Foundations of Sinicisation: Historical Background and Policy Development

1.0 Introduction

Beginning as early as 2018, a heightened lev- el of awareness arose in international news media about the Chinese party-state’s programme of co- ercive renovation of mosques and other Islamic commu- nity spaces throughout China.1 In the following years the phenomenon of Sinicisation of Islam became a concern among human rights and policy activists, journalists and policymakers. Much of the international coverage of this widespread campaign focused on its impact on architec- ture in specifi c cases. Thus, the campaign for Sinicisation became synonymous with a particular repertoire of ac- tions: stripping domes off of mosques, demolishing min- arets, erecting ‘Chinese-style’ ornamentation on mosque buildings, and minimizing the use of Arabic script in pub- lic spaces. However, a closer examination of the       See https://ig.ft.com/china-mosques/; https://www. hrw.org/news/2023/11/22/china-mosques-shut- tered-razed-altered-muslim-areas; https://www.npr. org/2021/10/24/1047054983/china-muslims-sinicization   Sinicisation campaign reveals a much wider scope for intervention and a broader array of tactics employed by the party-state to curb religious expression in Muslim communities. Be- yond architecture, the campaign touches matters connect- ed to theology, ritual, diet, dress, education, and mosque employment among others. Understanding Sinicisation, then, requires a broad and detailed examination of the campaign’s many aspects, as well as the scale at which it has been implemented nationwide. Th is report lays out a comprehensive survey of the impacts of the Sinicisation of Islam programme on Hui communities from 2017 to the present. As detailed in the report, this slate of policies makes the ruling party-state the sole arbiter for correct observation of religion and allows it to exert near total au- thority on matters of religious belief, practice and expres- sion. Following a brief historical overview of the origins of this campaign, our report provides a two-part overview of the campaign itself. In Part One, we focus on the docu- ments which establish the campaign. In Part Two, we take a detailed look at its enforcement.   The rhetoric of Sinicisation campaign established clear norms of appropriateness for Islamic religious belief and practice in accordance with standards set by the party-state. Thus, Part I of this report provides detailed analysis of key policy documents undergirding Sinicisa- tion policy. Through this analysis we reveal the frame- work, ambitions and proposed measures which this sprawling campaign comprises. Our report focuses on two key documents that elucidate these standards of ap- propriateness and empower the state’s ca- pacity to enforce them: The General Office of the State Council’s “Opinions on Sug- gestions for Strengthening and Improving Islamic Work Under the New Situation”, more commonly known as Document No. 10 of the Xinjiang Papers, and the China Islamic Association’s (2018) “Five Year Plan for Maintaining Progress Toward the Sinicisation of Islam in Our Nation (2018-2022).” Together, these documents provide a blueprint for radical transfor- mation of Islamic communities and social organisation, and lay the groundwork for further measures, including those which reduce the numbers of mosques in China, and implement additional means of sur- veillance of Muslim migrants within Chi- na. Muslim communities, and marginalizes—and in some cases totally silences—non-standard or non-hegemonic practice. The effects of this campaign are wide ranging. Because of the broad powers they give to the party-state to sup- press religious activity falling outside its own narrowly construed parameters, the measures identified in this report present a profound threat to Muslim identity and Beyond architecture, the campaign touches matters connected to theology, ritual, diet, dress, education, and mosque employment, In practice, the guidelines established by the documents we overview produced a vast system of policies whose implemen- among others.tation and enforcement depends upon a complicated network of actors, infrastructure, and tac- tics. In Part 2 of this report, we provide a preliminary overview of this wide-ranging campaign, assessing its implementation in five key areas: 1) Mosque Organisa- tion, 2) Aesthetics, 3) Cultural Control, 4) Surveillance and Monitoring, and 5) Mosque Closures. In each do- main we illustrate how party-state interventions seek to securitize religious identity, and restrict Islamic ex- pression to only those party-state approved practices. In so doing, the party-state depicts any practices from international Islam as inherently threatening to Chi- na’s national security and cultural existence. Similarly, through these measures, the Sinicisation empowers the party-state as the arbiter of cultural correctness in practice within the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The concealed nature of much of the policies in ques- tion means that, to date, the impacts of these policies have been systematically under-estimated by observers. Among our top-line findings is that the campaign is iterative and progressive in implementation. To date, we estimate that the campaign enforced the closure of approximately one third of all mosques in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. We suggest that these closures represent only the first stages of the campaign, and that further measures to affect party-state control will con- tinue to be implemented in the future. In our conclu- sion, we make a number of suggestions about where fu- ture research can continue to expand our understanding of this campaign and its influence on China’s Muslim communities.