The news that Hong Kong's Jamia Mosque, a century-old landmark, has been declared an official monument is, on the surface, a preservation success. But let's not mistake sentiment for strategy. The timing – 2022, after a period of significant political upheaval – raises questions about the why behind the decision. Is this about protecting cultural heritage, or something else entirely?
The provided article suggests geopolitics might be at play, but that's vague. Let's be precise. What specific geopolitical calculation leads to protecting a mosque from developers? Is it a play for favor with Muslim nations? (The Muslim population in China, while significant, is largely concentrated in other regions.) Or is it a message to the West, a carefully curated image of religious tolerance?
I've looked at hundreds of these decisions, and a sudden designation like this, after decades of not being a monument, is unusual. Usually, these things are slow-burn bureaucratic processes.
The article mentions the mosque's survival is "probably" thanks to geopolitics. "Probably" isn't good enough. We need to quantify the probability. What changed in 2022 that made this designation suddenly necessary? Was there a specific threat from developers that hadn't existed before? Or was the threat always there, and the political will to protect the mosque was the variable that shifted?
The risk here is that religious tolerance becomes a performance, a tool in a larger geopolitical game. It's not about genuine respect for diverse cultures, but rather about projecting an image of stability and control. If that's the case, it's a fragile kind of protection, dependent on the shifting sands of international relations.
Consider this: The mosque is safe from developers now. But what happens if China's relationship with the Muslim world sours? What if the narrative shifts, and the mosque becomes a symbol of something else entirely? Monument status can be revoked. Laws can be changed.
And this is the part of the analysis that I find genuinely unsettling. We're celebrating a victory for preservation, but we're doing so without acknowledging the potential strings attached. We're accepting a narrative at face value, without questioning the motives behind it.
So, what's the real story? Is this a genuine act of cultural preservation, or a carefully calculated move on a much larger chessboard? The absence of more detailed information about the decision-making process (the official justifications, the internal memos, the stakeholder consultations) makes it impossible to say for sure. As one report suggests, China places a Hong Kong-sized bet on Western decline, and this could be a small part of that strategy.
But the timing, the lack of transparency, and the broader geopolitical context all suggest that there's more to this story than meets the eye. And that, in itself, is a reason to be skeptical.
