I like surfing the net for interesting posts on all sorts of random topics. In recent days there has been much talk regarding Islamist terrorist organisations in th East, first with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement claiming reponsibility for the bus bombings carried out in major PRC cities (including Shanghai and Yunnan) this year, and then with the series of bomb attacks in western Indian city of Ahmedabad coordinated by the Islamist group Indian Mujahedeen.

This stimulated my interest in Islam in the Far East, the state of Islamic culture in India, a primarily Buddhist nation, and China, a nation whose majority of population take little or no interest in religion. I refrain from referring to China as an atheist nation, as although many Chinese nationals are not believers of any particulare religion, they are not necessary against the idea of religion, and most in fact believe in some form of devine power or being.

I have little understanding of Islam to start off with, and would therefore like to gain an understanding of both Muslims and non-Muslims before I make any definite statements.

In browsing through one particular blog, I was triggered to make the following comments in response to some of the points the author made in his article as well as one of his readers’ comment.

Of course, the Chinese authorities, as we can see in some of the videos, protect the Chinese shops and people, but are quite happy to leave the Hui Muslims to the fury and indiscriminate violence and organised banditism of young Buddhist Tibetans.

I am curious to know where the author received this information from. As far as I know, the Chinese authorities did what they can to assist all victims of the riot, be they Han, Hui or Tibetan. There had been footages of Tibetan Chinese doctors helping treating injured non-Tibetan Chinese (Han or Hui). The author’s discussion appears to seek to  highlight the struggle between Tibetan Buddhists and Muslims, while portraying Han Chinese as a third party that hopes to benefit from the outcome. I think the author has a lack an understanding of the Chinese Communist Government mentality, which is stability and harmony over anything. They would do anything to maintain “stability”, and it will be bewildering to think that they wish to further instigate hatred between two ethnic groups which have been engaged in conflicts with each other for centuries.

… although I did know about state repression in China against Muslims in general.

This is a comment by one of the readers.

I’d just like to point out that the Chinese government, in fact, rulers of many of Chinese dynasties in the past few thousand years, have viewed religion unfavourably as they believe religions instigate instability. To this end, China, although having quite a sizeable Buddhist (with all types of branches and divisions) population, it is essentially not a religious society. I do not refer to China as an atheist society primarily because many Chinese nationals believe in superstitious figures and demi-gods and what not, but they don’t devote themselves to any particular religion as such. It is not a matter of “state repression against Muslims in general”, as this “repression”, if you would like to call it that, is more a form of resistance against having religions “intrude into” the secular Chinese society. What I mean to say is, religions in general, not just Islama, are not very welcomed by Chinese authorities. This is all the more so under the leadership of a central government whose ideology derives from Communism.

But in any society, there will always be people who practice non-mainstream beliefs, and these individuals, in China’s case, Muslims, Catholics, Christians and what not, gain the perception that they are been “repressed” as they are not allowed to freely practice their religions. This is “repression” in a largely non-theist society.

However in other countries, where for instance, the national religion is Christianity or Islam, the non-believers would be the minority, and they will regard themselves as being “repressed” as they have been robbed of the freedom to freely express their ideals. This is “repression” in a largely theist society.

Then, ideally, we would like to have societies in which tolerance towards others and their beliefs prevail. However in such a state, an equilibrium might not be reached, and the believers of one or a few beliefs may one day outweigh all others and hence dominate that state. In which case, all the non-believers of these said beliefs will begin to feel “repressed” to some extent, as of course, believers of any ideal will manipulate the environment in which they live in to their advantage, as this is part of human nature. Then naturally, conflicts and struggles will one day arise as this state shifts towards the either end of the spectrum.

I guess what I’m trying to say that “repression” is a relative idea. The “repressors” often try to manipulate the society to their advantage, while the “being repressed” are trying to fight for their right to survive in such an environment. But the “repressors” and the “being repressed” may will swap positions at some point in history. There is no good or evil in this matter, as the “repressed” may not necessarily be the embodiment of “goodness” and the “repressors” may not necessarily be the embodiment of “badness”.

So these are my thoughts for the day.