The Student Room Group

Nationalist uprising in Myanmar

Very interesting article.
'No Muslims allowed': how nationalism is rising in Aung San Suu Kyi's Myanmar | World news | The Guardian - www.theguardian.comhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-muslims-allowed-how-nationalism-is-rising-in-aung-san-suu-kyis-myanmar

Where extremism isn't happening amongst Muslims. Figured it's a good read and ought to be known of. Discrimination against anyone is horrid and can only provoke and aggravate situations further.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Unorganisedaf
Very interesting article.
'No Muslims allowed': how nationalism is rising in Aung San Suu Kyi's Myanmar | World news | The Guardian - www.theguardian.comhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-muslims-allowed-how-nationalism-is-rising-in-aung-san-suu-kyis-myanmar

Where extremism isn't happening amongst Muslims. Figured it's a good read and ought to be known of. Discrimination against anyone is horrid and can only provoke and aggravate situations further.


Your link isn't working properly.
working link

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-muslims-allowed-how-nationalism-is-rising-in-aung-san-suu-kyis-myanmar

“No Muslims allowed to stay overnight. No Muslims allowed to rent houses. No marriage with Muslims.”

I see similar laws in Muslim countries and within the Muslim faith so can't see an issue with this I suspect the outrage will be some Muslims complaining they are being treated the same as they would treat others.

But this is the problem with Islamic immigration there is no compromise with the host country so tensions always arise (as we see in every country with a new Muslim community)
Original post by Unorganisedaf
Discrimination against anyone is horrid and can only provoke and aggravate situations further.


This sentiment is very common but suffers from being utterly thoughtless, and trite. Do you not know the meaning of the word "discriminate"?

I (justifiably and reasonably) discriminate against people who threaten me, or who are violent, or who rob me, or who are dishonest. I actively seek to avoid them at all times. I also discriminate against people who live in the west but who refuse to be assimilated into our society. Such people should live elsewhere.

If seeking to employ someone, I actively discriminate against anyone I suspect is incapable of performing the job well.
Original post by BaconandSauce
working link

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-muslims-allowed-how-nationalism-is-rising-in-aung-san-suu-kyis-myanmar

“No Muslims allowed to stay overnight. No Muslims allowed to rent houses. No marriage with Muslims.”

I see similar laws in Muslim countries and within the Muslim faith so can't see an issue with this I suspect the outrage will be some Muslims complaining they are being treated the same as they would treat others.

But this is the problem with Islamic immigration there is no compromise with the host country so tensions always arise (as we see in every country with a new Muslim community)


Shouldn't we be better than that. I mean other Muslims have and still do similar things is a pretty weak reason. These are a people undergoing years of oppression of some of the most extreme kind. I have my issues with Islam (and for the most part the prosecution faced by Rohingya people is more extreme than that faced by non Muslims under Islamic rule) but that's largely irrelevant. Religious/ethnic prosecution is wrong the Rohingya deserve better, they are owed better.
Original post by Good bloke
This sentiment is very common but suffers from being utterly thoughtless, and trite. Do you not know the meaning of the word "discriminate"?

I (justifiably and reasonably) discriminate against people who threaten me, or who are violent, or who rob me, or who are dishonest. I actively seek to avoid them at all times. I also discriminate against people who live in the west but who refuse to be assimilated into our society. Such people should live elsewhere.

If seeking to employ someone, I actively discriminate against anyone I suspect is incapable of performing the job well.


Okay I spoke a bit too broadly then. I'm not one to really get into politics but I felt like so much is happening you can't keep up. This one article I felt was pretty interesting to see considering the dynamics don't favour Muslims much in this day and age. Extremism usually has the connotations of Islam etc. But I take your point, I just hope no one has a massive go at me for saying something. I accept that I'm not at a level of full maturity to understand everything so you may call my sentiment thoughtless, it's fine. I have no problem with comments like that. I suppose I meant to say prejudice.
Original post by garfeeled
Shouldn't we be better than that.


If we try to be 'better' then them they will beat us as they will (and do) use our laws against us.

Intolerance needs to be countered with intolerance not excuses.
Reply 7
Burma was such a nice country
Reply 8
The silence of ang yan sui kyi on the oppression of muslims in her nation is sickening. Absolutely sickening.
Original post by garfeeled
Your link isn't working properly.


Ah possibly because it's taken from my news app thingy.
Original post by garfeeled
Shouldn't we be better than that.


It isn't relevant to Burma, which is by no means a liberal democracy, but the liberal democracies have a serious problem in that political Islam (among others) will take full advantage of their easy-going nature to further their own ends.

It may be a very slow process, but strong immigration into the west will be a surer route to the next caliphate than the battleground, unless we take steps to ensure secularism is written into our constitutions irrevocably.
People are judged by their behaviour. If they had a history of flourishing and being a great economic advantage to their hosts then everyone would be queuing up to take them in.

We just use the information we have to hand to make the best judgments we can. Obviously religions tend to take issue with the use of information.
Original post by BaconandSauce
If we try to be 'better' then them they will beat us as they will (and do) use our laws against us.

Intolerance needs to be countered with intolerance not excuses.


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. But what is being done to the Rohingya is not justifiable intolerance in the name of preserving tolerance. It's intolerance done from feelings of ethnic supremacy and intolerance of other religions.

What is done to the Rohingya is intolerable and we shouldn't tolerate it.

Original post by Good bloke
It isn't relevant to Burma, which is by no means a liberal democracy, but the liberal democracies have a serious problem in that political Islam (among others) will take full advantage of their easy-going nature to further their own ends.

It may be a very slow process, but strong immigration into the west will be a surer route to the next caliphate than the battleground, unless we take steps to ensure secularism is written into our constitutions irrevocably.


I don't disagree. But let's be clear the discrimination faced by the Rohingya is unjustifiable.
Original post by Jebedee
People are judged by their behaviour. If they had a history of flourishing and being a great economic advantage to their hosts then everyone would be queuing up to take them in.

We just use the information we have to hand to make the best judgments we can. Obviously religions tend to take issue with the use of information.


Quite true and given Islams interaction with Buddhism I can see why they are VERY wary of allowing Islam to gain any traction in their country
Original post by garfeeled
Intolerance cannot be tolerated from Muslims or against Muslims.


Have to disagree we NEED to treat those who are intolerant in the same way they treat others and those who are unable to compromise deserve no acceptance.

As I said in the 'rules' posted I see similar in Muslim countries and within Islam itself.

But as I say you need to understand Islams interaction with Buddhism to see why they are very wary indeed and rightly so (it's akin to the Nazis trying to set up in Israel and then decrying any restrictions that are placed on them)
(edited 7 years ago)
When will the wall come along? Will Thailand pay for it?

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

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by BaconandSauce

Have to disagree we NEED to treat those who are intolerant in the same way they treat others and those who are unable to compromise deserve no acceptance.

As I said in the 'rules' posted I see similar in Muslim countries and within Islam itself.

But as I say you need to understand Islams interaction with Buddhism to see why they are very wary indeed and rightly so (it's akin to the Nazis trying to set up in Israel and then decrying any restrictions that are placed on them)


So an eye for an eye then for every abused dished out by Isis or Saudi Arabia, Muslims in Britain and around the world should face the same. For every homophobic preacher in America holding a kill the gay conference mainstream Americans should hold conferences discussing how to kill evangelicals.

I have a question how far back do we go to justify. I mean let's say we start enacting anti Muslim laws does that mean Saudi Arabia is permitted now to enact more extreme laws (or do the already discriminatory rulings become forgiven).
Original post by BaconandSauce
Intolerance cannot be tolerated from Muslims or against Muslims

Have to disagree we NEED to treat those who are intolerant in the same way they treat others and those who are unable to compromise deserve no acceptance.

As I said in the 'rules' posted I see similar in Muslim countries and within Islam itself.

But as I say you need to understand Islams interaction with Buddhism to see why they are very wary indeed and rightly so (it's akin to the Nazis trying to set up in Israel and then decrying any restrictions that are placed on them)


But what do the Rohingya people have to do with the countries imposing those laws? They're not the ones imposing them, so how can you justify them being treated like this.
Original post by garfeeled
So an eye for an eye then for every abused dished out by Isis or Saudi Arabia, Muslims in Britain and around the world should face the same. For every homophobic preacher in America holding a kill the gay conference mainstream Americans should hold conferences discussing how to kill evangelicals.

I have a question how far back do we go to justify. I mean let's say we start enacting anti Muslim laws does that mean Saudi Arabia is permitted now to enact more extreme laws (or do the already discriminatory rulings become forgiven).


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.
Original post by Lord Samosa
But what do the Rohingya people have to do with the countries imposing those laws? They're not the ones imposing them, so how can you justify them being treated like this.


apart from faith, culture and ideology and a desire to impose the same culture faith and ideology in every country they reside in?

As I said we can't keep tolerating intolerance because they will make us as bad as they are.

Quick Reply