Myanmar and religious intolerance

[Coyote]

Buddhists are supposed to be tolerant - but not in Myanmar.

Genocide Watch

Over the last two years, the positive news of Myanmar embracing democracy and engaging with the developed world has been consistently offset by reports of sectarian violence between Buddhists and the minority Rohingya Muslim population. Estimates suggest that 300 Muslims have been killed and up to 300,000 displaced since the military junta nominally ceded power in 2011. No longer is this violence restricted to the state of Rakhine where the majority of Burmese Muslims live. Major incidents are reported in states as far south as Thaketa, just a few miles from Yangon, the cultural, historic and business capitol of the country which is now awash with western businessmen drinking expensive cocktails in expensive hotels. This worrying trend of more frequent and more widely spread violence threatens to derail the country’s turnaround.

It has been over a year since the renowned Burmese political activist Aung San Suu Kyi was elected to
the Burmese parliament signalling a groundbreaking change in the country’s government. It has also
been over a year since the first story emerged about the plight of the Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority
in Burma, leaving nothing but a slight murmur on the global conscience.

In this time, Burma’s international relations have markedly improved, with visits to the United States as
well as the removal of economic sanctions. Even prominent global corporations have travelled to the
country to set up shop. Behind this veil of prosperity and change lies the persecution of the biggest
population of stateless people in the world.

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority that have been in Burma since 9th century. Despite the clear ethnic
differences, they are for all intents and purposes, Burmese. Unfortunately, they have been victims of
systematic persecution since the Burmese junta government took over in 1962. Prior to this, Rohingyas
were recognized by the state and even served as representatives in Burmese parliament. In 1982, the
Rohingya were declared “non-nationals” and “foreign residents” and were banned from participating in
elections. Since then, they have been subject to large scale ethnic cleansing that in the past year has led
to grave bloodshed on both sides of the divide.

Currently, there is still a significant population of Rohingyas living in their native Rakhine State in Western
Burma, but apartheid-like restrictions have prevented them from accessing things they need for everyday
life, including their jobs. This has led an estimated 35,000 to seek refuge across the border in neighboring
countries, but even then they are hardly welcome.

The most recent development in this story is the fact that Rohingyas fleeing from sectarian violence into
Thailand are being held in immigration facilities that are akin to prisons. According to Human Rights
Watch, the cells in these facilities are “cage like” and there is barely enough place to sit. The women
detainees are subject to sexual assault and exploitation.* Even worse, many Rohingya are ending up at
Turutao Island in Thailand, which whilst being a spectacular national park, is also the site of some of the
most intricate human trafficking rings in the region, leaving many Rohingya as not only victims of
sectarian violence, but victims of human trafficking.**

All in all this does seem like a helpless situation. How can anyone help a population that is stateless and
belongs nowhere–how can we document approximately how many have gone missing–and how many
have disappeared into the clutches of human trafficking? Wouldn’t it just be easier to collectively forget?
Ethnic tensions and wars of identity are very much akin to the modern condition. It may be easy to turn a
blind eye to the Rohingya now, but this will only enable harsher consequences a few years down the line.
Identity divisions that have gone unanswered and unsolved have produced some of the gravest conflicts
today; from Syria to Iraq and even to Egypt. And these are not conflicts that we haven’t seen before. The
post Cold War era of the 1990

It's taught us lessons from the dissolution of Yugoslavia to the genocide in Rwanda, stories like this are all too familiar.
International actors can choose to forget, or they can choose to take steps towards a more stable future.
Today, the Rohingya are a helpless minority, but you never know what tomorrow brings. Their identity as a
Muslim minority resonates with many unstable organizations active today and collective political memory
is a powerful tool–just pick up any history book

 

[Coyote]

PressTV - OIC urges easing restrictions on Myanmar Muslims

About 800,000 Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine are deprived of citizenship rights due to a policy of discrimination that has made them vulnerable to acts of violence and persecution, expulsion, and displacement.

The Myanmar government has so far refused to extricate the stateless Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine from their citizenship limbo, despite international pressure to give them a legal status.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued separate statements, calling on Myanmar’s government to take action to protect the Rohingya population against extremists.

Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims have faced torture, neglect, and repression for many years. Hundreds of them are believed to have been killed and thousands displaced in attacks by extremists who call themselves Buddhists.

 

[irosie91]

PressTV - OIC urges easing restrictions on Myanmar Muslims

About 800,000 Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine are deprived of citizenship rights due to a policy of discrimination that has made them vulnerable to acts of violence and persecution, expulsion, and displacement.

The Myanmar government has so far refused to extricate the stateless Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine from their citizenship limbo, despite international pressure to give them a legal status.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued separate statements, calling on Myanmar’s government to take action to protect the Rohingya population against extremists.

Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims have faced torture, neglect, and repression for many years. Hundreds of them are believed to have been killed and thousands displaced in attacks by extremists who call themselves Buddhists.

There is nothing stopping a SOVEREIGN nation from declaring some groups
based on their religion "NO STATUS" That the OIC objects is really hilarious.

Did the OIC object when MALDIVES decided to render ISLAM the only
LEGAL RELIGION on the ISLAND? Did the OIC object when
MALDIVES created a law that ONLY MUSLIMS could
be citizens and all non muslims simply became NON CITIZENS?

Does the OIC object to the fact that the almost 20% of
the residents of Saudi arabia----who are NON MUSLIM ----have no religious
freedom at all? Does the OIC object over the "NON STATUS" of jews in
Indonesia and the genocide of the jews of Indonesia? (PS--coyote---12 jews
is not a REMAINING COMMUNNITY) Why should MYANMAR be held to
an entirely different standard? Maldives----historically was a
HINDU/BUDDHIST land------Indonesia was Buddhist

are buddhists "chopped liver"????



FAIR IS FAIR------what's sauce for the goose,, is sauce for the gander.

why are you SOOOO biased?

of course---afghanistan was once buddhist too----and christian, and hindu
and -- (as an educated guess----probably zoroastrian) and also jewish

 

[Coyote]

So you think this is a good thing even though the Muslims in Myanmar had nothing to do with what occured in the Maldives?

 

[Coyote]

Myanmar villages burned in deadly religious violence - Los Angeles Times

THANDWE, Myanmar -- At least five people have been killed and hundreds displaced in the latest wave of religious violence in Myanmar.

Muslims near the coastal town of Thandwe said they spent Tuesday night hiding in forests as mobs of Buddhist men armed with machetes stormed a string of villages, burning mosques and any home not marked with a Buddhist flag. By Wednesday, the military had moved in to stop the violence. Officers spent the day combing through still-smoldering buildings and removing the bodies of five slain Muslims.

U Myint Hlaing, who represents the region in Myanmar's parliament, said nearly 100 homes had been destroyed and that an investigation is underway...

.....Anti-Muslim sentiment is not a new thing in Myanmar’s history. In the 1960s, many Muslims of Indian descent were forced out of the country. The latest violence flared up last summer when Buddhist throngs razed Muslim villages and killed hundreds near Sittwe, a town located, like Thandwe, in western Rakhine.

That outbreak targeted ethnic Rohingya Muslims, a group viewed by local Buddhists as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, even though many Rohingya families have lived in Myanmar for generations.

In the ensuing months, the violence spread across the country to target non-Rohingya Muslims. In the town of Myteikla this spring, a dispute at a gold shop led a mob of about 1,000 Buddhists to kill at least 44 Muslims, including 20 students and several teachers at an Islamic school.

The victims of this week’s violence were Kamans, a different Muslim minority group, whose citizenship is recognized by the government.

On Wednesday, several dozen survivors gathered in the yard of a home that had not been destroyed.

Mu Mu Khine, 24, holding her three children on her lap, said she is now homeless after watching her home burn Tuesday. She said she didn’t know if she and her family would rebuild it, or if they’d even want to, after the violence.

 

[Daktoria]

Do we know why this has happened?

There are times when conflict is justified because some have atrocious beliefs which are intrinsically offensive against others in society.

For example, Muslims believe in Qadar which is basically fate, and fate can be circularly used as an excuse to be violent against others in society by forcing them to endure activities against their free will. The only way to prevent that force is from preemptive strikes, so the Buddhists here might be justified in their actions.

 

[Spiderman]

How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?

Payback's a bitch.

 

[Coyote]

In this case, I do not think so. The Muslim minority is very small, and there is no evidence they've initiated violence. The religious intolerance also extends beyond Muslims to other religions in Myanmar including non-Theravada Buddhism, though none have been so violently attacked as the Muslims. There also appears to be an ethnic component to the conflict as well (as there often is with religious conflicts).

Restrictions on religious freedom

Preferential treatment for Buddhists and widespread prejudice against ethnic Indians, particularly ethnic Rohingya Muslims, were key sources of social tensions between the Buddhist majority and Christian and Muslim minorities.

In February 2006, violent clashes broke out between Muslims and Buddhists in Magway Division in response to rumors that Muslim men had raped a Burman woman. Ethnic Burmans attacked and torched Muslim and ethnic Indian homes, shops, and mosques. Rioting and looting spread to surrounding towns, including Chauk and Salin. Local security forces did not intervene at first, but as violence spread authorities imposed a strict curfew in several towns. Reliable sources stated that the authorities arrested 17 people in Sinbyukyun and another 55 persons in Chauk, mostly Muslims. Unofficial sources claimed that 3 people died and another 10 were injured in the riots. Three mosques in Yenangyaung, Chauk, and Saku were reportedly destroyed in the violence. At the end of the reporting period, the mosques remained sealed and authorities would not permit Muslims to rebuild them, nor did authorities conduct inquiries into the attacks. Christians reported that an entire Muslim village fled to the monastery of a trusted Buddhist abbot near Shwe Settaw to seek refuge during the riots.

These attacks follow earlier communal violence in Kyauk Pyu, Rakhine State, in 2005. During several days of violence, two Muslims were killed and one Buddhist monk was severely injured. Some Islamic groups blamed the Government for trying to increase tensions between Buddhists and Muslims as part of a "divide and rule" strategy.

Since 1994, when Buddhist members split away from the KNU (Karen National Union) to organize the pro-government Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), there have been armed conflicts between the DKBA and the predominately Christian antigovernment KNU. Although the DKBA reportedly includes some Christians and there are some Buddhists in the KNU, the armed conflict between the two Karen groups has had strong religious overtones. There were also unverified reports that DKBA authorities continued to expel villagers who converted to Christianity.

During the reporting period, a Burmese language document surfaced titled, "Program to Eliminate Christianity." The document suggested 17 points for countering Christianity in the country; however, the source of the document was unknown and several grammatical errors raised questions about its authenticity. There was no definite evidence to link the document to the Government.

 

[irosie91]

How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?

Payback's a bitch.

Afghanistan was-----I believe----besides having populations of
HINDUS, CHRISTIANS, and JEWS ---when the muslims invaded---
was LARGELY BUDDHIST Believe it or not----KABUL was----long ago---
a highly diverse CULTURAL CENTER of the area. -----legendary. I doubt
there is any way of coming up with stats. -----but if you ask pakistanis
(I have had lots of discussions with pakistanis over the past 45 years)
-----the answer is WHEREVER MUSLIMS WENT----ALL THE PEOPLE CHEERED --
CRIED OUT---"PLEASE RAPE OUR DAUGHTERS and WE WANT TO BE MUSLIMS"

 

[Coyote]

How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?

Payback's a bitch.

I don't think any innocent people deserve to be killed simply because other people in another era killed other people.

 

[Daktoria]

How many Buddhists have been killed by Muslims over the centuries?

Payback's a bitch.

I was going to say that radical Islam has been predatory in the region such as in Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

While stereotyping is a problem, it is wise to learn from experience in understanding people's motives and rationalizations. A problematic belief system is problematic regardless of who believes in it.

 

[irosie91]

In this case, I do not think so. The Muslim minority is very small, and there is no evidence they've initiated violence. The religious intolerance also extends beyond Muslims to other religions in Myanmar including non-Theravada Buddhism, though none have been so violently attacked as the Muslims. There also appears to be an ethnic component to the conflict as well (as there often is with religious conflicts).

Restrictions on religious freedom

Preferential treatment for Buddhists and widespread prejudice against ethnic Indians, particularly ethnic Rohingya Muslims, were key sources of social tensions between the Buddhist majority and Christian and Muslim minorities.

In February 2006, violent clashes broke out between Muslims and Buddhists in Magway Division in response to rumors that Muslim men had raped a Burman woman. Ethnic Burmans attacked and torched Muslim and ethnic Indian homes, shops, and mosques. Rioting and looting spread to surrounding towns, including Chauk and Salin. Local security forces did not intervene at first, but as violence spread authorities imposed a strict curfew in several towns. Reliable sources stated that the authorities arrested 17 people in Sinbyukyun and another 55 persons in Chauk, mostly Muslims. Unofficial sources claimed that 3 people died and another 10 were injured in the riots. Three mosques in Yenangyaung, Chauk, and Saku were reportedly destroyed in the violence. At the end of the reporting period, the mosques remained sealed and authorities would not permit Muslims to rebuild them, nor did authorities conduct inquiries into the attacks. Christians reported that an entire Muslim village fled to the monastery of a trusted Buddhist abbot near Shwe Settaw to seek refuge during the riots.

These attacks follow earlier communal violence in Kyauk Pyu, Rakhine State, in 2005. During several days of violence, two Muslims were killed and one Buddhist monk was severely injured. Some Islamic groups blamed the Government for trying to increase tensions between Buddhists and Muslims as part of a "divide and rule" strategy.

Since 1994, when Buddhist members split away from the KNU (Karen National Union) to organize the pro-government Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), there have been armed conflicts between the DKBA and the predominately Christian antigovernment KNU. Although the DKBA reportedly includes some Christians and there are some Buddhists in the KNU, the armed conflict between the two Karen groups has had strong religious overtones. There were also unverified reports that DKBA authorities continued to expel villagers who converted to Christianity.

During the reporting period, a Burmese language document surfaced titled, "Program to Eliminate Christianity." The document suggested 17 points for countering Christianity in the country; however, the source of the document was unknown and several grammatical errors raised questions about its authenticity. There was no definite evidence to link the document to the Government.

SO??? its legal for a country to DISENFRANCHISE --this or that religious group.
There is no law against it. Sovereign countries have the RIGHT to do so.

I support rights for ALL PEOPLE-------all people have a right to live with their
own bretheren-----fortunately there are lots of muslim countries in the world----
some of which limit themselves to other muslims. I know of no such
country that EXCLUDES muslims in general. -----but some exclude those of
various sects. There are also lots of christian countries RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND INCLUSION ----is a nice concept but not accepted universally-----Of those who
do not accept-----muslims are the most prominent offenders. That their victims---
past and present ---- NOT RESPOND IN KIND-------is a very unrealistic demand

 

[Coyote]

So?

 

[Daktoria]

What do you mean "so"? She made her point by referring to values on what matters.

 

[Coyote]

Meaning SO- what is her point exactly? She speaks out vociferously against religious discrimmination in Muslim countries on other threads. I find it confusing that she suddenly changes her tune here.

Of course religious freedom isn't universal, neither is freedom of speech, the freedom to travel, and a host of other freedoms. Does that mean we should shut up about it and not try to put pressure on some of these nations to change? Seriously?

 

[Daktoria]

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.

 

[Coyote]

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.

That sounds like a receipe for condoning possible genocide. There is no evidence in the articles that the religions under attack are provoking it or initiating violence and simply because you don't like a particular religion seems a poor excuse for condoning attacks and murder of innocent people.

 

[Daktoria]

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.

That sounds like a receipe for condoning possible genocide. There is no evidence in the articles that the religions under attack are provoking it or initiating violence and simply because you don't like a particular religion seems a poor excuse for condoning attacks and murder of innocent people.

...so because the articles haven't thoroughly investigated things, we have to assume the risk of tolerating intolerant people?

This is actually a classic problem of journalism. It strictly sticks to the facts instead of analyzing the values of the situation at hand because it's afraid of confusing values with opinions. Perhaps the real problem for us is journalistic standards, not the political situation.

 

[irosie91]

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.

That sounds like a receipe for condoning possible genocide. There is no evidence in the articles that the religions under attack are provoking it or initiating violence and simply because you don't like a particular religion seems a poor excuse for condoning attacks and murder of innocent people.

...so because the articles haven't thoroughly investigated things, we have to assume the risk of tolerating intolerant people?

This is actually a classic problem of journalism. It strictly sticks to the facts instead of analyzing the values of the situation at hand because it's afraid of confusing values with opinions. Perhaps the real problem for us is journalistic standards, not the political situation.

au contraire-----a people can outlaw a "religion" simply because they do not like
the religion-------there is no law against it and ample PRECEDENT for it in modern times.
As far as "attacks" "unprovoked" anyone got any kind of actual information on
the basis for the violence?. ----like an EVEN HANDED report? There are people
in the world who consider being arrested for violating a law to be "VIOLENCE"---
simply because they do not like the law. Other persons might argue---that the
person being arrested is a CRIMINAL and forcible arrest is justified Sometimes
events leading to those kinds of arrests LEAD TO VIOLENCE-------with each side
having an entirely OPPOSITE perspective on what took place.

 

[Coyote]

Before we put pressure, we should analyze the religions at stake and see if they deserve to be tolerated rather than tolerating the intolerant.

That sounds like a receipe for condoning possible genocide. There is no evidence in the articles that the religions under attack are provoking it or initiating violence and simply because you don't like a particular religion seems a poor excuse for condoning attacks and murder of innocent people.

...so because the articles haven't thoroughly investigated things, we have to assume the risk of tolerating intolerant people?

This is actually a classic problem of journalism. It strictly sticks to the facts instead of analyzing the values of the situation at hand because it's afraid of confusing values with opinions. Perhaps the real problem for us is journalistic standards, not the political situation.

How do you know they haven't? You haven't offered up anything else at this point.

Do you apply this standard across the religious board or only with Islam? How about the risk of tolerating intolerant Buddhists?