China's Muslim Hui Community (Review of Dilon)

China's Muslim Hui Community: Migration, Settlement and Sects by Michael Dillon. Pub: Curzon Press, Richmond, UK, 1999. Pp: 208. Hbk: UK40.00.

Twenty years ago, few Muslims realised that they were huge Muslim communities in what was then Russia. On western-drawn maps, the Muslim areas of Central Asia - which have gained 'independence' by default after the collapse of the Soviet Union - were all shown as part of communist Russia and effectively divorced from the 'Muslim world'. A few better-read Muslims knew that Russia had a 'Muslim minority', but that was about the extent of our understanding.

Far greater awareness of Muslim populations around the world has been one of the benefits of 'Islamic revival' since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. There remains, however, a general ignorance about the Muslim community in China which is similar to that of the Muslims under Russian rule 20 years ago. People have become aware that the Muslims of north-western China are in fact Central Asian Muslim peoples living under Chinese occupation - as Muslims of other parts of Central Asia lived under Russian occupation for most of this century - and that there is a growing jihad against Chinese rule in these areas.

What is not generally realised is that there is also a far larger community of indigenous Chinese Muslims living in China proper, the descendants of both Central Asian settlers in China, and of Chinese people who converted to Islam centuries ago, under the influence of Muslim settlers, traders, ulama, teachers and others who travelled through the country or settled there during the period when Muslim countries represented the leading edge of world civilization. It is these Muslims, ethnically indistinguishable from the rest of the Chinese but with a very distinct cultural and religious tradition that has developed over centuries, which has been studiously maintained despite the aggressive atheism of the communist period, that are known as the Hui, while the non-Muslim Chinese are known as the Han.

Michael Dillon, a lecturer at Durham University in Britain, is an established student of the Hui Muslims. His 1996 book China's Muslims, part of the Oxford University Press 'Images of Asia' series, is an excellent short book on the subject. (The pictures with this review are taken from it.) His new book China's Muslim Hui Community, pulls together much of what other writer's have discovered about the Hui, with his own research.

The main section of the book traces the history of the Hui from the earliest days of Islam in China, to the present day. Unlike some writers on the subject, Dillon emphasises the importance of settlement in the origins of the Hui ahead of the conversion. He links the migration of early Muslims from Persia and Central Asia to earlier migrations by pre-Islamic peoples, which seems tenuous. He emphasises also the importance of the Ming period (1368-1644) for the emergence of the Hui as a permanent community rather than an immigrant one, and traces the stories of key early Muslim leaders, many of them warriors who helped the rise of Ming rule.

Dillon also continues his survey through Manchu rule and into the present century, tracing the changing role of the Hui in society and, in particular, the emergence of Sufism. He has a detailed chapter on the Hui 'insurrections' in the nineteenth century, through which Muslims tried to establish Islamic rule in key areas. These jihad movements, which lasted for decades and established functioning states in parts of China, were brutally suppressed, with the Muslims virtually exterminated in many areas. However, Dillon does not elaborate on the impact this had on the Hui, focusing instead on individual experiences and episodes rather than the larger picture. The same is true of his discussion of the present century.

The second main section focuses on Sufi orders in China, and is informative and detailed; however, Dillon's knowledge of China is not matched by his knowledge of Islam; hence errors such the statement that the word 'Salafiyya' derives from the Arabic 'sharif'. Despite the obvious breadth of Dillon's research, such errors raise doubts.

This book is a useful survey on a subject which few people know very much about. This compensates for its shortcomings. Muslim readers will find much of it informative and fascinating, but it should not be taken as authoritative. However, t he sad and unavoidable fact is that Muslims have no place else to go for such knowledge at this time.

I am not ignoring Sam Cohen’s statements. You quoted them in their entirety at post number 32. The direct Cohen statements that I could see were in the THE NEW AMERICAN article of April 12, 1999 by William F. Jasper .

I did not include them in the timeline because, in that article, the words used are “believe” “think” and “speculate.” His opinion is not presented as a given fact and there are no ‘smoking gun’ details provided. Moreover, his opinions were expressed in April of 1999 – before a lot of the investigations became public knowledge. From the article in post 32:

"Back in 1988 it was revealed in the press that China had tested a neutron bomb," Cohen told The New American. "Two years later deputy CIA director George Carver claimed that the Chinese had constructed the weapon from data stolen from our research centers. Yet despite the outrage over Chinese perfidy and inexcusable U.S. security lapses, no arrests were made, no Chinese spies were caught, no U.S. scientists or officials were punished."

"I don't have access to any top-secret information that proves this, but based both on my knowledge of the [neutron bomb] technology, my years of experience in the Pentagon and defense industry, and the facts I know of the case, I think this explanation makes the most sense. [i.e. that Bush senior gave the neutron bomb information to China on Reagan’s watch.]

His statement includes a disclaimer (he doesn’t have access to top secret information) and the public reporting after that article alters the underlying basis for his reasoning (no arrests, no punishments.) Some facts were made public coincident with the Cox/Dicks committee report and espionage investigation disclosures of 1999/2000 much of which is referenced in #56 above.

Here are other material articles that came out after Mr. Cohen’s interview for the 4/12/99 Jasper article in The New American:

The American Spectator 5/99 John Roberts II

Contrary to Mr. Clinton's recent statements, security at the labs was extremely tight in the mid-eighties. In 1985, Energy Secretary Herrington initiated the most massive increase in security spending at DOE in two decades. In the mid-eighties, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), then chairman of the House Energy Committee, held oversight hearings probing whether terrorists could penetrate nuclear weapons sites. Dingell's hearings meant there was a good chance that Congress would give DOE funds to improve security. Edward V. Badolato, Herrington's deputy assistant secretary for security affairs from 1985 through 1989, was told one of his first tasks at the Energy Department was to evaluate the security problems first-hand. He quickly pulled together a team of half-a-dozen specialists.

Over the next thirty-odd days, they surveyed all 58 facilities which make up the nation's nuclear weapons infrastructure. Badolato's recommendations resulted in Operation Cerberus, a $1.5-billion comprehensive security program. The overhaul spanned the gamut from instituting new physical fitness and marksmanship qualifications standards for plant security guards to high-technology safeguards….

Operation Cerberus did more than tighten physical access to the weapons plants and nuclear labs. Fighting espionage was a key element. In his March 19 news conference, President Clinton asserted that the U.S. is not certain that China employs espionage to probe our nuclear secrets. But China's interest was no mystery in the mid-eighties. "I can tell you as a fact that the Chinese visiting scientists would consistently ask, 'Do you have any Chinese-American scientists here?'" Badolato says. "And then they would want to meet these people, get their names. We knew what they were up to." ...

Herrington's response was to ask for FBI counter-intelligence agents to be detailed to the Energy Department to work closely with Badolato's teams. One result of the close cooperation between DOE and the FBI was Operation Tiger Trap, a sting to draw in and thwart foreign spies before they got past Operation Cerberus's sentinels. The details remain classified, but Badolato confirms that Tiger Trap snared "a lot" of would-be nuclear spies. The FBI also kept close tabs on scientists traveling overseas.

China’s Nuclear Weapons Present Capabilities 1 May 2001

As was reported by Dan Stober in the 13 April 2000 San Jose Mercury News, in 1981 Gwo-Bao Min, a nuclear weapons engineer in the D-Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was forced to resign form the laboratory due to suspicions about having provided China with information about U.S. neutron bomb technology from the W-70 warhead. According to Stober:

Exactly how the government discovered the loss of neutron bomb secrets to China and what led investigators to Min remain a secret. Sources outside the FBI say the agency is protecting its source, which could be a spy or the clandestine interception of an electronic communication.

Min continued to be investigated after his resignation by an FBI operation known as "Tiger Trap"….

Although no prosecution ever developed from Tiger Trap, a December 1982 phone call between Min and Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee emerged as an important piece in the infamous case against Lee two decades later.

Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb reported in stories published in the Washington Post on 8 April and 9 May 1999 that in 1997 another Chinese-American scientist named Peter H. Lee had been arrested and pled guilty to verbally passing classified nuclear weapons information to Chinese scientists while he was employed as a physicist at Los Alamos. Like Wen Ho Lee (who is unrelated), Peter Lee is a naturalized citizen born in Taiwan. The 1985 incident for which he was convicted involved a briefing Lee gave seven or more top Chinese nuclear scientists for two hours in a small conference room at another Beijing hotel. According to Pincus and Loeb;

"He talked about laser fusion and even discussed problems the United States was having in its nuclear weapons simulation program. He drew diagrams and supplied specifications. He explained test data. And he described at least one portion of a classified paper he had written, knowing that his disclosures violated the law.

"In December 1997 -- more than 12 years after the events, and after a six-year FBI investigation that included agents tapping his phones for months, reading his e-mail and his personal diaries, trailing him to China and conducting a polygraph -- Lee finally confessed and pleaded guilty. He was not paid by the Chinese for information, receiving only some travel expenses in 1997, and there was no evidence he disclosed classified information other than what he, himself, had described".

Ironically even though Peter Lee pled to passing classified defense information to unauthorized recipients (for which he was sentenced in March 1998 to a five-year prison term, suspended in favor of 12 months in a halfway house, a $20,000 fine and 3,000 hours of community service), by the time of his arrest much of the information on laser fusion had been declassified (in 1993). But a DOE impact analysis of Lee's disclosures completed in February 1998 held that the information "was of significant material assistance to the PRC in their nuclear weapons development program ... This analysis indicates that Dr. Lee's activities have directly enhanced the PRC nuclear weapons program to the detriment of U.S. national security." Lee had also revealed current classified information to Chinese scientists in 1997 about his work at TRW involving space radar imaging of submarines.

Besides the Peter Lee and Gwo-Bao Min cases (and a handful of others we have documented,) evidently there were more - the details of which will remain top secret: Badolato confirms that Tiger Trap snared "a lot" of would-be nuclear spies

You are certainly welcome to your opinion! I however see the body of information differently.

It is obvious to me that OKCSubmariner firmly believes the info in his post. Alamo-Girl's response is rationale.

This all started with OKCSubmariner's post 19 which highlights: Bush senior gave the US neutron bomb technology to the Chinese and French about ten years ago in an act of great treason. This leads me to believe that OKCSubmariner believed the time from to be 1991.

Quoting from post 21, OKCsubmariner relied with " Sam Cohen, the father of the neutron bomb, wrote a long article in 2000 that was published in numerous magazines (including the New American)and posted on the FreeRepublic where he describes in detail how Bush Senior gave the Chinese and French the neutron bomb technology after Bush ordered the US neutron bomb components to be depleted (Sept 27,1991).. Again, I would have guessed that OKCSubmariner believed the time frame as 1991.

From the thread on the Neutron Bomb Giveaway, flamefront posted a response stating Incidently when I asked him exactly how he came to this conclusion about the Bush admin, he only said it is by his watching the news and putting together the facts on his own. He did not claim to hold any direct evidence. He may not be totally right on this, but his hunches are credible.

Yet, in post 59 of this thread, OKCSubmariner states: This is the time 1984-1985 that I believe Bush helped the CHinese acquire the Neutron bomb and that Lee was the fall guy conduit.. Peter Lee was given a suspended sentence when it was learned by the judge he had worked with national security information and with the CIA.

I would like to hear OKCSubmariner's statements to give the supporting proof. What we have so far is Cohen's assertion that we [Bush administration] gave it to them as a matter of covert policy. and OKCSubmariner believing that the time frame was 1984-1985.

OKCSubmariner, can you supply more data to back up your thoughts? I would like to read it. You can send it via mail if that would be better. No hostility here. Just looking for the facts.

Rit's statement in reply #62: "What we have so far is Cohen's assertion that we [Bush administration] gave it to them as a matter of covert policy. and OKCSubmariner believing that the time frame was 1984-1985."

Rit,it is absurd for Hopalong and Almo-girl to downplay Cohen's claims. He is the father of the neutron bomb and was aware of the US effort to help the French get the neutron bomb and he analyzed the Chinese bomb photos. He has scientific reasons as well for believing the US gave China the neutron bomb. Please read about this in the WorldNetDaily article by Bresnahan in its entirety and reread the Jasper interview both of which I posted in reply #32.

Almo-girl ( in replies #56 and #61)is setting up false straw arguments by claiming that somehow Cohen's assertions or even mine have to be smoking guns (capable of standing up in court?) or otherwise they are to be dismissed. I never claimed a smoking gun by your definition. I produced proof of what Cohen wrote and said in reply #32.

The phony smoking gun evidence criterion as Alamo-girl demands is not required and is absurd. It is phony and absurd because I was expressing my opinion in a reply and I was not writing an article and presenting my opinions as smoking gun facts and she knows it.

I am entitled to believe (opinion) Bush Senior gave the neutron bomb tech to the Chinese and that Peter Lee helped between 1984-1985 without having to produce smoking gun evidence especially when I never claimed smoking gun evidence and when I PRODUCED THE BASIS for my belief in reply #32 (regardless if you disagree with my beliefs).

However, I put a lot more weight on Cohen's statements than Alamo-girl and Hopalong do and I seriously doubt their judgements and motives for not taking Cohen's statements more seriously than they do

They are trying to suggest that the only way COhen could be right is if he produced their version of smoking gun proof. That is an unfair criterion on their part. If Cohen had smoking gun evidence in the form they raise he would probably be dead and it is very unlikely anyone would get it in the form they demand. They are absurdly raising the standard in an unfair way and I again question their motives for doing so.

To me their attitude seems to be put up or shut up. Well I will not shut up because Cohen's statement should be taken a lot more seriously than they say. To ignore Cohen because they say he does not meet their contrived definition of proof and leave his statements out of the historical record is very wrong and makes me suspect their motives period (protecting Repubs or Bush??)

Cohen's assertions and opinions are valuable and are plausible. They have not proven to me he is wrong either. And he is more of an expert on this subject than they will ever hope to be.

Go back and reread what Jasper says in his interview with Cohen:

"Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, speculates that the Chinese got the weapon through a CLANDESTINE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER by the Reagan-BUSH Administration designed to help China — then considered our "ally" — bolster its ground defenses against a possible ground attack by Russia. "

"I don't have access to any top-secret information that proves this, but based both on my KNOWLEDGE of the [neutron bomb] technology, my years of EXPERIENCE in the Pentagon and defense industry, and the FACTS I KNOW of the case, I think this explanation makes the most sense. "

[why are you not giving more weight to Cohen's KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENC and FACTS as he knows them????]

"I think only a handful of people — in the National Security Council and the CIA — would know about an operation of this kind," Cohen told The New American. "MOST LIKELY THE MAN IN CHARGE [of the operation giving the neutron bomb to China] was George Bush, who not only was formerly head of CIA, but before that was U.S. Ambassador to China. President Reagan probably wouldn't even have known about it."

This statement tells me that Cohen believes Bush gave the neutron bomb tech to the Russians.

As far as rit's questions about 1991 versus 1984-1985 and Peter Lee:

First, I used the words "believe(expression of opinon and theory" in describing what I said about Peter Lee so the phony smoking gun evidence criterion as demanded by Alamo-girl is not required and is absurd. It is phony and absurd because I was expressing my opinion in a reply and I was not writing an article and presenting my opinions as fact.

Second, it was in Sept 1991 that Bush unilaterally dismantled US neutron weapons (FACT) after he I believe (opinion based on Cohen analysis and statements) HAD already given the neutron bomb to China. The "HAD" refers to the 1984-1985 time frame with Lee and is well before 1991. Go back and read more closely. I am not changing my position. It was ten years ago when Bush made his speech but 17 years ago when the Chinese got the neutron bomb tech from the US I believe.(opinion).

Almo-girl is still incorrect IMHO about Peter Lee. Lee got off (essentially no time served)for some very serious allegations of espionage crimes and ALamo-girl IMHO still does not aknowledge how easily he got off and that it was because the Fed government did not want to have to go into court and reveal how Peter Lee was involved in national security operations (FACT).

Do not ask me to provide smoking gun evidence for my opinion that Alamo-girl is incorrect. The story about Peter Lee's light sentence (really nonexistent IMHO) has been posted many times on FR and so I know she can find it if she wants to try hard enough.

BTW, I gave out Jasper phone number. Will any of you (Alamo-girl,rit,Hopalong) have the guts to call him and honestly report back what he says? Or if you do call him will you claim that his evidence is not good enough because Alamo-girl might claim it is not smoking gun evidence??

They discount the significance of what Cohen told Jasper and what Cohen wrote himself to such an extent that I question their motives and judgement in handling this entire situation.

If you read the following clip within the article I posted IT SPEAKS VOLUMES, at least to me.

U.S.(Clinton) EQUIPPED TERROR SPONSORS
"The Bush administration apparently hasn't woken up, either.

...In June, Leitner was asked by the Commerce Department to OK a new round of exports of dual-use telecom equipment to Syria. He denied the request, and was asked to reconsider. He denied it again, arguing in a letter to Karen Vogel, the Commerce export licensing officer who requested the approval, that:

"Doing so vastly upgrades the C3 and C41 systems of the Syrian military and Intelligence Services. My concerns are also obviously compounded by the fact that Syria is one of the foremost state sponsors of terrorism."

Leitner continued: "Since an 'upgraded telecom infrastructure' will also greatly facilitate Syrian planning, coordination, secrecy and execution of terrorist acts, as well as direct military communications, I see absolutely no basis for any position other than a denial."

Vogel argued in an earlier letter that her request came on the heels of eight previous approvals of licenses for similar exports to Syria.

"There's still a lot of things inside the government involving national security that have just got to be changed," Leitner said.

Another senior Pentagon official who specializes in counterterrorism says his own faith in the U.S. intelligence community has been shattered.
[end of partial transcript]

Evidence exists that China has neutron bombs stockpiled, and that the United States gave the Chinese the technology to build them.

Destroying America's Defenses

Chinese Nuclear Espionage; Fact or Convenient Fiction? By Sam Cohen

Father of Neutron Bomb: Use It on Osama

"They weren't exactly spying in my view. We gave it to them."

China’s Official B2B E-Commerce Portal, Host to George H.W. Bush, Trades Forced-Labor Products

CHINA TOWN

RED CHINA AND DICK CHENEY

An examination of Federal Election Commission, Center For Responsive Politics and Justice Department "agents of foreign principals" lobby records regarding contributions to U.S. House and Senate members reveals startling conflicts of interest concerning legislators charged with oversight of matters related to China's recent ability to gather American dual-use military research and development secrets almost at will.

The Red China Lobby

‘Precedent Shattering’: Administration OKs Supercomputer Sale to China

China's theft of nuclear secrets

Speaker Hastert appoints top China lobbyist

"Not only that, agents swore that lawyers for months had blocked their request to ask a judge for a warrant to search the Little Rock, Ark., office of Clinton fund-raiser Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Agents sifting through his trash found that key records subpoenaed by the Senate had been shredded.

Among the torn-up documents: checks from Asian donors to Clinton's legal defense fund, Democratic National Committee donor lists, travel records for Chinese money men and statements from Chinese bank accounts. There was also a FedEx slip showing the White House had sent two pounds of documents to Trie just two months before a 1997 Senate probe of Chinagate kicked off.

What's more, one agent said 27 pages of notes detailing her struggles with Justice over the Trie case were ripped out of spiral notebooks after she turned them over to her superiors."
[end of partial transcript]

"We will advance technology to China as much as we possibly can under what is known as the COCOM [Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Security Controls - COCOM] arrangement. There are some highly sensitive, highly sophisticated military technologies that I'm not even sure China is interested in, but that we are prohibited from exporting under the law. Having said that, we have exported some highly sophisticated technology to China, and as President, I want to continue to do that. And that will benefit the life of the average Chinese citizen."
President George H.W. Bush - February 26, 1989 - Press Conference - Presidential Papers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.