Two Scholars and the Hui Protest Movement in China in 1932

Home , Hu Shih, Ren Han, Sha (surname), Yu Zhengui

Two Scholars and the Hui Protest Movement in China in 1932:

August - September 2017 The Attitudes of Hu Shih and Lu Xun

Dhu 1438 - Muharram-1439 al-Qidah toward the Hui Minority and Islam

WAN Lei

Research Fellow King Faisal Center For Research and Islamic Studies

Two Scholars and the Hui Protest Movement in China in 1932: The Attitudes of Hu Shih and Lu Xun toward the Hui Minority and Islam

WAN Lei

Research Fellow King Faisal Center For Research and Islamic Studies Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

Lei, Wan

Two scholars and the Hui protest movement in China in 1932: The attitudes of Hu Shih And Lu Xun toward the Hui minority and Islam, / Wan Lei, - Riyadh, 2018

34 p; 16.5x23cm

ISBN: 978-603-8206-74-4 1- China - History I- Title

951 dc 1439/9316

L.D. no. 1439/9316 ISBN: 978-603-8206-74-4

4 Table of Contents

Abstract 6 I. The Infamous “Nanhua Incident” in 1932 7 II. The Response of Hu Shih to the Nanhua Incident 10 III. The Attitude of Lu Xun toward the Nanhua Incident 16 IV. A Critical Review of the Nanhua Incident 22 V. Conclusion 27 Bibliography 29

5 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

Abstract This article discusses the infamous “Nanhua Incident” in 1932 occurred in Shanghai and the consequent responses of two distinguished scholars in modern China, Hui Shih and Lu Xun, and their attitudes toward it. The two scholars happened to have witnessed the protest movements, and wrote their articles, letters and diaries on the matter. By analyzing the texts of such writings, one can grasp the viewpoints of the two scholars on the Muslim movement and on Islam in China.

6 I. The Infamous “Nanhua Incident” in 1932 The influential, infamous, and humiliating Hui Incident, popularly called the “Nanhua Incident,” occurred in 1932. This was the fifth year after the Northern Expeditions, when Chiang Kai-shek overcame the local warlords throughout China and relocated the capital to Nanjing. The incident started in Shanghai, but the reaction spread through many cities, and finally produced a large-scale Hui protest movement.

The incident was instigated by the publication of an article, “Why the Huijiao-tu [Muslims] do not eat pork,” which was written by Lou Zikuang and published in the bimonthly journal, the Nanhua wenyi (South-China Literature; abbreviated as Nanhua hereafter) on June 16, 1932, in Shanghai.1 Hui readers from Shanghai read the article and the news spread in September of the same year; the Hui from Shanghai became furious about a rumor perpetuated in the article. They encouraged their representatives, Ha Shaofu, Da Pusheng and Ma Tianying, to negotiate with the Nanhua, requesting that the journal should apologize to the Hui and accept other conditions.2 Lou Zikuang, who was met at Hangzhou by some Hui from Shanghai, accepted the conditions and published his apology on September 27, but another important request by the Hui—that they should publish their articles in the Nanhua to explain the real reasons for the Hui avoidance of pork—was refused; this refusal was due to the arrogance of the editor-in-chief of the book bureau, Zeng Zhongming, who was also the vice-minister of the Railroad Ministry. This issue remained unsettled yet and a second incident occurred: a pamphlet entitled “The Little Piggy,” written by Zhu Shanyang, was published by the Beixin Book Bureau in Shanghai (Beixin shuju, which was a publishing company; abbreviated as Beixin hereafter) on October 20, 1932. The content resembles that in the article by Lou Zikuang.

(1) Lou Zikuang, “Why Do the Muslims Not Eat Pork?” (Huijiao-tu zenme bu chi zhu de rou), Nanhua wenyi (Shanghai), 1, no. 14 (June 16, 1932), 59–63. (2) Yu Zhengui, China’s Governments and Islam (Yinchuan: Ningxia People’s Press, 1996), 325.

7 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

The news of the two successive incidents in Shanghai spread to many places across the whole of China, and numerous newspapers and magazines reported the matter continuously. The Hui magazines in particular published special issues to discuss the humiliating events.3 The Hui from Beiping (Beijing) were the most dynamic in their protest; this led to an escalation of the matter.4 The Hui from all parts of Beiping believed that the successive insults against the Hui in Shanghai were by no means incidental, and that they should unite the Hui across the whole country to make a petition to the government. They formed a Delegation for Protection of Religion to meet the Nanjing government and to forward a formal petition.5 The petition included three articles: first, to dismiss the editor-in-chief Zeng Zhongming; second, to order Nanhua to stop publishing such insulting articles; and third, to punish Lou Zikuang, the author of the Nanhua article. On October 26, a Hui man named Ma Xiaoyu and more than 30 of his Hui followers went the Beixin Book Bureau and destroyed it: The angry Muslims whose rage could no longer be curbed went in groups to Bei Xin Bookstore to demonstrate their anger and cause. The bookstore called for police protection. That further infuriated the Muslims. Many threw empty bottles or stones. Then, laborers from the docks mobilized themselves, and armed with iron rods and clubs, smashed windows and bookshelves of the bookstore to express their resentment. The Muslim policemen ordered to maintain order turned a blind eye to all the goings-on.6

(3) See the successive issues of the Yueh Hwa Magazine (Moonlight Magazine), one of the most influential Hui magazines published in Beiping in the period between October 1932 andthe spring of 1933. (4) “Beiping” was the name of Beijing between 1928 and 1949 during the Republican era, because Nanjing (“Southern Capital”) was the official capital during the period; “ping” means “peace.” (5) Shen Pao, October 28, 1932. Shen Pao continued to report that the delegation was made up of more than 200 Hui people. See also “Protest against Article,” North-China Herald, Nov. 2, 1932, 169. (6) Hajjah Aliya Ma, Haji Ibrahim T. Y. Ma: A Biography (Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Welfare Organization of Malaysia, 1991), 128–29.

8 Under pressure from various parties, the editor-in-chief Zeng Zhongming published his apology to the Hui on October 30. The day after Zeng’s apology, the Hui Delegation for Protection of Religion from Shanghai, represented by the well-known Imam Da Pusheng and other members of the Hui elite, had arrived in Nanjing to submit their petition.7 There, the delegation from Shanghai met the similar-titled delegation from Beiping (Beijing). The two delegations allied with each other and reported the Nanhua and the Beixin incidents to the national government, requesting a fair and just settlement. The executive commission of the Kuomintang central committee, convened on November 7, issued a statement declaring that the government’s policy was to protect Muslims and respect the Muslim faith. An English newspaper in Shanghai reported, Firstly, the Shanghai Pai Hsin Book Company, which published the offensive book, has been ordered to close shop. Secondly, the “Nan Hua magazine” has been ordered to suspend publication. Thirdly, the author of the offensive book has been ordered to be punished in accordance with the due process of the law.8 The Executive Yuan (a governmental body) also recalled “the prominent part some Mohammedans have played in the history of the Republic. The measures are expected to appease the Mohammedans, who took offense at a recent article in a Shanghai magazine.”9 On February 3, 1933, Lou Zikuang was sentenced to be jailed for two months by a court in Hangzhou.10 A remarkable characteristic of the protest movement was the participation by many Hui communities throughout the whole country. First, the delegations

(7) Shen Pao, Oct. 28, 1932, reported that the “Huimin Protest Group (hu jiao tuan) arrived at the capital on Oct. 27.” (8) See “Vindication of Mohammedans,” North-China Herald, Nov. 9, 1932, 212. See also, “Beixin Publishing House Destroyed Yesterday,” Shen Pao, Oct. 28, 1932, 10. (9) See Reuter, “Religious Freedom,” North-China Herald, Nov. 16, 1932. (10) See “Huabei Huimin hujiao tuan laihan” [The letter from the North China delegation for protection of religion], Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), vol. 5, nos. 28–30 (Mar. 15, 1933), 19. Lou Zikuang moved to Taiwan in 1949. He continued doing his research on folklore studies there and had some successes.

9 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

for Protection of Religion from Beiping and Shanghai were dispatched by many of the local Hui societies and associations. They organized themselves and adopted unanimous means to protect their mutual interests. Second, according to the reports of two issues of the Hui magazine, the Yueh Hwa Magazine, on October 25 and November 15, 1932, 26 telegrams were sent to the central government; many came from the main cities of Beiping and Tianjin, while the rest were from the provinces of Shandong, Hebei, Shaanxi, Gansu, Jiangsu, and Henan. Before and after the petitions were submitted, the Hui people who lived along the routes of the delegations’ journey held welcoming conferences for the two delegations; these acts also reinforced the sphere of influence of the protest movement,11 and displayed the influence of the Hui upon the Chinese government and society as a whole. Such unity could not be seen in the Qing dynasty, even when the great Hui rebellions broke out (for example in Shaanxi and Yunnan). The sense of the Hui unity across all China was heightened, which was a big step forward in comparison to the conditions during the imperial Qing dynasty, when the Hui unity was only regional. The incidents involving the Nanhua Literature and the Beixin Book Bureau articles were two successive events that humiliated the Hui in the same way in 1932. Due to the similarity, the government dealt with the two incidents as one case. In the abstract, they are collectively called the “Little Piggy Incident” or “Little Piggy Case” by many researchers today. Considering that such titles remain offensive toward the Hui people, I have adopted the term “Nanhua Incident” to describe this historical event.

II. The Response of Hu Shih to the Nanhua Incident Two distinguished scholars, Hu Shi and Lu Xun, who gained fame as early as the New Cultural Movement in the late 1910s, displayed their similar

(11) “Gedi zhi xiangying sheng” [Voices from every place], Yueh Hwa Magazine, 4, combined nos. 28–30 (Beijing: October 25, 1932), 33–42. Twelve letters from several provinces of North and Northwest China were published in a special feature of this issue.

10 attitudes toward the Hui and the incident. Hu Shih (1891–1962) published an article entitled, “The humiliating Hui-jiao [Islam] incident and punishment,” in the journal of the Independent Review, a journal that was published in Beiping. In the article he explains: In the afternoon of October 24, I went to the Beiping East Railway Station and was ready to take the train to Tianjin for a public speech. I saw a full thousand people —aged men and young men; some wearing long gowns and some short coats—all of them were holding small flags, and with words written on the flags. When I approached them, I saw the slogan on the big flag, which read, “The Huimin [Hui people] from North China warmly sending-off the Delegation for Protecting the Religion.” The slogans on the small flags were different and numbered more than ten; some read, “Close up the Nanhua Literature,” “Strictly punish Zeng Zhongming,” “Strictly punish Lou Zikuang,” and “Win glory for our religion.”12 As Hu Shih continued, on that day, it happened that a locomotive went off the tracks, and it fell over onto the adjacent tracks; as a result, he was unable to go on his journey as planned. Toward evening, the Hui people who sent off the delegation started to retreat from the platform in a queue, with a military band leading the way and a thousand or more Huijiao (Islamic) people following the band; they continued waving their flags and shouting their slogans loudly. The four members of the delegation, who were in a second-class car, waved to say goodbye to the Hui people, while a group of men received flyers from the four members and distributed them to the people in the platform; the flyers expressed their thanks to the senders and declared that they would do their best to attain the goal on their behalf.

(12) Hu Shih, “The Humiliating Hui-jiao Incident and Punishment” (Wuru Hui-jiao shijian ji qi chufen), in Selected Works of Hu Shih, vol. 11, ed., Ouyang Zhesheng (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 1988), 263–268. The article was first published in Hu Shih, ed., Independent Review (Beiping), no. 27 (Dec. 12, 1932).

11 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

This was what Hu Shih personally experienced. In the following part of his article, he discusses two subtopics: the first one is the content of Lou Zikuang’s article; the second is about his punishment by the government. Lou’s article is actually a letter of reply to one of his fellow researchers, Jiang Shaoyuan, to discuss some folklore studies with Jiang. According to Lou, he learned a story based on a talk between Zhu Shanyang and a man surnamed Zhang from Gansu province. In terms of the content of the story, it seems to have evolved from a classical Chinese novel that is familiar to all Chinese people, The Journey to the West, written by Wu Cheng’en (ca. 1510–1580 CE) in the Ming dynasty. There is an episode in the novel that tells the story of the Bull Demon King and the Great Immortal Antelope Power, who are two rivals of the Pig King; the Bull Demon King even kills the wife of the Pig King. In Lou Zikuang’s article, the hero is replaced by the son of the Pig King, the Younger Pig, who looks for the two rivals of his father to seek revenge. According to Lou’s article, the son of the Pig King was reincarnated into a Hui man, who swore to butcher bulls and goats for revenge. He further claimed that when a Hui butchers a bull or goat, he recites a statement such as, “You should not have killed my grandmother.” Here I must explain something related to the content before one can precisely understand this story. First, in the Chinese language, the terms referring to a bull, an ox and a buffalo are all expressed in one word, niu; and sheep, goat, and antelope are also expressed in one word, yang. Second, when Muslims butcher an ox, or a goat, or other edible animals for food, they recite the first sentence of the Koran, which says, “in the name of Allah” in Arabic. This act seems secret and strange to those who do not have much knowledge about Islam. And third, to butcher oxen and goats is a typical traditional Hui profession in China. Due to this tradition, conflicts between the Hui minority and the Han Chinese have continued to arise from the Ming dynasty until very recent times. I have researched this topic, exploring the deeper motive for why the Han Chinese hated the Hui for butchering oxen. I have confirmed two findings: one is the great impact of Buddhism upon Chinese society, because one of the Buddhist

12 laws (Dharma) is “ashimsa,” which means “to refrain from killing.” This is a basic doctrine for a person to practice to attain a better reincarnation in the next circle of life. A second reason is the role that oxen played in the traditional agrarian culture of China. Oxen plowed fields for humankind, so they are regarded as so important to human survival that to some extent, people viewed the oxen as their coworkers. Many Chinese writers from the Ming dynasty onward wrote quaint stories in their sketchbooks about Hui men who butchered oxen and then encountered misfortunes. I also argue that such a story is actually a product of the Buddhist idol- worship and the Han Chinese people’s ancestor-worship traditions. As the Han Chinese practice such manners of worship, they surmise that Islam must resemble Buddhist rituals as well, such as those involved in practicing Buddhism or in making sacrifices to their forefathers. They do not understand that Islam, which is a typical monotheistic religion, does not keep any idols in its places of worship. Thus, the Han created some “gods” for the Muslims with their own imagination, which gradually evolved into rumors and stories. Lou Zikuang’s article was published during a revival movement for folklore. Some Chinese intellectuals started to focus on collecting folklore and ballads in the early Republican era. This was the first time that the Chinese started engaging in such large-scale field research for academic purposes; by 1928, a society was even established in Beiping for this cause.13 Consequently, a series of monographs was published, and some university journals also opened special publishing columns for folklore and ballads. Indeed, the period could be called the “harvest season” for folklore and ballads in modern China. Hu Shih has observed that “in recent years, the domestic scholars have gradually come to recognize the importance of folklore. There are scholars going everywhere to collect ballads, nursery rhymes, and folk-tales; this is of course a good phenomenon.”14

(13) Zhong Jingwen, “Preface,” in Collected Articles on Ballads (Geyao lun ji), ed. Zhong Jingwen (Shanghai: Beixin Book Bureau, 1927), 1. (14) Hu Shih, “The Humiliating Hui-jiao Incident and Punishment,” 263.

13 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

According to Hu Shih, Lou Zikuang’s article narrated a story that originated in the Northwest (Gansu province), where the Hui and the Han peoples frequently came into confrontation. Hu Shih continued by explaining that, “so far as the research of Lou Zikuang is concerned, I think the academic level is poor and shameful.” He explained that the real reason for the abstention from pork by the Hui people and Jewish people is that they regard this animal as “dirty.” And later, religious interpretations were added to the abstention, so that superstitious people who abide by certain religions followed the practice of abstaining from pork more strictly. Hu Shih gave exact citations from the Koran and the Old Testament to prove his statement. Finally, he concluded that the incident “covers some questions to discuss, such as religious issues, the attitudes towards religion, and the limitation of the liberty of speech.” In terms of the content of the article itself, he says, “in the way it interpreted [the Hui avoidance of pork]; it is a deep humiliation upon an ethnicity.” The second subtopic of Hu’s article is related to the punishment by the government. Hu Shih expressed his opinion in the following words: The Incident has caused the fury of the Hui people and the people of the entire country have felt the seriousness of such an issue. The government also declares the prohibition of any conduct to humiliate a religion. In this sense, the protest has met with great success, opening a new era in Chinese history of the liberty of faith. However, we feel the punishment is too severe. The author of the article from the Nanhua Literature should be persecuted and correctly sentenced by the court. The author of the “Little Piggy” article, Zhu Yangshan, cannot be located and what his job is so far is not clear; nevertheless, he should step forward bravely to undertake the responsibility and should wait for a sentence by the court, if he is still alive. Supposing the author dare not show his face, then either the director of the Beixin Book Bureau should undertake the responsibility, or the editor of the Collection of the Folklores [of the Beixin Book Bureau] should; the court can make a prosecution [against him who has the responsibility]. . . .The Executive

14 Yuan did not follow the due process of law and it immediately closed the Beixin Book Bureau. Such conduct is mistaken . . . . Why must the shareholders of the Book House suffer all the financial losses? And, why must other authors [who published their article in the same issue of the Nanhua Literature] suffer the loss of their royalties for the mistake of the author of the “Little Piggy”? I have two points to argue here: the first is concerned with Hu’s discussion about the content of the book. He said that “religious interpretations were added to such an abstention, so that superstitious people who abide by certain religions follow the practice of abstaining from pork more strictly.” This explanation is not correct. As an atheist, Hu Shih viewed the religious people as “superstitious”;15 however, the prohibition of pork by both Muslims and Jewish people is not related to superstition; rather, it appears that religious tradition may play a decisive role in the formation of their food habits. When a child grows up in a Muslim or Jewish family, the avoidance of pork develops naturally; the pork taboo would develop into a kind of physical resistance, making the child unable to accept the taste, or even the odor, of pork.16 The second point concerns the punishment of the Book Bureau when the government closed its

(15) Hu Shih claimed that he learned to practice idol-worship, but later became an atheist; he said: In the meantime, my religious life underwent a curious crisis. I was brought up in an idolatrous environment and had been accustomed to the ugly and fierce faces of the gods and ghosts to the folk-versions of Heaven and Hell. When I was 11, one day I was rereading aloud The Elementary Lessons by Chu Hsi, which I had memorized without much understanding. I came upon a passage where the Rationalist philosopher quoted the historian Su-ma Kuang in an attack on the popular belief in Heaven and Hell. The quotation reads: “When the body has decayed, the spirit fades away. Even if there be such cruel tortures in Hell as Chiseling, Burning, Pounding, and Grinding, whereon are these to be inflicted?” This sounded like good reasoning and I began to doubt the idea of judgment after death. Shortly afterward, I was reading Su-ma Kuang’s General History and came upon a passage in its 136th chapter which made me an atheist. (Hu Shih, “Essay in Living Philosophies” in My Mother’s Betrothal [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1946]; reprint, English Writings of Hu Shih, vol., ed., Chih-P’ing Chow [Shanghai: Foreign Languages and Teaching Press, 2013], 89.) (16) See Barbara Linne Kroll Pillsbury, Cohesion and Cleavage in a Chinese Muslim Minority, PhD diss. (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1974), chs 1–7, 12, 19. In her dissertation, the author explores the issue of pork avoidance by the Hui men; it has a vital significance to a Hui person, which actually exceeds the significance of some common religion practices. A Han Chinese like Hu Shih, who was born in southern Anhui province, could hardly appreciate the significance of such a taboo among the Hui minority.

15 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

bookstore without following the due process of law. I argue that the closure of the bookstore was actually done for the protection of the interests of Beixin, because the furious Hui rioters started to destroy it. This immediate action worked well to assuage the fury of the Hui people. Given the many conflicts between the Hui and the Han in the late Qing dynasty, such a measure was urgent and necessary to prevent further chaos and disorder from occurring. As a well-known and influential scholar, Hu Shih was able to publish his article while the protest movement was underway and the case not yet settled. He had the bravery and conscience to publicly discuss the incident, and he called on the society to be fair toward the Hui minority, as well as to the Beixin. This was the first time that a famed Han Chinese scholar called for the strict enforcement of law against a fellow Han who had humiliated a minority and whom he openly condemned. In terms of Hui affairs, Hu’s article possessed both symbolic and practical significance in modern-day China: he reminded the Chinese people that China is a multiethnic and multireligious society; moreover, whatever ethnic group or religion people belong to, they are all equal under the Republican political system.

III. The Attitude of Lu Xun toward the Nanhua Incident Lu Xun (or Lu Hsun in the old translation; 1881–1936), was one of the distinguished writers of modern China, and he also expressed his opinions about the incident. It was really a coincidence that Lu Xun also met the Hui delegation, and that it was also in a railway station. However, the delegation he encountered had come from Shanghai, and he saw them at the station in Nanjing. On November 11, 1932, Lu Xun was returning from his hometown, in Zhejiang province, to Beiping after paying a visit to his mother. On this day, he wrote in his diary, “at eight o’clock I took the train from Hangzhou to Nanjing, and the train started at nine o’clock [A.M.]. By five P.M., I arrived at the bank of the Yangtze, and crossed the River to take a Nanjing-

16 Beiping train.”17 He also said in a letter that “I happened to take the same train as the Delegation for Protecting the Religion. I saw that the senders [at the station] amounted to several hundred people. Their manners were magnificent. This Case did not seem to be coming to an end yet.”18 “The senders” refers to the local Nanjing Hui people who sent off the Shanghai delegation from the Nanjing railway station. Lu Xun took the same train with the delegation from Nanjing to Shanghai, but had to continue his journey via Shanghai to Beiping. Lu Xun has been considered one of China’s greatest writers of the twentieth century. Many of his fictional works and social criticism on various political movements became popular during the 1920s and 1930s. However, he left little in his works related to Islam and Muslims. His longest statement on such a topic was about his personal experience with the Hui delegation from Nanjing to Shanghai, which is revealed in a letter to one of his closest friends, Xu Shoushang: I do not know yet whether there are other [potential] factors for the Huijiao-tu [Islamic followers] to lodge such a large-scale protest movement. In fact, since the Qing dynasty, the confrontations [between the Hui and the Han] have never ceased; only in the two provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu, such confrontations have even led to bloodshed. The Han-ren [Han Chinese] are accustomed to being glib-tongued and enjoy themselves by abusing other people with obscene language. Until [the Hui people] took revenge against them, the Han had to wait to be slaughtered [as punishment]; this is really something worthy of regret. I have not seen the pamphlet published by the Beixin Book House. Such an evil story coming from nowhere should have not been published because it could provoke the indignation of the Huimin [Hui people] and encourage the Han’s frivolity. There are four or five editors from

(17) “Lu Xun’s Diaries” (Nov. 17, 1932), in Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 16 (Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005), 334. All the translations of the citations from Lu Xun were done by the author of this article. (18) “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no. 321202, “To Xu Shoushang” (Dec. 2, 1932), 348–349.

17 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

this publishing house, careless and negligent, who regarded everything as a trifling matter.—This is the first mistake. Now as the Huimin have launched a counter-attack, I think the offender should frankly acknowledge his ignorance, destroy the stored books in fire, and publish an apology. But unfortunately, the publishing house delayed doing so for many days (they did not mind when something involved with them. This is the old method of the Beixin; I nearly brought them to court several years ago, which was also for this reason), until it was more severely attacked [by the Hui people], at which point it began to apologize.— This was the second mistake.19 Lu Xun was familiar with the publishing house as some of his books were published by the Beixin; in the same letter, he went on to say that “the Beixin Book Bureau is one of the earliest publishing houses that introduced many books of new literature. It has a deep relationship with me. Once it suffered losses, it influenced me, too. However, the domestic personnel of the Book House have been so hopeless that they can hardly be saved. What is left is to let it go on its own way.”20 In fact, Lu Xun was influenced by the closure of the Book House earlier in time than the date of this letter.21 Recall that Hu Shih had asked the question, “Why must the other authors suffer the loss of their royalties for the mistake of the author of the ‘Little Piggy’?” As one of the “other authors,” Lu Xun might mind his personal loss, but this did not alter his critical attitude toward the Beixin Book House. Instead, he continued to assert his condemnation of the Book House when it was reopened afterward. According to Lu Xun, after the closure of the Beixin, the shareholders registered the firm under a new name and continued their business, but the working staff continued to do their job carelessly.22

(19) “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no. 321202, “To Xu Shoushang” (Dec. 2, 1932), 348–349. (20) “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no. 321202, “To Xu Shoushang” (Dec. 2, 1932), 348–349. (21) Lu Xun states, “The Beixin Book House was punished for such a book; I was deeply influenced and have lost a lot.” See “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no. 321126, “To Xu Shoushang” (Nov. 26, 1932), 347. (22) See “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no.330213, “To Cheng Qiying” (Feb.13, 1933), 372.

18 Lu Xun deserves the honor of being called a distinguished scholar. With sharp perception, he concluded that the real cause of the incident was that “the Han-ren [Han people] are accustomed to being glib-tongued and enjoy themselves by abusing other people with obscene language.”23 Leaving many of his creative fictions and critical articles aside, any reader who has read Lu Xun’s representative works, The True Stories of Ah-Q, may grasp the archetype embodied by the hero in the novella. The hero is a typical representative of someone who is glib-tongued and enjoys himself by abusing other people with obscene language, which Lu Xun regards as a national shortcoming of the Chinese people. Such an attitude in the collective unconscious, when it was expressed against other ethnic groups, betrayed a sense of superiority. As the Han are the majority, they regard their way as “orthodox” and as “superior” to the ways of the Chinese minorities. The different customs of the minorities provide bountiful sources for mockery by which the Han amuse themselves. Unlike the article of Hu Shih, who revealed his attitude toward the Hui people during the time when the case was under progress, Lu Xun’s thoughts on the Hui and Islam remained obscure until very late; this is unfortunate. Lun Xun’s letters were collected and included in the Complete Works of Lu Xun, and only revealed to readers around half a century after his death. Still, it is fortunate that we know some of his thoughts on the matter. Here I will further extend the topic of discussing Lu Xun’s attitude toward minorities in China. Lu Xun attacked the imperial constitutional systems that had been biased against them. In one of his articles, “The translator’s postscript to the novel The Doctor,” he satirically stated, People say that the Russian people have their special cruelty and special kindness. This is oxymoronic, and I will leave the topic to scholars who study national characters. However, what I am thinking is that in China, since the killing of Chi Youh, we feel

(23) Ibid., “To Cheng Qiying” (Feb.13, 1933), 372.

19 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

happy that many times, [our emperors] conquered other barbarian nationalities. Other than “the imperially commissioned records of suppressing some barbarians” [which we may read today], I am not aware of other historical records which were written on behalf of the weak groups of people for their justice.24 The phrase “records which were written on behalf of the weak groups of people” satirizes many qinding fanglue (the imperially commissioned records), which are official historical documents compiled on the emperors’ orders. Such documents record the military victories in conquering minorities and their subsequent rebellions, and they were always entitled “the imperial records” about some events. For example, records concerning the Hui include “The imperially commissioned record on conquering the Hui rebels in Shaanxi, Gansu and Xinjiang” and “The imperially commissioned record on conquering the Hui rebels in Yunnan” during the Qing dynasty. Another article by Lu Xun, the Wang Hua (“Cultivation by kings”), additionally supports his criticism on the policies toward minorities in his times.25 He ridiculed the contemporary government, saying that “when the Huimin from Xinjiang [here referring to the Uyghur people] caused trouble, the government then dispatched its Pacification Commissioner; when the Mongol princes became homeless vagrants, the government especially organized a Relief Committee for the Mongol princes; so far as the conciliation of the Tibetans, it is good for the Panchen Lama to chant Scriptures.”26 Here, the incident in

(24) Lu Xun, “Translator’s Remarks in ‘Postscript of the Translator for the Novel The Doctor,’” in Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 10 (Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005), 192–193. Chi Youh was a legendary figure in ancient China who was defeated by Huang-di, who was regarded as the forefather of the Han Chinese. (25) Lu Xun, “Wang Hua” [The cultivation by the kings], in Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 5, 143–144. (26) The “displaced Mongol princes” refers to the Mongol lords from East Mongolia whose homes were occupied by the Japanese in 1931 and who were exiled into Beiping and Inner Mongolia. In terms of the “conciliation of the Tibetans,” it refers to the military maneuver by the pre- British Tibetan authority to annex Xikang province (present-day western part of Sichuan). The Nationalist government invited the Panchen Lama, who was driven by the Dalai Lama, to hold a Monlam (a prayer ceremony). The translation was done by the author of this article with reference to the version by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang; See “Wang hua” [The cultivation by the kings], in Lu Xun: Selected Works, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign languages press, 1985), 277–279.

20 which “the Huimin from Xinjiang made trouble” refers to the rebellion of the Uyghur people against the warlord Jin Shuren in 1933.27 When the concessions made toward the minorities did not work, as when the Yao people in southern China rebelled, the government “massacred three thousand out of thirty thousand Yao people; they sent three airplanes to ‘lay eggs’ in the mountain caves [where the Yao people lived], making them amazed at ‘the heavenly generals and soldiers’ so that they would immediately surrender themselves.” Further, afterward, “the government chose some Yao representatives to visit [cities and see] ‘the culture of their sovereign state.’”28 Here, the incident refers to the Yao Rebellion in northern Guizhou province against the national government in 1933. In dealing with minority affairs, the government seems never to have made the proper decision. In addition to the policies applied by the authorities to the minorities, Lu Xun also described the majority people’s attitude toward religion, explaining that “people usually hate Buddhist monks and nuns, Christians, and the Huijiao-tu [Muslims], but they do not hate Taoists. When one knows this fact, one understands a greater part of Chinese society.”29 This conclusion by Lu Xun is well known. Although Lu Xun did not continue his discussion on the topic, it is popularly regarded that Lu Xun endeavored all his life to re-create

(27) In January 1933, the Uyghur launched a rebellion against Jin Shuren, and forced Jin to give up his control of Hami (the eastern part of Xinjiang). At the same time, the Uyghur people also surrounded Dihua (present-day Urumqi), the provincial capital. By April, Jin left Xinjiang and ended his reign. The government dispatched Huang Musong as the envoy to Xinjiang to pacify the Uyghur people. (28) This refers to the rebellion of the Yao people against the Nationalist government in February 1933. They rebelled in northern Guangxi and southern Hunan. The Guangxi provincial government dispatched an army to suppress the rebellion, and airplanes were also used to bomb the rebels. Another source described the assimilation policy by the government concerning the Yao Rebellion. According to the memoirs of Bai Chongxi, Among the ethnic minorities, the Yao people were the most difficult group of people to be assimilated. … They had never seen airplanes, and when they saw an airplane, they immediately knelt down and prayed.…[The government] organized the Yao people to have visits [to big cities] and increased their knowledge. The Baojia-system [a community-based system of law enforcement and civil control] had been applied to the Yao people and teachers’ schools had been established to educate them....Gradually they adopted the attire of the Han Chinese and the Han-assimilation trend started. (Kuo Ting-yee, reviser; Ma Tien-kang et al., interviewers and recorders, The Reminiscences of General Pai Chung-his, vol. 2 [Taipei: Institute of Modern, Academia Sinica, 1989], 629.) (29) Lu Xun, “A Random Thought” (Xiao zagan), 554–557.

21 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

the national spirit by criticizing the shortcomings of Taoism. This topic goes beyond the subject of this article, so I will not analyze it here. Through the previous exploration, one can see the difference between the two scholars, even though neither of them expressed their viewpoints in straightforward manner: Hu Shih was moderate in his attitude and hoped to “improve” or “reform” the government and society, while Lu Xun seems to have preferred a more severe means, perhaps even a revolution, for establishing an entirely new system, at least concerning the policies toward minority affairs.

IV. A Critical Review of the Nanhua Incident There are some important points to review about the Nanhua Incident. The first is that the status of the Hui people, and the Han Chinese aswell, had changed from being merely “subjects of Qing Emperors” to “Republican citizens,” and the parliamentary political system of the republic allowed the Hui to use the force of law to solve cases that humiliated them. This state of affairs was unlike that in the Qing dynasty, when the laws were not created equally for every citizen or every ethnicity. Next, when the laws were carried out, local forces or personal commitments may have played an important part in the distribution of justice, so it was easy for the Manchu and Han officials to act unfairly toward the Hui. In this way, many incidents in the Qing dynasty developed into large conflicts, and even full-scale rebellions.30 We can clearly see the progress of the society toward equality. A second point to review involves the popular thought that always associated Hui protests during the Republican era with the Hui dissatisfaction with the biased policies of the Kuomintang government. However, the Nanhua Incident did not belong to the category of governmental opposition. As a matter of fact, the Hui dealt with the incident with the full support of the government. Ever since the foundation of the republic, the government had issued some regulations to manage religious affairs, but these regulations mainly

(30) See more in the monograph by the author of this article, The Hui Minority in Modern China: Identity and Struggles, “Chapter 2, Ethnic Group or Religious Group?” (Istanbul: Fatih University Press, 2012), 33–65.

22 concerned the management of Buddhist and Taoist temples and the relevant religious affairs; Christian churches and Hui mosques were not mentioned at all. The governmental department for managing ethnic affairs was called the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, and it was established in 1913; Hui elites and common people alike had petitioned to change the name of the commission by adding the word, “Hui,” but in vain.31 It is true that when a Hui man, Ma Fuxiang, acted as the director of the commission between 1930 and 1931, he used his position to make some practical changes for Hui interests in the name of the commission, but the achievement was only limited to the field of Hui education. The Nanhua Incident in 1932 was the first event to draw the attention of the national government to the fact that Islam, especially as it was associated with the Hui minority, could not be neglected in dealing with religious affairs in China. In truth, the solution of the incident was satisfactory. The official Announcement“ of the Executive Yuan” states: The National Government, based on the Party’s basic principle for ethnic equality and liberty of faith, supports and protects all ethnic groups and all religions in the country. The Huijiao people are one important element of the Republic of China; they admire and help the Republic; they revere the Republic and have made great contributions, thus having won the love and respect of the people throughout the country.…Since this time onward, no part of any publication is permitted to humiliate any religion.32 Additionally, according to the telegram to the Delegation for Protection of Religion from Beiping by Sun Yanyi, who was then one of the councilors of the Beiping municipal government, the central government also agreed that “all the textbooks, if found to contain any passage that misinterprets Islam, should at once be revised according to the Hui people’s advice.”33

(31) The author of this article has researched the First Hui political movement led by Li Qian between 1915 and 1924; the name change for the commission was a request to the government. (32) “Report,” in Yueh Hwa Magazine, vol. 4, no. 36 (Dec. 25, 1932), 20. (33) Ibid., “Report,” 21.

23 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

The Chinese National Huijiao Federation was the first nationwide Hui association (it was a quasi-military organization); it was established in 1937 at Zhengzhou (but moved to Chongqing in 1938) to support the united front during the Resistance War against the Japanese. Although there are no direct sources to clarify why the Hui supported the government so strongly, the successful result of the Nanhua Incident might account for one important factor. Had the outcome of the incident been negative, the Hui probably would not have participated in the federation so enthusiastically and courageously. A third point concerns the attitudes of the distinguished scholars toward various members of the Hui, such as Hu Shih and Lu Xun. Both were educated abroad: Hu Shih in the United States and Lu Xun in Japan. As leading scholars at the time, they undertook the responsibility of enlightening the masses for the sake of building a new political, legal, and egalitarian society in China. They have almost entirely uprooted the biased ideology of the imperial Qing dynasty toward ethnic minorities. Open-minded personalities with such profound knowledge were hardly to be found among the intelligentsia of the Qing dynasty. I have tried to compare Hu Shih and Lu Xun with some leading scholars of the Qing dynasty so as to accurately judge their positive thoughts and fair attitudes toward the Hui and other minorities, but this effort has proved to be difficult. Perhaps Gu Yanwu (1613–1682), as a nationally renowned scholar during the early Qing dynasty, attained the same degree of influence that the two scholars, Hu Shih and Lu Xun, held during the Republican era. But Gu’s strong Buddhist beliefs made him deeply prejudiced against other ideologies; with regard to the Hui and their religion, he usually used impolite titles to refer to the people and was so biased against Islam that he even regarded it as heresy.34 Ji Xiaolan (1724–1865) was another distinguished scholar during

(34) One may read any story or passages related to the Hui in his representative work, Ri zhi lu (Records of Daily Accumulation of Knowledge) to see his biased attitude toward the Hui. See Wan Lei, “Yisilan wenhua yu zhonghua wenhua de pengzhuang” [Confrontation between Islamic Hui Culture and Chinese Culture —A research on the Hui-Han confrontation concerning ox-butchery in China], Journal of Hui Muslim Minority Studies (Yinchuan), no 1 (Mar. 2017), 72–76.

24 the late Qing dynasty, and had been the editor-in-chief for the compilation of the national history. In addition to Siku quanshu [The imperial collections of four branches of literature], he was also known for his sketchbook, Yueweicao- tang biji [The fantastic tales of Ji Xiaolan]; but I think he represented an “reincarnation” of Gu Yanwu so far as his Buddhist ideology and attitude toward the Hui are concerned. There is no surprise here: if eminent scholars did not follow the imperial orthodoxy, they could not hold the higher positions in the government. If Hu Shih and Lu Xun had not encountered the Delegations for Protection of Religion, would they otherwise have left some writings for us to know their thoughts about the Hui or Islam? As mentioned, the letter left by Lu Xun is the longest comment that he ever made on the topic; while for Hu Shih, the one published article cited here is the only one he left after researching the topic. Therefore, the answer is not positive. The two scholars met the delegations, they were shocked, and could not help but to express their viewpoints in writing, as they were professional writers. The two scholars’ personal experiences with the Hui delegations represented a communication of a special nature. The subject of communication leads into the fourth critical summary I would like to present here, which concerns the communications between the Hui and the Han. Chen Yuan, a well-known historian and intellectual of modern times, gave his conclusion on ethnic relationships after his systematical studies of Hui history. He stressed two points in 1926 to explain why the Hui survived in Chinese society; first, “they do not spread their religious teachings” to other people so “they would not cause jealousy and hatred”; and second, “they do not oppose Confucianism.”35 General Bai Chongxi (1893–1966), the top leader of the national Chinese Huijiao Federation (which moved to Taiwan in 1949), stated in an interview that “I am unaware of the conditions of Huijiao [Islam] abroad, but so far as China is concerned, Islam’s publicity is not

(35) Chen Yuan, “The Origin of Hui Hui Religion in China,” Journal of the Institute of Sinology of the National University of Peking, vol. 1, no. 6 (1927); reprint, Dongfang zazhi [Oriental Magazine (Shanghai)], vol. 25, no. 1 (Jan. 10, 1928), 123–124.

25 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

great enough [for common understanding]; such was the condition during the period of the Anti-Japanese War, but it remains unchanged in Taiwan today [in the 1960s].”36 The fact that “they [the Hui] do not spread their religious teachings” has an advantageous side but also a negative side; the negative is that the majority population of China remains ignorant about their religion. In 2004, the Chengzhai riji (Diaries of Yun Yuding) was published. The author, Yun Yuding (1862–1917), served as an official at the Qing court for 19 years, and in his highest position, was the editor-in-chief in charge of compiling the national history. I noticed an important segment in one of his diaries, which states, I received a book, The Life of Mohammed, from a Hui man surnamed Sha from Pengdian [possibly a place near Beijing] and read it under the light. Such a religion wishes to believe in One God, which is identical with the teachings of our Master [Confucius], whose preaching included being honest and being restrained from extravagant desires. There are five prohibitions: no believing in other gods, no cheating other people, no adultery, no stealing, and no killing of human beings. These are all correct teachings.37 Accordingly, “no spreading their religion” does not mean that the Hui must keep their religious teachings and way of life to themselves; it is not harmful to let other people know. During the period of the protest movement, the well- known Hui magazine, Yueh Hwa Magazine, published some articles that also discussed this issue. For example, one article states that “so far as the reason is concerned that they [the Han] do not know the truth [of Islam]; is it not true that our translation work has remained undone, which has led to such

(36) Kuo Ting-yee, reviser; Chia Ting-shih et al., interviewers and recorders, The Reminiscences of General Pai Chung-Hsi (Bai Chongxi koushu jilu), vol. 1, 569. The previous citation is from Bai’s oral account about the Chongqing-based Chinese National Huijiao Federation during World War II in China. He acted as the general-director of the federation. Bai’s oral account was recorded before his death in 1966, and the book was first published in 1984. (37) Yun Yuding, “Diary on the second day of the 11th month of the 32nd year in the Guangxu reign [Dec. 7, 1906 CE],” in Chengzhai riji [The Chengzhai Diaries], 347. http://www.doc88. com/p-809819199501.html.

26 a misinterpretation?” The author continues by asserting that the Hui should immediately undertake the translation work of Islamic teachings.38 The last and most important reason for the societal bias toward the Hui was due to the governmental assimilation policy, which lasted until the end of the Nationalist government’s political administration on mainland China. There was no official acknowledgment of various ethnic groups, including the Hui, by the government during the Republican era, and consequently no legal or political rights of any type were granted, except for the Tibetans and the Mongols. Xue Wenbo (1909–1984), an active Hui intellectual, seemed to have more foresight than many of his contemporaries. He argued that “the Kuomintang repeated that it would support the weak ethnic groups and would allow them their self-determination and self-autonomy, but has not yet given any detailed method”; he continued resentfully that in comparison with the management for the affairs of the Tibetan and Mongol peoples, there is no management for the Hui affairs. There is no consistency at all between its [the government’s] theory and practice. In this way, we have our reasons to believe that this policy supports the Hui in name only, but works to eliminate the Hui in reality.39 The issue concerning the formal acknowledgment of the Hui ethnic group is a popular and complicated topic that many researchers of the Hui have explored and discussed since the early Republican era up to today. It is too big to expand upon here, but in brief, I do agree that Xue Wenbo’s argument is correct. This issue is the root from which stems all other issues concerning the Hui.

V. Conclusion In this article, I first described a historical event that humiliated the Hui people, the Nanhua Incident of 1932, which marked the point which the Hui

(38) Ma Xueren, “Cong Nanhua Wenyi An shuodao women ying gan de gongzuo” [What we have learned to do from the Nanhua Incident], Yueh Hwa Magazine, vol. 4, combined nos. 28–30 (Mar. 15, 1933), 27–28. (39) Xue Wenbo, “Guanyu huru Huizu an” [On the humiliating Hui cases], Yueh Hwa Magazine, vol. 4, combined nos. 28–30, 10.

27 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

people’s cohesion and great sphere of influence upon the society and the government became apparent. Along with this description, I explored at the same time the attitudes of the time of two distinguished scholars, Hu Shih and Lu Xun, toward the Hui minority and Islam, which were positive in both cases. The evidence has been drawn mainly from studies of the two scholars’ articles, letters, and diaries. Some issues extending to the minority policies of the Qing dynasty and the Republican government were also discussed. I reviewed the incident critically and reached some important conclusions. The first is that under the newly established Republican political system, the Hui were able to use the laws concerning religion as a legal weapon to solve the humiliating case; in comparison with the policies of the imperial Qing dynasty, which proceeded it, this represented a significant step forward. The second conclusion concerns the special situation of the Hui protest: the protesters relied on the government for help in overcoming the issue instead of opposing the government’s policies. The third is that the nationally renowned scholars during the Qing dynasty could not possibly have possessed such open-minded attitude as these two scholars of the Republican era; one of the main reasons for their open-mindedness was that they had benefited from a foreign education. The fourth conclusion is that the Hui should examine their tradition of “no spreading of their religious teachings” to other people; a good and frequent intercommunication with the majority is always good for mutual understanding and religious tolerance. And the fifth and final conclusion is that the acknowledgment of the Hui and other minorities in name, as well as their rights, must become; this is the root of all problems related to solving the minority issues in China.

28 Bibliography Primary Sources Hu Shih 胡適. “Wuru Hui-jiao shijian ji qi chufen” 侮辱回教事件及其處分 [“The humiliating Hui-jiao incident and its punishment”].” Originally published in Duli pinglun 獨立評論 [Independent review] (Beiping), no. 27, ed., Hu Shih (Dec. 12, 1932). In Selected Works of Hu Shih, vol. 11, ed., Ouyang Zhesheng. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 1988, 263–268. Lu Xun 鲁迅.“Lu Xun’s Diaries” 魯迅日記 (Nov. 17, 1932), in Lu Xun quanji 鲁迅全集 [Complete works of Lu Xun], vol. 16, edited by the compiling committee of Complete Works of Lu Xun. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 334.

References Chen Yuan 陳垣. “Hui Hui jiao ru Zhongguo de yuanliu” 回回教進入中國的源流 [The origin of Hui Hui religion into China]. Originally published in Journal of the Institute of Sinology of the National University of Peking, vol. 1, no. 6 (1927). Reprint, Dongfang zazhi [Oriental Magazine (Shanghai)], vol. 25, no. 1 (Jan. 10, 1928): 113–124. Hajjah Aliya Ma, Haji Ibrahim T. Y. Ma, A Biography. Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Welfare Organization of Malaysia, 1991, 128–129. Hu Shi. “My mother’s betrothal,” in English Writings of Hu Shih, vol. 1. Originally published in New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1946. Riprint, ed. by Chih-P’ing Chow. Shanghai: Foreign Languages and Teaching Press, 2013, 89. Kuo Ting-yee 郭廷以, reviser; Chia Ting-shih 賈廷詩 et al., interviewers and recorders. 白崇禧先生訪問紀錄 The Reminiscences of General Pai Chung-his, vol. 2. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, 1989, 629. Lou Zikuang 婁子匡. “Huijiao-tu zenme bu chi zhu de rou?” 回教徒怎麼不吃豬肉? [“Why do the Muslims not eat pork?” Nanhua Wenyi 南華文藝 (Shanghai), 1, no. 14 (Shanghai: June 16, 1932): 59–63.

29 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

Lu Xun 鲁迅. “Collection of Letters by Lu Xun,” no. 321202, 致许寿裳 “To Xu Shoushang” (Dec. 2, 1932). In Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 12. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 348–349. —— . “Collection of letters by Lu Xun,” no. 330213, 致程琪英 “To Cheng Qiying” (Feb.13, 1933). In Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 12. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 372. —— . “Yisheng yizhe fuji” 医生译者附记 [Translator’s remarks in “Postscript of the translator for the novel The Doctor”]. In Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 10. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 192–193. —— . “Wang Hua ” 王化 [The Cultivation by the kings], in Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 5. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 143–144. —— . “Xiao zagan” 小杂感 [A random thought]. In Complete Works of Lu Xun, vol. 3. Beijing: People’s literature press, 2005, 554–557. North-China Herald ——“Protest against article,” North-China Herald, Nov. 2, 1932, 169. ——“Vindication of Mohammedans,” North-China Herald, Nov. 9, 1932. ——Reuter, “Religious Freedom,” North-China Herald, Nov. 16, 1932. Pillsbury, Barbara Linne Kroll. “Cohesion and Cleavage in a Chinese Muslim Minority.” PhD diss. Anne Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1974, chs 1–7, 12, 19. Shen Pao 申報 —— “Beixin shuju zuo bei daohui” 北新書局昨被搗毀 [Beixin Publishing House destroyed yesterday]. Shen Pao, Oct. 28, 1932. —— “Huimin hujiaotuan di jing” 回民護教團抵京 [The Hui Delegation for Protection of Religion arrived the capital yesterday]. Shen Pao, October 28, 1932. —— “Hu Huijiao ge libaisi tui daibiao jin jing qingyuan” 滬回教各禮拜寺推代表晉京請願 [All the mosques in Shanghai elected envoys to go to the capital for petition]. Shen Pao, Oct. 29, 1932. Wan Lei. Chapter 2, “Ethnic Group or Religious Group?” In Identity and Struggles: The Hui Minority in Modern China. Istanbul: Fatih University Press, 2012, 33–65.

30 —— . “Yisilan wenhua yu zhonghua wenhua de pengzhuang” 伊斯兰文化与中华传统文化的碰撞与调适—浅析回民宰牛引起的冲突 [Confrontation between Islamic Hui Culture and Chinese Culture —A study on the Hui- Han confrontation concerning ox-butchery in China.” Journal of Hui Muslim Minority Studies (Yinchuan), no. 1(Mar. 2017) : 72–76. Yueh Hwa Magazine 月華 [Moonlight magazine] —— “Baogao” 報告 [Report]. Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), vol. 4, no. 36 (Dec. 25, 1932): 20. —— “Gedi zhi xiangying sheng” 各地之回應聲 [Voices from every place]. Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), 4, combined nos. 28–30 (Oct. 25, 1932): 38–32. —— “Huabei Huimin hujiao tuan laihan” 華北回教團來函 [The letter from the North China delegation for protection of religion], Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), vol. 5, no. 28–30 (Mar. 15, 1933): 19. —— Ma Xueren 馬學仁. “Cong Nanhua Wenyi An shuodao women ying gan de gongzuo” 從南華文藝的侮教說道我們應幹的工作 [What we have learned to do from the Nanhua Incident], Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), vol. 4, combined nos. 28–30 (Mar. 15, 1933): 25–29. —— Xue Wenbo, “Guanyu huru Huizu an” 關於侮辱回族案 [On the humiliating Hui cases], Yueh Hwa Magazine (Beiping), vol. 4, combined nos. 28–30 (Mar. 15, 1933): 10. Yun Yuding 恽毓鼎. “Diary on the second day of the 11th month of the 32nd year in the Guangxu reign [Dec. 7, 1906 CE],” in Chengzhai riji 澄斋日记 [The Chengzhai diary]: 347. http://www.doc88.com/p-809819199501. html. (accessed Oct. 2017). Yu Zhengui 余振貴. Zhongguo lidai zhengquan he Yisilan jiao 中国历代政权和伊斯兰教 [China’s Governments and Islam]. Yinchuan: Ningxia renmin, 1996, 325. Zhong Jingwen 鐘敬文. “Preface to Geyao lun ji.” In Zhong Jingwen, ed., Geyao lunji歌謠論集 [Collected articles on ballads]. Shanghai: Beixin Book Bureau, 1927, 1.

31 Dhu al-Qidah 1438 - Muharram-1439 No. 11 August - September 2017

About the Author

Dr. WAN Lei’s areas of expertise are historical anthropological studies concerning the Hui Muslim minority and Islam in China and the historical Sino–West Asian relations. He is currently a senior research fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Prior to joining the Center, he was a lecturer, associate professor, and professor in institutions of higher education in Malaysia, Turkey, and China. He has published a book, Identity and Struggles: The Hui Minority in Modern China, in Turkey and many Chinese- and English-language articles on Hui studies and Chinese Islam.

King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies (KFCRIS)

The KFCRIS is an independent non-governmental institution based in Riyadh, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Center was founded in 1403/1983 by the King Faisal Foundation (KFF) to preserve the legacy of the late King Faisal and to continue his mission of transmitting knowledge between the Kingdom and the world. The Center serves as a platform for research and Islamic Studies, bringing together researchers and research institutions from the Kingdom and across the world through conferences, workshops, and lectures, and through the production and publication of scholarly works, as well as the preservation of Islamic manuscripts. The Center’s Research Department is home to a group of established and promising researchers who endeavor to produce in-depth analyses in various fields, ranging from Contemporary Political Thought, Political Economy, and Arabic Language to Saudi Studies, Maghreb Studies, and Asian Studies. The Center also hosts the Library which preserves invaluable Islamic manuscripts, the Al-Faisal Museum for Arab Islamic Art, the Al-Faisal Institute for Human Resources Development, the Darat Al-Faisal, and the Al-Faisal Cultural Press, which issues the Al-Faisal magazine and other key intellectual periodicals. For more information, please visit the Center’s website: www.kfcris.com/en

P.O.Box 51049 Riyadh 11543 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Tel: (+966 11) 4652255 Ext: 6892 Fax: (+966 11) 4659993 E-mail: [email protected]