近代中国“回族”观念自有其形成与变迁的过程。中国社会在前民族时代对回民的族群认知为近代中国“回族”观念的形成奠定了基础。清朝皇帝将回民纳入到“赤子论”的政治修辞范畴，使得回民的回教宗教文化身份与身为臣民的政治法律身份实现整合。同时，部分回民知识人自晚明就开始进行的对“回回”称谓的自我诠释包涵沟通回汉文化与塑造回族历史记忆的二重倾向。清末十年，国人国家主权意识的觉醒与西方近代人种学知识传入，促使“回族”观念在立宪派与革命派的民族主义论争中达成了“回族”与回疆的锚定关系。近代中国社会主流的“回族”观念就此定型。

处于“五族共和”话语中的“回族”观念在影响中华民国的政法实践与社会环境的同时，又酝酿着变化的潜流。在回族群众发起的要求加入“回族”专额议员的政治请愿活动中，主流的“回族”观念影响着政府的官方态度与处理原则，左右着回族群众政治请愿的核心诉求与自我表达。在历次“侮教案”当中，回族群众的集体抗争诉求与政府和社会的处理态度虽都聚焦于宗教之上，但部分回族人士对“回族”身份的反思态度，使得“回族”观念呈现连续性与断裂性的发展特征。

全面抗战前后，“回族”观念呈现出三种转化。基于对外侵略扩张的野心，日本侵略者一开始就将从亚洲范围内发现的“回教民族”，特别是中国“回教民族”，纳入到其所谓“大亚细亚主义”的想象中。日本全面发动侵华战争后，日本侵略者对处于“回教圈”范畴笼罩下的“回教民族”表述渐趋极端化与空洞化。出于防范日本侵略者利用“回教民族”来分裂中华民族目的，中国国民党与中国共产党都明确了各自对“回族”的认知态度。中国国民党延续了主流“回族”观念的基本内容，提出“汉人回教徒”说，否认回族作为一个民族的合理性。而中国共产党以马列主义和斯大林民族理论为指导，结合领导中国革命的实践经验，肯定并论证了“回族是一个民族”。

除此之外，近代中国的“回族”观念还影响着民国关于“回族”的历史书写这一特殊实践。它呈现出两种不同的书写方向，即是处于中国民族史书写框架中的“回族”历史叙述与主要是回族学者以“回教史”名义书写的回族史，但这样的二重书写最终又都统一于整个中华民族交往交流交融的历史叙述之中，这以中华民族英雄郑和的形象塑造为典型。

The concept of Hui in modern China has its own process of formation and change. The ethnic perception of Hui in Chinese society in the pre-ethnic era laid the foundation for the formation of the concept of Hui in modern China. The Qing emperor's inclusion of the Hui in the political rhetoric of the 'Red Son Theory' led to the integration of Hui's religious and cultural identity with their political and legal identity as subjects. At the same time, the self-interpretation of the name 'Hui Hui', which some Hui intellectuals had worked on since the late Ming, encompassed a dual tendency to bridge Hui-Chinese culture and shape Hui historical memory. In the late Qing dynasty, the awakening of national sovereignty and the introduction of modern Western ethnographic knowledge contributed to the anchoring of the concept of 'Hui' in the nationalist debate between the constitutionalists and the revolutionaries, and to the anchoring of 'Hui' and Huijiang. The mainstream of modern Chinese society was thus defined by the concept of 'Hui'.

While the concept of the Hui in the discourse of the "five-ethnic republic" was influencing the political and legal practices and social environment of the Republic of China, there was also an undercurrent of change brewing. In the political petitions launched by the Hui masses for the inclusion of the "Hui" quota, the dominant "Hui" concept influenced the government's official attitude and handling principles and shaped the core demands and self-expression of the Hui masses' political petitions. Although the collective demands of the Hui people and the government's and society's attitudes towards them have been focused on religion, the reflective attitude of some Hui people towards their identity as Hui has led to continuity and fracture in the concept of "Hui". The "Hui" concept was characterized by continuity and discontinuity.

Around the time of the war, the concept of 'Hui' underwent three transformations. Based on the ambition of foreign aggression and expansion, the Japanese invaders from the very beginning incorporated the "Muslim peoples" found in the Asian context, especially the Chinese "Muslim peoples", into their so-called "Great Asianism "The Japanese invasion of China After Japan's full-scale war of aggression against China, the Japanese invaders' representations of the "Muslim nation" under the umbrella of the "Muslim circle" became increasingly polarised and hollow. In order to prevent the Japanese invaders from using the "Muslim nation" to divide the Chinese nation, both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China clarified their respective attitudes towards the "Muslim nation". The Kuomintang continued the basic elements of the mainstream concept of "Hui", proposing the "Han Chinese Muslims" theory and denying the legitimacy of the Hui as an ethnic group. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, was guided by Marxism-Leninism and Stalin's theory of nationalities, and combined with its practical experience of leading China's revolutionary activities, affirmed and argued that "the Hui is a nationality".

In addition, the concept of the Hui in modern China also influenced the particular practice of writing the history of the Hui in the Republic of China. It presents two different directions of writing, namely the historical narrative of the Hui within the framework of Chinese ethnic history and the history of the Hui written mainly by Hui scholars in the name of the history of the Hui religion, but this dual writing is ultimately united in the historical narrative of the entire Chinese nation. This is exemplified by the portrayal of the Chinese national hero Zheng He.