Burma is for Buddhists

[alaungphaya]

Burma is for Burmese and Rohingyas are not citizens.End of the matter for me.The bleeding hearts can take them in if they are so hurt.

No, Myanmar is a diverse country with many ethnic groups. But those Bengalis are trouble and they are the vanguard of a population overspill from Bangladesh that is not going to abate. To compound the matter, they are guided by an intolerant and bigoted religion that is incapable of coexistence with other cultures.

 

[al-Hasani]

No, Myanmar is a diverse country with many ethnic groups. But those Bengalis are trouble and they are the vanguard of a population overspill from Bangladesh that is not going to abate. To compound the matter, they are guided by an intolerant and bigoted religion that is incapable of coexistence with other cultures.

Yes, and part of that diversity is made up by indigenous Muslims who have had a presence in Burma for well over 1000 years. Minorities that your government is doing nothing to protect and which you shameless try to describe as illegal Bangladeshis when nothing could be further from the true.

Even if there is a minority of people of Bangladeshi origins among the Rohingya this would not change the essentials.

 

[Arya Desa]

Burma needs to send those bonglodoshis back to bonglostan. We Indians also suffer from the bonglo problem. One wonders how terrible their country must be that millions flee it, even when faced with live fire ammunition on our side. I guess dying in India/Burma is better than living in bonglostan.

 

[alaungphaya]

The person that you are discussing with is of Arab and European ancestry but let's leave that aside.

Well, apparently you need some help as you did not understand what was written to you. How is that my problem? Also your lack of willingness to engage in the discussion (I even provided you a source) is also telling.

When historians of various ethnicities and from various countries (regional and non-regional) already confirmed a Muslim presence in the 9th century in what is today Burma it is very baffling that you, along with your government, are trying to deny a historical Muslim presence in Burma or pass the Rohingya people and others off as "illegal migrants from Bangladesh".

As if that somehow explained the massacres on the Burmese Muslims...

Pathetic.

Noting is baffling me. You are the one who seems to miss the issue entirely. The presence of muslims in Myanmar is entirely independent of these people. These people simply do not belong. I hope I've made this easy enough to understand.

 

[Hindustani78]

Burma is having separatist problem and seperatist movements are/were active. Karen National Union (KNU), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), the Shan State Army (SSA) and the Kachin National Organization (KNO) and these separatists movements are waging armed struggle. Now the Burma Establishment is using religion card so that it can let the ethnic groups to end problems.

Thats why now this has become Muslims and Christian Burmese issue.

 

[Abotani]

No, Myanmar is a diverse country with many ethnic groups. But those Bengalis are trouble and they are the vanguard of a population overspill from Bangladesh that is not going to abate. To compound the matter, they are guided by an intolerant and bigoted religion that is incapable of coexistence with other cultures.

Umm..that's what I said.Never said burmese were a single monolithic group.That an alien group from bengal somehow founds its way there doesn't give them the right to do as they wish-start trouble and then whine about it when smacked back.They are guests in Myanmar and should behave as such.
Even if Myanmar decided to expel them,I wouldn't blame them.

 

[al-Hasani]

Noting is baffling me. You are the one who seems to miss the issue entirely. The presence of muslims in Myanmar is entirely independent of these people. These people simply do not belong. I hope I've made this easy enough to understand.

Then our only disagreement concerns your description of the Rohingya people (in their entirety) as being illegal Bangladeshis which is not something that any historians (or the fast, fast majority of them at least) agree with nor facts on the ground.

I would like to see independent sources that confirm what you are saying. Also historical sources that attest to this.

 

[alaungphaya]

Burma is having separatist problem and seperatist movements are/were active. Karen National Union (KNU), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), the Shan State Army (SSA) and the Kachin National Organization (KNO) and these separatists movements are waging armed struggle. Now the Burma Establishment is using religion card so that it can let the ethnic groups to end problems.

Thats why now this has become Muslims and Christian Burmese issue.

They are getting leverage but no, I don't think this is the case. There is a genuine ethno-religious problem in the country and it was, like many other examples, suppressed in the military rule era. But under the democracy era, people speak out and tensions brewing for decades come to the fore.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

What are you talking about?

Burma is a secular country and a multicultural (religiously) country. KSA is neither. Huge difference. KSA is similar to the Vatican. Just much, much bigger.

Instead of talking about KSA or Brunei that have nothing to do with the news then people that are supposedly in favor of what you talk about, should condemn what the Burmese regime is doing.

This is nothing compared to the rumored massacres of Muslims.

Talking strictly about "cradle of Christianity", Vatican is not the cradle of Christianity! Present day Israel/Palestine is! And India is the undisputed cradle of Hinduism!

But the point is, you can't make special and discriminatory rules for a religion in a country if that country is a cradle of that particular religion! If we applied that logic in India (which is the undisputed cradle of Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism), all Muslims and Christians would have to be discriminated against by the state/constitution!

To the @OP:
Why is it that the burden of secularism is thrusted only on non-Muslim countries? Why is it that non-Muslim countries have to prove their secular credentials every living moment of their life while Muslim majority countries don't have to reciprocate the same for their non-Muslim citizens and are openly discriminated against?

 

[alaungphaya]

Then our only disagreement concerns your description of the Rohingya people (in their entirety) as being illegal Bangladeshis which is not something that any historians (or the fast, fast majority of them at least) agree with nor facts on the ground.

I would like to see independent sources that confirm what you are saying. Also historical sources that attest to this.

That's funny because the peer reviewed, academic literature that's out there doesn't say anything about the link between Rohingya and these ancient Muslim communities in Myanmar.

https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

Cambridge Journals Online - Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies - Abstract - Moshe Yegar: <i>The Muslims of Burma: a study of a minority group</i>. (Schriftenreihe des Südasian-Instituts der Universität Heidelberg.) xiii, 151 pp. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972. DM 38.

(The latter is behind a pay wall but I'm sure you can search yourself)

 

[hussain0216]

What do you mean by we are killing muslims? Is the government killing muslims? Am I killing muslims? Or did muslims start a fight and lose? I don't hear much about the Arakanese villagers who were murdered by muslim mobs and had their villages burned out on here. No one is blameless in this.



I'm not having some jumped up Arab lecture me on my English. I refer back to my original comment that your understanding of this extends to the level of someone who has Googled for, I guess, 40 minutes now.

What do you mean by we are killing muslims? Is the government killing muslims? Am I killing muslims? Or did muslims start a fight and lose? I don't hear much about the Arakanese villagers who were murdered by muslim mobs and had their villages burned out on here. No one is blameless in this.



I'm not having some jumped up Arab lecture me on my English. I refer back to my original comment that your understanding of this extends to the level of someone who has Googled for, I guess, 40 minutes now.

Yes the burmese government is killing muslims
Yes the burmese buddists are guilty of both partaking in and supporting the massacre



The responsibility of giving the burmese pain should fall on Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia is both members of ASEAN and major muslim nations

And I dont mean just the government ordinary burmese citizens who support the massacre of the Rohinga should also be made to suffer

 

[al-Hasani]

Talking strictly about "cradle of Christianity", Vatican is not the cradle of Christianity! Present day Israel/Palestine is! And India is the undisputed cradle of Hinduism!

But the point is, you can't make special and discriminatory rules for a religion in a country if that country is a cradle of that particular religion! If we applied that logic in India (which is the undisputed cradle of Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism), all Muslims and Christians would have to be discriminated against by the state/constitution!

To the @OP:
Why is it that the burden of secularism is thrusted only on non-Muslim countries? Why is it that non-Muslim countries have to prove their secular credentials every living moment of their life while Muslim majority countries don't have to reciprocate the same for their non-Muslim citizens and are openly discriminated against?

I know that Christianity originates in Palestine. After all the first Christians on earth (outside of the Jewish minority that adopted it) where Arabs and the oldest Christian community are Christian Arabs. KSA itself has one of the oldest churches in the world (from the 3th century). Moreover Christianity just like Judaism and Islam are fellow Abrahamic/Semitic religions.

Yet the Vatican is the spiritual center of Catholicism. The biggest branch of Christianity. I have visited Vatican (I have Roman Catholic family members too) and that country is strictly Catholic and there is no place for non-Catholics to openly perform their religious duties and moreover all natives are Catholics.

KSA, unlike India, is not made up by 100's of different ethnic groups nor are the natives diverse anymore in a religious sense as they once were.

Also the most clear thing here is that KSA is not claiming to be a democracy or a secular country while Burma claims to be both. KSA is not killing native Christians, Jews or Hindus because there are none.

 

[Hindustani78]

They are getting leverage but no, I don't think this is the case. There is a genuine ethno-religious problem in the country and it was, like many other examples, suppressed in the military rule era. But under the democracy era, people speak out and tensions brewing for decades come to the fore.

Democracy is still young in Burma and still Military is holding power and many of the ethnic groups have not able to use to vote because the mechanism is not in place. Have the Rohingya, Kachin, kayin and others have voted in the elections ?

 

[alaungphaya]

Yes the burmese government is killing muslims
Yes the burmese buddists are guilty of both partaking in and supporting the massacre



The responsibility of giving the burmese pain should fall on Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia is both members of ASEAN and major muslim nations

And I dont mean just the government ordinary burmese citizens who support the massacre of the Rohinga should also be made to suffer

Well, do you worst then, you brave little muslim.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

My point was not that they are not persecuted. Indeed they are and heavily at that.
But that Myanmar Govt reserves the right to give citizenship to people. If they decide they dont want to give it to Rohingyas, that is their right. Not all nations give Jus soli.

That however does not mean that they have a right to persecute non-citizens, nor is it an excuse to treat them badly.

The other point I am trying to make is that any Muslim from a country that has discriminatory laws towards other religions - has zero right to comment on Myanmar(on the discrimination part, not the killings part). If they are concerned about equality...they should focus their energies at their home and bring about change.
Regarding the statement that two wrongs dont make a right. It is true, but it is for those who practice at home what they preach - to tell the Myanmar govt. Not hypocrites.

These guys funny! Muslim majority countries don't have to be secular or they don't have give their non-Muslim citizens their rights but they will object to other non-Muslim countries if they follow the suit!

Even more funny is the fact that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis turn a blind eye towards another persecuted Muslim group in Xinjiang which is occupied and persecuted by China -- the Uighurs!!! Hypocrisy at its best!