Burma is for Buddhists

[Secur]

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 sanguinis.

That however does not mean that they 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.

No Govt has the right to deprive its own citizens of their citizenship over false made up history that too because of a sudden realization about people that have been there all along, regardless of whatever else might be happening around the world, this is one of the few rare instances of such mass deprivement of nationality. Not all nations might give "right of blood" but almost all nations use jus soli defined as the right of soil as preferred method of granting nationality. In this case, both are valid for Rohingya people. These people haven't started migrating to these lands suddenly to use the jus sanguinis argument, they have been living there peacefully since long.

 

[alaungphaya]

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 placed. Have the Rohingya, Kachin, kayin and others have voted in the elections ?

Rohingya no for obvious reasons. But the rest, yes.

 

[hussain0216]

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

Unless I meet a burmese I can harm its pointless,

Like I said we can all hate the burmese and indeed should but the onus for putting pressure on them has to be from the muslim nations around it including Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh

 

[alaungphaya]

Unless I meet a burmese I can harm its pointless,

Like I said we can all hate the burmese and indeed should but the onus for putting pressure on them has to be from the muslim nations around it including Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh

Must be tough hating everyone else in the world. Better just stay at home.

 

[al-Hasani]

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)

Once again buddy where do I write that Rohingya people are solely descendants of those early Muslim settlers? I have sticked to historical facts solely and facts on the ground for the entire debate.

You admitted yourself that Islam and Muslim groups in Burma have had a presence in what is now Burma for over 1000 years.

Fair enough, then we don't have any disagreement there.

Then you started talking about the Rohingya being "illegal Bangladeshis" and not Burmese people. I told you that no serious historians agree with this viewpoint and asked you for proofs of your claim.

I have not claimed that SOME Rohingya people are NOT from Bangladesh originally. What I have written is that I do not believe that ALL of them are. I doubt that anyone truly does.

I took a quick glance on your link and I saw that the author talks about some migrations from what is now Bangladesh and those migrations apparently took place already 180 years ago.

Now is that not a long enough time to be considered a native? In KSA we have people with ancestral ties to every single Muslim country (due to the hajj and our location between Europe, Africa and the remaining Asia and the most major ancient sea routes of the world) and some of them did first arrive to KSA in the early 20th century. Today they are nevertheless citizens and considered Saudi Arabians.

Also can you be sure that all Buddhists in Burma have lived that long in Burma? Maybe some came from nearby Thailand, China or India? Well, I know that you guys have a sizable Chinese diaspora (people of Chinese origins). Why not deport them as well? They are after all not "natives" in your eyes. Or does that not matter because those people are not Muslims?

And he was gone like other people that cannot answer my posts when I first get started on various topics on PDF….

 

[Judge]

No Govt has the right to deprive its own citizens of their citizenship over false made up history that too because of a sudden realization about people that have been there all along, regardless of whatever else might be happening around the world, this is one of the few rare instances of such mass deprivement of nationality. Not all nations might give "right of blood" but almost all nations use jus soli defined as the right of soil as preferred method of granting nationality. In this case, both are valid for Rohingya people. These people haven't started migrating to these lands suddenly to use the jus sanguinis argument, they have been living there peacefully since long.

My friend whether peacefully or not is a specious argument to make. We dont know, we can go by what Govt of Myanmar says.
Citizenship is a privilege granted by the Government. The Government also reserves the right to revoke citizenship. It is legal. If the GoI wants, I can be made a non-citizen tomorrow. This is the right of a sovereign nation.
Many nations do not grant Jus soli. KSA is a prime example.

While the Government does have the right to deprive any person citizenship, it does not have a right to take life without a judicial process. The second part is where Govt of Myanmar is falling foul of the laws. There have been killings of Rohingyas and that is appalling.

The Govt of Myanmar instead could have turned these people over to UN Camps for the Stateless, instead of trying to physically harm them.

 

[hussain0216]

Must be tough hating everyone else in the world. Better just stay at home.

I dont hate everybody just people who persecute muslims

Your problem is that you want a free pass to persecute and slaughter the Rohinga and other muslims in Burma without any consequences

 

[waz]

Folks shouldn't we let the Burmese folk explain things? I just find it bizarre when there are people on this thread who seem to be speaking on behalf of Burma, and they are Indian, Pakistani and so forth.

 

[Hindustani78]

Rohingya no for obvious reasons. But the rest, yes.

I think its more about the oil reserves which are found in Rakhine state. Burmese government is doing citizen verification of Rohingas according to some report. is it true ?

 

[kadamba-warrior]

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.

If we give it a couple of centuries, at this rate, even Burma can say that there was no ethnic group by the name "Rohingya"!! No?

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.

That's exactly what I am talking about! The double standards we have when we talk about countries like India and Burma! We may have declared ourselves as democratic and secular but we are perfect and hopefully we will be 100% secular one day.

But what about the Muslim countries who are not secular even for namesake and continue to persecute non-Muslim even as we speak (even in Bangladesh which shares borders with Burma)? Don't their lives matter much? What right do Muslim countries have when they criticise Burma when they don't provide basic rights to their non-Muslim citizens?

 

[al-Hasani]

If we give it a couple of centuries, at this rate, even Burma can say that there was no ethnic group by the name "Rohingya"!! No?



That's exactly what I am talking about! The double standards we have when we talk about countries like India and Burma! We may have declared ourselves as democratic and secular but we are perfect and hopefully we will be 100% secular one day.

But what about the Muslim countries who are not secular even for namesake and continue to persecute non-Muslim even as we speak (even in Bangladesh which shares borders with Burma)? Don't their lives matter much? What right do Muslim countries have when they criticise Burma when they don't provide basic rights to their non-Muslim citizens?

The difference being that this was already the case before modern-day KSA was created. You can't say the same about Burma. Maybe one day you would but then it will not matter anymore. Just like the religion of the people of India 6000 years ago does not matter as we do not even know about that religion (s). Can you feel me?

I do not support the oppression of non-Muslims as I myself have non-Muslims in my family (Catholics and Atheists). Moreover it is logical to expect more of countries who pride themselves on being democracies and secular.

Read my post number 80 in this thread and you will understand where I am trying to go with this discussion.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

The difference being that this was already the case before modern-day KSA was created. You can't say the same about Burma. Maybe one day you would but then it will not matter anymore. Just like the religion of the people of India 6000 years ago does not matter as we do not even know about that religion (s). Can you feel me?

I do not support the oppression of non-Muslims as I myself have non-Muslims in my family (Catholics and Atheists). Moreover it is logical to expect more of countries who pride themselves on being democracies and secular.

Read my post number 80 in this thread and you will understand where I am trying to go with this discussion.

How does it matter about the modern day definition of KSA? Why can't the Burmese avail of the same "modern" day definition a few centuries from now and erase Rohingya from their history?

Just a clarification about India here!! There haven't been any disputes regarding India being the cradle of Hinduism. We can only go by what we know from archeological artefacts and all of them only point to Hinduism as the oldest known major religion in India. If you dispute it, there is only way to prove it and you know how.

Rest of your post, I agree. Most of my posts are responses to @OP, other Bangladeshis and Pakistanis jumping to the defence of Rohingyas while letting the much closer to home, Uighurs to be exterminated from the Chinese occupied territories of Xinjiang!!

 

[al-Hasani]

How does it matter about the modern day definition of KSA? Why can't the Burmese avail of the same "modern" day definition a few centuries from now and erase Rohingya from their history?

Just a clarification about India here!! There haven't been any disputes regarding India being the cradle of Hinduism. We can only go by what we know from archeological artefacts and all of them only point to Hinduism as the oldest known major religion in India. If you dispute it, there is only way to prove it and you know how.

Rest of your post, I agree. Most of my posts are responses to @OP, other Bangladeshis and Pakistanis jumping to the defence of Rohingyas while letting the much closer to home, Uighurs to be exterminated from the Chinese occupied territories of Xinjiang!!

Because the religious diversity of KSA is a distant memory while it is still somehow present in Burma. So you cannot compare those two.

The native Christians, Jews and Semitic Pagans in what is now modern-day KSA and most of the Arab world did convert to Islam over a gradual period of time. Just like most Europeans converted to another Abrahamic/Semitic religion (Christianity). How many Pagans do you see in Europe? Not many is the answer and they are mostly ridiculed.

Wait a second? Why are you talking about the origin of Hinduism? Who said anything about it not originating in what is now India? I heard Nepal at one point but I am not sure whether this is correct.

I said that you do not know the religion that people who lived in India 6000 years ago followed. Can you tell me what people that lived in Kerala 6000 years ago followed of religion (s)? You cannot. That's just my point. Religions come and go. It's like asking what Africans believed in 20.000 years ago. Who knows? We can only guess.

I doubt that Uyghurs are being exterminated in China though. But to be honest in most non-Western countries you have religious, ethnic, political etc. tensions. Most often than not pointless. As a Indian you know this very well as you have had all 3.

 

[alaungphaya]

I think its more about the oil reserves which are found in Rakhine state. Burmese government is doing citizen verification of Rohingas according to some report. is it true ?

There are natural gas reserves off the Arakan coast which are sold to China through a pipe line that begins in Maungdaw which is where some of the worst violence was but that's not the beginning of the problems IMO. These tensions have always been there. It's just that in the pre-democracy days, they never got international media airing. The central Burmese government is trying to support the native Arakanese and quite right too. The reason for this could be related to the pipeline but it's not the main motivating factor.

 

[Hindustani78]

There are natural gas reserves off the Arakan coast which are sold to China through a pipe line that begins in Maungdaw which is where some of the worst violence was but that's not the beginning of the problems IMO. These tensions have always been there. It's just that in the pre-democracy days, they never got international media airing. The central Burmese government is trying to support the native Arakanese and quite right too. The reason for this could be related to the pipeline but it's not the main motivating factor.

International media is aware about the reasons behind the rohingas issue and with time i hope things would improve for the rohingas .