No new Mosques?

[ContraMundum]

The Baha'i Faith was never headquartered in Ishqabad, they just had a large community there numbering some 4000 people. Our World Center is located in Israel but that is largely an accident of history. (Okay, maybe it was providential.) What happened is that Baha'u'llah was sent to what was then a prison city of the Ottoman Empire, Akka which lies across the bay from Haifa. Baha'u'llah then ordered that the Bab's remains which had been secreted for the last forty years would be interred on Mount Carmel. And of course Baha'u'llah Himself was eventually buried outside of Akka.

Interesting.

I know nothing of Baha'i.

 

[TG123]

I can't say "wa alaikum" to this because I'd be promoting shirk (polytheism).

Only if you are under the mistaken assumption that the Trinity = three gods. Not unlike some Christians who believe Allah is a moon god.

And I don't believe I will get any peace from a human that is not in control of anything.

I don't either.

That they have the right to fight against who they see as oppressors? Certainly.

No, that you hope they will fail in seizing non-Muslim land, like you hope non-Muslims fail in seizing Muslim lands.

Oh, well I take Indonesia as a Muslim country (and West Papua is part of Indonesia).

Indonesian forcibly annexed and militarily occupied West Papua in the 1960s. West Papua is as much part of Indonesia as Bosnia is part of Serbia, or the West Bank is part of Israel.

I listened to an NPR segment on West Papua and I did some research on
the country itself. That's about it for now.

It is good you are getting started. Why do you legitimize the occupation by saying West Papua is part of Indonesia?

A killer can be a Christian.

True, but not an unrepentant killer like Obama and the presidents before him. It is one thing to sin, realize it's wrong, and ask for forgiveness. It is another to keep committing it and saying that you are doing the right thing or worse, that God told you to commit it.

Actually, Islaam does offer religious freedom, just not to the extent that you want it. It offers religious freedom so long as it does not go against not go against the laws (which would be based on the Qur'aan & sunnah). And this amount of freedom has actually made Western historians say that the non-Muslims under the protection of these Islaamic countries enjoyed a significant amount of freedom not found in areas ruled by other religions (particularly Christianity).

By the standards of medieval religious tolerance, Islam was (usually) impressive. I would state however that many non-Muslim countries today give their Muslim citizens far more religious freedom than Islaam gives to non-Muslims.

Persecuted Christians would actually prefer to live under Muslim rule than Christian rule. Same with the Jews & there are records of Jews encouraging other Jews in Christian nations to move to the Muslim nations. And at this time, the Muslim nations had considerable Islaamic influence.

True, this was in a time when Christian majority countries were more intolerant. Today, secular countries with Christian majorities for the most part are more tolerant that Muslim countries. Many Muslim refugees and immigrants come to Western European nations, there are few immigrants from Western Europe seeking to settle in Muslim countries.

They can fight back. And I believe that they are resisting in China.

Some of them are. Yet does not the Quran instruct Muslims who are being oppressed to flee to Muslim countries?

Do you hope that the Chinese Muslims fail in their struggle for religious rights and autonomy, as you would hope that Pakistani Christians would fail if they tried the same thing?

I virtually know nothing about the Muslims of North Korea so I can't really comment.

Fair enough.

But Muslim nations are not determining the laws for non-Muslim nations? If they want to attack the theoretical Islaamic nation, obviously the Islaamic nation won't want them to, but I doubt that the non-Muslim nation will abide by the wishes of the Islaamic nation.

That doesn't change the fact that according to Islam, non-Muslim nations who kill Muslims are to be attacked, but the Muslim nations will not take similar action against Muslims who kill non-Muslims.

I'm confused. Are we talking about other nations attacking the offending Muslim nation? Or the Muslim population of the Islaamic country attacking its own government?

The first case.

Yeah, there is no punishment for conquering lands. As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims during war, I'm not sure what is supposed to happen in terms of punishments though I DO know the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) strongly disapproved when he found a woman killed during a battle (which was when he told us that non-combatant women and children are to be avoided if possible). As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims who are supposed to be protected, then this is a sin, but again, I don't know what the punishment is for a person who does this. This is completely outside the little level of knowledge that I do have about Islaam (which is very little compared to what I should have).

Thank you for your honesty. Given that in Islam there is no punishment for Muslims conquering non-Muslims but there is punishment for non-Muslims conquering Muslims, I believe the religion takes a double standard on this issue.

Also, it seems that what happens legally to a Muslim who kills an innocent non-Muslim is very ambiguous. The same does not seem to be for non-Muslims who kill innocent Muslims.

Is this why there is almost no protest from the Muslim world for the genocide in West Papua? Why there was silence when East Timorese were being killed in the hundreds of thousands and South Sudanese in their millions?

May Allaah guide us all to the Straight Path.

Ameen.

They should keep resisting or emigrate if possible. I did say that if a portion of the population does not like the laws & does not want to agree to them, they have the right to resist.

But earlier you said that you expect nations to abide by their laws. The Chinese Communist Party law makes the practice of non-state sanctioned Islam a crime.

I'm saying that I'm not taking away their ability to fight. I would not want them to succeed in overtaking the country, though.

Fair enough. Do you feel the same way about Chinese Muslims?

Probably, but I know of 3rd hand accounts of entire families being killed by Sikhs. And yet I have met people who generally ignore that and assume that Sikhs are more peaceful than Muslims.

Perhaps this is because, unlike Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs are not in control of a state and are not launching state sanctioned persecutions against non-believers. You can't say the same for either Pakistan or India.

You're welcome & answered above.

Great.

1.) We demand that nations rule by their own laws.

In China, the law calls for Islam to be persecuted, unless it is twisted to ally itself with communism.

2.) It's still hypocritical of your religion even if you do not want to say that it's hypocritical of the Israelites.

When did the Israelites ask the Amalekites for mercy?

I'm asking why *we* should conform to Christianity's rules in our nations. That's my point.

Why not? You are demanding that non-Muslims conform to some of Islam's rules in their nations, such as allowing Muslim women to wear the niqab.

Khidr (peace be upon him) was ordered by God to kill an INDIVIDUAL boy due to his future sins. Khidr was not ordered by God to kill entire cities, including babies & livestock, due to the sins of others. And the fact that Moses (peace be upon him) was so shocked by the killing shows that this is not normal, though the genocides appear to be normal in the OT. It shows that it was not accepted during the time of Moses as shown by his reaction.

Nevertheless, a child was killed on purpose. And doing this would be a crime according to Sharia. This is not different from Moses doing some things- like genocide- that would be a crime according to what Jesus taught.

Another question for you- what do you make of verse 2:190?

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

I have heard Muslims say that according to this verse, Islam teaches that it's only acceptable to fight people who are fighting Muslims, and that aggressive warfare is not allowed. Is this true?

I don't see how this is different to my previous explanations that the population of a government can resist (whether it's through words or by sword) or emigrate if they do not agree with the leadership.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

We don't govern the rules for other countries.

Then why would you expect them to govern by their own laws? If you don't govern how the rules for other countries, would it not matter whether they follow their laws pertaining to religious freedoms for Muslims, or abuse them?

In your religion, your scriptures convey that God did not approve of the way the Amalekites oppressed the Israelites, but then the Israelites turn around and mercilessly kill the inhabitants of entire cities.

True. However, nowhere did the Israelites ask the Amalekites for any mercy.

You have said in the past that the fact that I am not outspoken about West Papua & Indonesia but am about Palestine (or whatever countries), I am hypocritical. So would it be hypocritical of you to support marriages between men and women but not between those of the same gender? Would you protest in favor of one but not the other in terms of marriage rights?

Do you see the denial of the right to change and pervert the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman the same thing as checkpoints, shooting children, dropping napalm and white phosphorous on people's homes, and death squads? No offense, I think that such a comment greatly cheapens the suffering of the Palestinian and West Papuan people, and all people who are the victims of occupation.

I don't care if two people of the same gender choose to get married. To me it is a perversion and it is disgusting, but it is their choice. As long as no church or other religious group for that matter is forced to conduct such a ceremony, they can have a "civil marriage" or even one in a church that has chosen to abandon what the Bible teaches, because sadly there are some like that. There are some mosques and synagogues like that also. I am not against them sharing their inheritance or insurance, I am opposed to them being allowed to have children, because I think it is harmful to the kids.

 

[smaneck]

True, but not an unrepentant killer like Obama and the presidents before him.

TG are you saying that you don't think any of our presidents who went to war are Christians? I presume that would include Truman who dropped the bomb but was clearly an evangelical.

By the standards of medieval religious tolerance, Islam was (usually) impressive. I would state however that many non-Muslim countries today give their Muslim citizens far more religious freedom than Islaam gives to non-Muslims.

I would agree with that statement.

Nevertheless, a child was killed on purpose. And doing this would be a crime according to Sharia. This is not different from Moses doing some things- like genocide- that would be a crime according to what Jesus taught.

Oh, oh are we back to Khidr again and treating that story as historical?

I don't care if two people of the same gender choose to get married. To me it is a perversion and it is disgusting, but it is their choice. As long as no church or other religious group for that matter is forced to conduct such a ceremony,

I don't quite share your disgust but I agree with you in principle.

I am opposed to them being allowed to have children, because I think it is harmful to the kids.

oooh, and how would you stop them?

 

[wn123455]

Only if you are under the mistaken assumption that the Trinity = three gods. Not unlike some Christians who believe Allah is a moon god.

I don't either.

No, that you hope they will fail in seizing non-Muslim land, like you hope non-Muslims fail in seizing Muslim lands.

Indonesian forcibly annexed and militarily occupied West Papua in the 1960s. West Papua is as much part of Indonesia as Bosnia is part of Serbia, or the West Bank is part of Israel.

It is good you are getting started. Why do you legitimize the occupation by saying West Papua is part of Indonesia?

True, but not an unrepentant killer like Obama and the presidents before him. It is one thing to sin, realize it's wrong, and ask for forgiveness. It is another to keep committing it and saying that you are doing the right thing or worse, that God told you to commit it.

By the standards of medieval religious tolerance, Islam was (usually) impressive. I would state however that many non-Muslim countries today give their Muslim citizens far more religious freedom than Islaam gives to non-Muslims.

True, this was in a time when Christian majority countries were more intolerant. Today, secular countries with Christian majorities for the most part are more tolerant that Muslim countries. Many Muslim refugees and immigrants come to Western European nations, there are few immigrants from Western Europe seeking to settle in Muslim countries.


Some of them are. Yet does not the Quran instruct Muslims who are being oppressed to flee to Muslim countries?

Do you hope that the Chinese Muslims fail in their struggle for religious rights and autonomy, as you would hope that Pakistani Christians would fail if they tried the same thing?

Fair enough.

That doesn't change the fact that according to Islam, non-Muslim nations who kill Muslims are to be attacked, but the Muslim nations will not take similar action against Muslims who kill non-Muslims.

The first case.

Thank you for your honesty. Given that in Islam there is no punishment for Muslims conquering non-Muslims but there is punishment for non-Muslims conquering Muslims, I believe the religion takes a double standard on this issue.

Also, it seems that what happens legally to a Muslim who kills an innocent non-Muslim is very ambiguous. The same does not seem to be for non-Muslims who kill innocent Muslims.

Is this why there is almost no protest from the Muslim world for the genocide in West Papua? Why there was silence when East Timorese were being killed in the hundreds of thousands and South Sudanese in their millions?


Ameen.

But earlier you said that you expect nations to abide by their laws. The Chinese Communist Party law makes the practice of non-state sanctioned Islam a crime.

Fair enough. Do you feel the same way about Chinese Muslims?

Perhaps this is because, unlike Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs are not in control of a state and are not launching state sanctioned persecutions against non-believers. You can't say the same for either Pakistan or India.

Great.

In China, the law calls for Islam to be persecuted, unless it is twisted to ally itself with communism.

When did the Israelites ask the Amalekites for mercy?

Why not? You are demanding that non-Muslims conform to some of Islam's rules in their nations, such as allowing Muslim women to wear the niqab.

Nevertheless, a child was killed on purpose. And doing this would be a crime according to Sharia. This is not different from Moses doing some things- like genocide- that would be a crime according to what Jesus taught.

Another question for you- what do you make of verse 2:190?

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

I have heard Muslims say that according to this verse, Islam teaches that it's only acceptable to fight people who are fighting Muslims, and that aggressive warfare is not allowed. Is this true?


OK, thanks for clarifying.

Then why would you expect them to govern by their own laws? If you don't govern how the rules for other countries, would it not matter whether they follow their laws pertaining to religious freedoms for Muslims, or abuse them?


True. However, nowhere did the Israelites ask the Amalekites for any mercy.


Do you see the denial of the right to change and pervert the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman the same thing as checkpoints, shooting children, dropping napalm and white phosphorous on people's homes, and death squads? No offense, I think that such a comment greatly cheapens the suffering of the Palestinian and West Papuan people, and all people who are the victims of occupation.

I don't care if two people of the same gender choose to get married. To me it is a perversion and it is disgusting, but it is their choice. As long as no church or other religious group for that matter is forced to conduct such a ceremony, they can have a "civil marriage" or even one in a church that has chosen to abandon what the Bible teaches, because sadly there are some like that. There are some mosques and synagogues like that also. I am not against them sharing their inheritance or insurance, I am opposed to them being allowed to have children, because I think it is harmful to the kids.

Omar Bakri Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Read what omar bakri said about the Balkans. I bet this is why lovebeingamuslimah said West Papua is part of the islamist entity indonesia. lovebeingamuslimah probably believes that once muslim land always muslim land.

 

[TG123]

Omar Bakri Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Read what omar bakri said about the Balkans. I bet this is why lovebeingamuslimah said West Papua is part of the islamist entity indonesia. lovebeingamuslimah probably believes that once muslim land always muslim land.

Omar Bakri's statements are idiotic, this is very clear. I don't know why LoveBeingAMuslimah considers occupied West Papua as part of Indonesia, I will let her speak for herself.

Why don't you condemn crimes being perpetrated against Muslims by so-called Christians and other non-Muslims?

Why are you not speaking out against the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? The abuses of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank? The ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in Burma?

LoveBeingAMuslimah follows a religion started by a man who believed he was the prophet of God, yet both the Quran and Muhammad's teachings contain some obvious errors that clearly show that Islam is not from God.

You on the other hand claim allegiance to Jesus Christ, who is our God and Saviour and Lord, who died on the cross for us and rose from the dead, and who commands us to hunger and thirst for justice, and to not be hypocrites.

She is following a mistaken religion. What is your excuse?

 

[smaneck]

Omar Bakri Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Read what omar bakri said about the Balkans. I bet this is why lovebeingamuslimah said West Papua is part of the islamist entity indonesia. lovebeingamuslimah probably believes that once muslim land always muslim land.

LOL. So some British crackpot of a Muslim says something idiotic and that explains what is going on in Indonesia? West Papua was never a 'muslim land' but it was part of Indonesia under the Dutch "christian entity" That is the basis of Indonesia's claim.

 

[wn123455]

Omar Bakri's statements are idiotic, this is very clear. I don't know why LoveBeingAMuslimah considers occupied West Papua as part of Indonesia, I will let her speak for herself.

Why don't you condemn crimes being perpetrated against Muslims by so-called Christians and other non-Muslims?

Why are you not speaking out against the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen? The abuses of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank? The ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in Burma?

LoveBeingAMuslimah follows a religion started by a man who believed he was the prophet of God, yet both the Quran and Muhammad's teachings contain some obvious errors that clearly show that Islam is not from God.

You on the other hand claim allegiance to Jesus Christ, who is our God and Saviour and Lord, who died on the cross for us and rose from the dead, and who commands us to hunger and thirst for justice, and to not be hypocrites.

She is following a mistaken religion. What is your excuse?

Regarding the issue in Myanmar I have already posted a video of a Buddhist monk revealing the lies and bias of the islamist controlled media. I do not agree with everything that Buddhist monk said but I believe what the monk said on islamists.

 

[smaneck]

Regarding the issue in Myanmar I have already posted a video of a Buddhist monk revealing the lies and bias of the islamist controlled media. I do not agree with everything that Buddhist monk said but I believe what the monk said on islamists.

Gee, and if a Buddhist monk said it it must be true, never mind what all the reputable human rights organizations are saying. But if it was a Muslim talking about what Buddhists were doing to them, would it be credible. Of course not!

You know what this is called?

Bigotry

And unfortunately it is the kind of bigotry that allows genocide.

I put you in the same category as Holocaust Deniers.

 

[TG123]

Regarding the issue in Myanmar I have already posted a video of a Buddhist monk revealing the lies and bias of the islamist controlled media. I do not agree with everything that Buddhist monk said but I believe what the monk said on islamists.

How do you feel about groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? They have reported and condemned Palestinian armed attacks on Israeli civilians, religious repression in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia's crimes in East Timor and West Papua, church burnings in Egypt. Do you believe they are "islamist controlled" too?

 

[wn123455]

Gee, and if a Buddhist monk said it it must be true, never mind what all the reputable human rights organizations are saying. But if it was a Muslim talking about what Buddhists were doing to them, would it be credible. Of course not!

You know what this is called?

Bigotry

And unfortunately it is the kind of bigotry that allows genocide.

I put you in the same category as Holocaust Deniers.

The Buddhist monk speaking in the video I posted is Wirathu. Wirathu is a respected Buddhist monk.

 

[ContraMundum]

Funny how everyone on this sub-forum is always trying to blame other religions for something.

There seems to be no discernment between the political and purely religious. I think there are blurred lines on that (in the case of Islam for example, and Christianity a few centuries ago) but generally the religions represented here tend to preach peace and tolerance.

 

[TG123]

The Buddhist monk speaking in the video I posted is Wirathu. Wirathu is a respected Buddhist monk.

Osama bin Laden is respected by many people also. So is David Irving. And Omar Bakr.

Why do you think human rights groups which speak out about extremism and repression and terrorism and abuses carried out in the name of Islam, are speaking out about the terrorism and killing of Muslims in Burma?

 

[smaneck]

The Buddhist monk speaking in the video I posted is Wirathu. Wirathu is a respected Buddhist monk.

Respected by whom? Genocidal maniacs?

Ashin Wirathu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashin Wirathu (Burmese: ဝီရသ&#4144 (born 10 July 1968 in Kyaukse, Mandalay Division, Burma) is a Burmese Buddhist monk, and the spiritual leader of the anti-Muslim movement in Burma. He has been accused of inspiring persecution of Muslims through his speeches, although he claims to be nothing more than a peaceful preacher,[1] despite openly referring to Muslims as the "enemy."[2] He has been described by The Economist as a "notorious chauvinist" for whom "Buddhism equates with a narrow nationalism."[3]

 

[smaneck]

Funny how everyone on this sub-forum is always trying to blame other religions for something.

There seems to be no discernment between the political and purely religious. I think there are blurred lines on that (in the case of Islam for example, and Christianity a few centuries ago) but generally the religions represented here tend to preach peace and tolerance.

Unfortunately there are blurred lines on that even in America today. You can't win a primary in some areas if you admit to believing in evolution.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Understood- provided you start late enough in history that apology works. But before those lands were Muslim....they were Orthodox.

Some may have been and others weren't. That really doesn't give Russia the right to invade and take over either way though. Just because Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, may have been the major religion practiced there at some point hundreds of years (or more) ago doesn't justify an invasion. People change religions and new people immigrate. Before they were Orthodox they may have practiced some "Pagan" religion. Would that mean a modern state that was majority pagan is authorized to invade and take over? Should Modern Asatru people have the right to invade Sweden for example? What about a Catholic country invading England because they went from Catholic to Protestant?

 

[kenzo0]

Osama bin Laden is respected by many people also. So is David Irving. And Omar Bakr.

Why do you think human rights groups which speak out about extremism and repression and terrorism and abuses carried out in the name of Islam, are speaking out about the terrorism and killing of Muslims in Burma?

talk about Muslims in Burma, I want you to look it closer. its just like...when smaneck accused the Dutch about West Papua and blame the Christian missionaries.
You should know, why this thing happen in Burma.
and of course I do not support those violence against the Muslims in Burma, but we need to know the reason behind those violence.

and I assure you that its not happen because of Buddha's teaching, its happen because of those Buddhist people are human being who lose their patient, even acting like they are not Buddhist.

its different, what happen in Middle east, the Christians there were targeted, not because of the same reason with the minority(Muslims) in Burma, but merely that's what the Islamic literature told them to do.


please don't misunderstand with me, like I am agree that Muslims in Burma are executed.

 

[smaneck]

and I assure you that its not happen because of Buddha's teaching, its happen because of those Buddhist people are human being who lose their patient, even acting like they are not Buddhist.

I agree they are not acting this way because of Buddha's teachings. But to say they are simply losing their patience when we are talking about the treatment of a poverty-stricken minority.

its different, what happen in Middle east, the Christians there were targeted, not because of the same reason with the minority(Muslims) in Burma, but merely that's what the Islamic literature told them to do.

If by that you mean their scriptures, you are wrong. If you mean there are certain 'ulama acting like your Buddhist monk, egging people on then that would be correct.

 

[kenzo0]

wow..sorry smaneck, I don't intend to debate you over the Burma minority. I would like to open a new thread about it, much later, if I have enough time to do it.

meanwhile, you should find out, what's the reason behind those violence.
I do not support those violence against minority in Burma, regardless whats their religion is. the same thing goes to the minority in the Middle East, I tell you first.


the only question I want to ask you now is.. are there any Christians who burn/kill Muslims/mosque in their region because of what happen to their Christians brothers in Middle East? if yes, please give me the Christianity literature that encourage that action.
Because, what happen to the minority in Burma sparked violence against Buddhist and its temple in the Muslims majority country.


check this out, and I will come to you again, later.


good luck

 

[kenzo0]

oh, one more thing, my dear smaneck..
I would like you to watch this
Zaw Ne Yaa - YouTube


and I would like you to read my other thread click here.
and please give me the same information if the Christians in mid-east as a minority did the same.


thank you

 

[TG123]

talk about Muslims in Burma, I want you to look it closer. its just like...when smaneck accused the Dutch about West Papua and blame the Christian missionaries.
You should know, why this thing happen in Burma.
and of course I do not support those violence against the Muslims in Burma, but we need to know the reason behind those violence.

and I assure you that its not happen because of Buddha's teaching, its happen because of those Buddhist people are human being who lose their patient, even acting like they are not Buddhist.

its different, what happen in Middle east, the Christians there were targeted, not because of the same reason with the minority(Muslims) in Burma, but merely that's what the Islamic literature told them to do.


please don't misunderstand with me, like I am agree that Muslims in Burma are executed.

Hi Kenzo0,

First of all, I want to thank you for doing what some other Christians on here have refused or failed to, and that is to acknowledge that violence is indeed happening against Muslims in Burma and that it is wrong.

I am not aware of Muslim abuses of Buddhists in Burma, and if you could provide me with some sources on such a thing, I would be glad to see them. If Muslims have oppressed Buddhists or are oppressing them in Burma or elsewhere, this does not justify what is happening. I realize that you understand this, and I thank you for it.

I agree that Buddhism does not support what some of the monks and government are doing to Muslims, however Islam also does not support what some Muslims are doing to Christians and other non-Muslims in the middle east.

I think the "losing their patience" excuse is a rather flimsy one, unless these same Muslims who are being killed are murdering Buddhists en-masse or have been a few months or days prior to the pogroms. If "losing their patience" is a reference to crimes by some Muslims in other parts of the world, it is no different from the excuses given by some Muslims about the killings of middle eastern Christians. The psychopaths who blow themselves up in churches or kidnap priests and murder them and their supporters also claim "these things wouldn't happen in America did not invade Iraq". To that, I say ... bull-s**t, pardon my Klingon. Iraqi Christians are not responsible for George Bush, and Burmese Muslims are not responsible for whatever crimes Muslims commit in other countries.

Unarmed and innocent victims of pogroms and persecutions and murder are not responsible for the atrocities committed against them, regardless if they are Burmese Muslims or Iraqi Christians or German Jews.