Conquest of Arakan in 1784 and end of Muslim influence in Arakan.

[Buddhistforlife]

Arakan was a independent Buddhist kingdom which was conquered by the Muslim Bengal Sultanate in the 15th century. Eventually Arakan became a vassal of the Bengal Sultanate which resulted in a huge growth of Muslim population particularly of the Rohingyas in the state. Islamic influence also became widespread during this time. Muslims were employed as army generals, jurists, ministers and through the passage of time they also became kingmakers. This growth of Islamic influence somewhat put Buddhism in a vulnerable position in the kingdom of Arakan.

Coin inscribed with the Islamic Kalima from the kingdom of Arakan.

A historical mosque dating back to the kingdom of Arakan in Rakhine state, Myanmar.

However in 1784, a devout Buddhist king known as Bodawpaya of the Konbaung dynasty, invaded Arakan and once again restored Buddhist influence in the state . Bodawpaya sent a strong force under his son Thado Minsaw who successfully conquered Arakan, put an end to the kingdom of Mrauk U, and incorporated Arakan into the greater Buddhist region of Myanmar. Therefore Arakan, which was once a strong centre of Islam for hundreds of years, eventually became a Buddhist dominated territory once again and now is a part of the Union of Myanmar.

Statue of King Bodawpaya

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

The Burmese used to be bad ***...defeating the Qing dynasty at its peak when they still retained their nomadic, horse archer roots

 

[Buddhistforlife]

The Burmese used to be bad ***...defeating the Qing dynasty at its peak when they still retained their nomadic, horse archer roots

Yes. Burma was never conquered by any foreign power until 1872 when the British came and invaded this region.

 

[Michael Corleone]

i thought buddhist are supposed to chill the **** out

 

[Buddhistforlife]

i thought buddhist are supposed to chill the **** out

Buddhism is not a 100% pacifist religion, it's a miscondeption. It is true to that killing is a very great sin in Buddhism, but there are clauses which states on which grounds you can break the rules.

It's not simple. Read the wider picture.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Buddhism is not a 100% pacifist religion, it's a miscondeption. It is true to that killing is a very great sin in Buddhism, but there are clauses which states on which grounds you can break the rules.

It's not simple. Read the wider picture.

i guess than that's why the burmese have been justifying their genocide with stupid excuses one after the other

 

[Buddhistforlife]

i guess than that's why the burmese have been justifying their genocide with stupid excuses one after the other

No. It's not what you think. The Burmese are warmongers since thousands of years. They are East Asians and East Asian races-Mongols, Chinese, Burmese etc are somewhat violent and have been ruled by warlords for most of the time.

It's like Afghanistan and Central Asia which was also ruled by ferocious warlords and is still not a peaceful place.

 

[Michael Corleone]

No. It's not what you think. The Burmese are warmongers since thousands of years. They are East Asians and East Asian races-Mongols, Chinese, Burmese etc are somewhat violent and have been ruled by warlords for most of the time.

It's like Afghanistan and Central Asia which was also ruled by ferocious warlords and is still not a peaceful place.

that's no excuse really, the mongols couldn't conquer india. just because our pool of caucasians/ other sub races like dravidians didn't wage much wars doesn't mean we are pushovers... in fact if i recall correctly the mongolians (chinese, mongols, burmese you name it) had always lost to people of the subcontinent and i guess a lot has to due with their temper

 

[Buddhistforlife]

that's no excuse really, the mongols couldn't conquer india. just because our pool of caucasians/ other sub races like dravidians didn't wage much wars doesn't mean we are pushovers... in fact if i recall correctly the mongolians (chinese, mongols, burmese you name it) had always lost to people of the subcontinent and i guess a lot has to due with their temper

Yes Indians and Bangladeshis are peaceful people comparing to Central Asians, Afghans, Mongols and Burmese. Indians and Bangladeshis are quite docile.

that's no excuse really, the mongols couldn't conquer india. just because our pool of caucasians/ other sub races like dravidians didn't wage much wars doesn't mean we are pushovers... in fact if i recall correctly the mongolians (chinese, mongols, burmese you name it) had always lost to people of the subcontinent and i guess a lot has to due with their temper

Most of the warlords came from present day China, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Mongolia and Central Asia. Indians and bangladeshis have always been peaceful

 

[gangsta_rap]

burmese language is sino tibetan as well in comparison to say thai for example which is native to south east asia (AFAIK)