make: modern China has a tradition of tolerating organized religions, only up to the point that said religion does not present itself as a threat to the political and cultural hegemony of the state.

Most states don't want some other group displacing their political order. Yeah and.....

You somewhat dance around this fact when you are trying to demonstrate that the actions of the Chinese government aren't "anti-Islam". While in a strict sense, this is true, as China tolerates more apolitical Muslim groups, it doesn't change the fact that the Chinese government is more than ready to clamp down on any movement (Islam OR otherwise) that is perceived as offering a distinct ideological alternative to that of the state. I mean, you even point out yourself how China tolerates Muslim groups that aren't "Arabized" (as you put it, meaning adoption of the burka and so on), but draws the line at such Arabization (meaning they are fine with Islam as long as it is isn't "too" Islam).

That is largely correct. I am pointing out that the narrative of it being anti Islam is very simplistic and as you pointed out, my argument is strictly true. If you are asking why is that important, well besides truth, you might have discovered that Islamophobia has been a useful attack against critics of Islam, and its used quite frequently these days.

I should also point out in countries predominantly Muslim, there are also elements of this "Islam is fine as long as it isn't "too" Islam." Look at Turkey with the limitation of Islamic headdress. If people don't have a problem with predominantly Islamic countries doing this, why should we care if a non Islamic country does it.

Just for the record, given surveys that high amounts of Muslims (even in Western democracies) support such views as Sharia law, I can understand why people might hold the view that Muslims who are more secular and has less religiosity or as you put it "fine with Islam as long as its not too Islam" are preferable to the really religious fundies. Whether you can convince ordinary Muslims to be more like the latter and less like the former, by targeting symbols of their religion, like the Burkha is debatable. But China isn't the only one who thinks it might work. Just look at Western democracies from Switzerland banning minarets, Austria banning the Burkha, er I mean face covering, France banning religious wear in government buildings etc. As to whether I think it will work, I have no clue.

[montypython]

The thing about "Arabization" also is that it isn't simply an issue of religious piety vs secularism but more of the Wahhabist strain of Islamic fundamentalism being exported and propagated in all sorts of places and as such having a response to it is a very necessary sort given ISIS, Al-qaeda et al popping to the point that even Pakistan prepares armed response to these types.

[K. A. Pital]

While in a strict sense, this is true, as China tolerates more apolitical Muslim groups, it doesn't change the fact that the Chinese government is more than ready to clamp down on any movement (Islam OR otherwise) that is perceived as offering a distinct ideological alternative to that of the state. I mean, you even point out yourself how China tolerates Muslim groups that aren't "Arabized" (as you put it, meaning adoption of the burka and so on), but draws the line at such Arabization (meaning they are fine with Islam as long as it is isn't "too" Islam). That this isn't strictly "anti-Islam" doesn't make it any more progressive, as it's still a concerted effort to dismantle any potential opposition. It feels to me like a bit of a red herring to say "This oppression isn't Islamophobic, so it's fine."

This is what opposition to political religion looks like, though.

It might not be pretty, but the alternative is to let secularism be eroded by political movements whose underpinning is religious and whose ideology is centered around a fundamentalist interpretation of a religious canon, unable to coexist with secularism and thus seeking the abolition of secularism or the creation of self-enforced segregation (parallel justice, parallel religious law structure, dispute resolution etc.)

Under 'real socialism', which China is still a heir to in terms of political structure and some other aspects, despite their many capitalist reforms, political religion cannot coexist with the state. Perhaps this is not good.

But political religion is also not a good thing, generally.