Nationalist uprising in Myanmar

No not an eye for an eye but I see no issues with treating people how they would treat others.

As I said we need to stop tolerating intolerance

But to ignore history means we are due to repeat the errors and Islam has a long and bloody history from it inception to today.

That is eye for an eye. In fact it's further than that, it's eye for a future possible eye, or eye for hypothetical eye.

And I agree we need to stop tolerating intolerance, preserving tolerance is sacrosanct. But the discriminatory ethnic and religious laws against the Rohingya is not defending tolerance, it's trying to legislate ethnic supremacism and religious supremacism.

The history point wasn't about ignoring history it was me trying to ask how far back is the limit when it comes to justifying discrimination and how close must the connection between peoples be.

Hold on so to preserve tolerance we need to prevent Islam or Muslims practicing their religion freely (I think you agree with this part as Islam is inherently intolerant)

But it seems we will continue to disagree here as I see the laws mentioned here mirrored in Muslim communities (for example will the Rohingya be removing Islams restrictions on who they can marry? if not them can they complain about external restrictions on who they can marry for example? same goes for apostasy or who they do business with (basically they need to renounce most of sharia)

No that's not what I am saying (unless by practise freely you mean stoning people and restricting gender equality and so on in which case then yes. But by practise freely I think of worshipping reading and speaking about the Quran and preaching and so on, such things should be protected and permitted)



I'm not saying there isn't similarities just that

1 the discrimination facing by the Rohingya is more extreme than what non Muslims historically and currently experience under Islamic rule. As far as I know there was no restriction on the number of children they could have, and those that were able to leave were permitted to do so, non Muslims were allowed access to education and so on. All things legally denied to the Rohingya

2 that the similarities do not permit the discrimination they face.

When will the wall come along? Will Thailand pay for it?

I don't think anything justifies mob-rule...

Posted from TSR Mobile

bangladesh

rohinyas were immigrants from bangladesh.

Literally in every single one of these countries, the Islamic religion is at the heart of the issue. But somehow it's every single other group is to blame?
How people can deny and defend such an obvious common factor totally baffles me.

Yes that's what I mean basically sharia and it's implementation which is what a large proportion of Muslims want where ever they go so yes stoning people and restricting gender equality are part of Islam and have to be accepted if we are going to be tolerant towards them

1) no it's not it's nowhere near as bad as non Muslims face in most Muslim countries and here we are talking persecution for well over 1000 odd years (where are all the pagans in Saudi? given this was, until Islams conception, a country just like Burma full of all faiths where are they now? In fact I think I can show you for every Muslim majority county it's minorities are currently shrinking in number rather than growing as we would expect)

2) Yes they do. On one hand your are arguing it's OK to have a law that restricts who Muslims can marry (as it is Muslims enforcing this) but on the other had it's wrong to have a law that restricts who Muslim can marry (as it is Non - Muslim enforcing this)

I see no difference between the two.

as I said if we want to become as bad as they are we will continue to let them practice their faith freely if we don't then we must become intolerant to their intolerance.

and while they dominate in most spheres of intolerance I will not shed a tear over this

Intolerance cannot be tolerated from Muslims or against Muslims. It's completely unjust to ban Muslims from having more than two children but it is completely just (arguably morally required) to challenge homophobia within Muslims and the community as a whole.

What do you do if then Muslims on average have 5 children per family and will become the majority and then legislate against all the tolerant policies that you would otherwise like to see?

Perhaps the current majority can join in the fertility battle but inevitably that is going to end the possibility of women having careers which you probably also consider an important value. It's also going to rapidly result in the country becoming an unpleasant place to live with high density and intense competition for resources.

Or perhaps you simply disallow them from legislating things you consider intolerant even as "you" become a vanishing minority, but it's hard to see how your state then would differ from apartheid South Africa, and it's likely you'd lose militarily sooner or later anyway.

I don't claim to have the answer to this question but I see no indication that those who support equal rights for Muslims have even considered the problem.

Could you give an example of long term legal abuses that match the degree of abuse faced by the Rohingya.

legal assurance of free speech, freedom of religion and so on.

Not commenting on the 'fertility war' business, but nothing is stopping men from taking more responsibility raising their kids (and doing so will probably significantly raise the birth rate)

There are many women who have managed to have large families, with careers. E.g. the German Defence Minister has 7 children, and is favoured to succeed Merkel, so could one day be the most powerful woman on the planet.

Intolerance needs to be countered with intolerance not excuses.

This can't happen in any country or community where sharia raises its ugly head.

Look up the Cairo Declaration of human rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam