IslamiCity
Listen PodCasts, Live Quran, Watch Videos @VideoHub
On September 7, 2025, the Xinhua Institute-a think tank affiliated with China's state-run Xinhua News Agency-released a provocative report titled "Colonization of the Mind - The Means, Roots, and Global Perils of U.S. Cognitive Warfare".
Presented at the Global South Media and Think Tank Forum in Kunming, the report offers a sweeping indictment of what it calls the United States' long-standing campaign of ideological colonization through cognitive warfare.
While the report is clearly framed within China's geopolitical narrative, its core arguments raise urgent questions for Muslim-majority countries grappling with their own post-colonial identity, media sovereignty, and cultural resilience.
This essay explores the report's key claims and analyzes how its insights might serve as a wake-up call-or a strategic blueprint-for Muslim nations seeking to reclaim ideological autonomy in a world increasingly shaped by information dominance.
For Muslim countries, this critique resonates deeply. Many have experienced decades of Western media framing Islam through the lens of extremism, backwardness, or incompatibility with modernity. From the portrayal of hijab bans as "liberation" to the normalization of Islamophobic tropes in entertainment and news, cognitive warfare has subtly shaped global perceptions of Muslim identity. The Chinese report's framing of ideological colonization offers a vocabulary to describe these experiences not as isolated biases, but as systemic tools of influence.
Muslim countries have often found themselves at the receiving end of this exportation. Whether through conditional aid tied to governance reforms, educational exchanges that prioritize Western curricula, or NGO-driven social engineering, the imposition of liberal norms has frequently clashed with indigenous values. The Chinese report's emphasis on "spiritual independence" and "cultural confidence" is particularly relevant here. It suggests that resisting ideological colonization requires more than political sovereignty-it demands epistemic sovereignty: the right to define one's own truths, values, and developmental path.
The report further contends that this media architecture is not accidental but rather embedded in a broader strategy of cognitive dominance, where control over information flows translates into control over perception, legitimacy, and moral authority. For countries outside the Western sphere-especially those in the Global South-this creates a persistent asymmetry, as they are forced to respond to narratives they did not construct, defend policies framed by others, and navigate reputational landscapes shaped by external interests. In this context, the report calls for a rebalancing of global media power, urging non-Western nations to develop independent platforms, cultivate indigenous storytelling traditions, and challenge the epistemic authority of Western outlets that have long positioned themselves as arbiters of truth.
This critique finds stark confirmation in Western media's coverage of Israel's occupation of Palestine and its genocidal campaign in Gaza. Israeli statements are often presented as objective fact, while Palestinian suffering is framed in conditional terms-casualties described as "alleged," resistance dismissed as "terrorism," and Israel's "right to self-defense" consistently emphasized, while Palestinians' right to freedom, dignity, and life itself is negated. For over seventy years, Palestinian suffering has been minimized or ignored. The rise of TikTok temporarily disrupted this monopoly, amplifying grassroots accounts that galvanized student demonstrations across U.S. universities. Yet even TikTok eventually bowed to U.S. government pressure, shifting its policies on Gaza coverage and demonstrating the fragility of alternative platforms under Western influence.
The lesson is clear: narrative sovereignty is not optional. Muslim nations must invest in independent media ecosystems capable of telling their own stories, resisting imposed frames, and fostering transnational solidarity.
For Muslim countries with young, digitally connected populations, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, digital platforms offer unprecedented access to information and mobilization. On the other, they expose societies to manipulation, polarization, and cultural dilution. The Chinese report's implicit call for digital sovereignty-control over data, platforms, and content moderation-should be taken seriously. Countries like Turkey and Indonesia have already begun exploring national alternatives to Western platforms. Others may need to follow suit to protect their cognitive space.
However, the Chinese model is not without its critics. Its approach to media control and censorship has long been criticized by people in other parts of the world. Muslim countries must therefore adapt the principle of ideological sovereignty without replicating authoritarian excesses. The goal is not to replace one hegemon with another, but to build pluralistic, confident societies capable of resisting external domination while respecting internal diversity.
Such dialogue is not a new concept in the Muslim world. In Southeast Asia, countries like Malaysia and Indonesia have long championed interfaith and intercultural engagement through ASEAN platforms, often emphasizing moderation (wasatiyyah) and regional harmony. Similarly, in the Middle East, initiatives led by the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have promoted civilizational dialogue through forums like the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue and the King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID).
However, civilizational dialogue must evolve beyond ceremonial exchanges and academic conferences. It cannot remain confined to polished panel discussions or symbolic declarations. To be meaningful, such dialogue must produce concrete measures that promote foundational values-chief among them, freedom of religion, protection of minority rights, and the cultivation of mutual respect across belief systems. This requires institutional commitment, legal reform, and educational transformation-not just rhetorical gestures.
Only through strategic, values-driven collaboration can Muslim countries build resilient societies capable of shaping their own narratives and defending their ideological space.
In sum, this is not a call for paranoia-it's a call for preparedness. The battle for hearts and minds is no longer metaphorical; it is algorithmic, psychological, and deeply political. China's report may be polemical, but its core insight is clear: those who do not control their cognitive space will be controlled by others.
Muslim-majority countries must decide whether they will be passive recipients of global narratives-or active authors of their own.
The views expressed are those of Dr. Mai Jianjun, Department of Fundamental and Interdisciplinary Studies, AHAS KIRKHS, International Islamic University Malaysia, and do not necessarily reflect the views of IslamiCity.
How Did Islam Become A Global Religion?
