Reflections On The Readings For Oct 1.

Towards the middle of the first chapter of our reading for this week, entitled “Ethnicity and Hui history”, the author mentions Hudson’s assertion that the Muslims, through their denial of Chinese piety, have historically not been able to play a full part in the community’s social life. The author disagrees with this notion, however, and states that the historical record suggests otherwise. He states quite clearly: “There is no conflict between Islamic values and Chinese filial piety.” The assertion is quite bold, and I think a book about this interesting topic certainly deserves to be published. I am not aware of this subject being actively studied, however, as most studies of Islam in China are either historical or theological in nature. While there are works published about the connection of Sufi Islam to Dao or Buddhist thought, for example, there seems to be a lack of information about the practices of the Muslims and how the practices of the Chinese have affected their ritualistic life. Later, the author mentions the Muslims having to bow to the Imperial Tablets, but not touching the floor, in order to invalidate “the rite in their minds”. This is fascinating stuff, and I am sure more examples of this could be found in the historical records. In class, Chuck mentioned beer being served in every Hui restaurant he’s been to. Could this compromising stance be the defining feature of the Hui, as opposed to other religious minorities? It is also interesting to note the author mentions Sufi orders valuing the family and lineage connections that existed in Han piety, and, to a point, incorporating them. From my studies of Islam, it seems any place on earth has the Sufis play a part of mediators, between the original inhabitants and the new Muslim arrivals. Whether it is the social structure of the Sufi orders, or the more-embracing theology that explains this phenomenon is a different subject…