Saturday, November 21, 2015


At a time when Europe and the U.S. are reeling from terrorism at the hands of fundamentalist Muslims, President Obama sought photo-ops in Malaysia, a Muslim country. He visited a camp of Muslim refugees from Myanmar. The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar claim discrimination from the Buddhist majority. 

Painting the Buddhists of Myanmar as religious bigots without knowledge of the effects of Muslim incursions into Southeast Asia is not an informed reaction. The ancient conquests by Muslims in India were repressive, vicious and bloody. The invading Muslims destroyed an established Buddhist culture which had evolved over centuries. They burned Buddhist monasteries, slaughtered Buddhist monks and destroyed Buddhist texts and artifacts. Indian Buddhism spread to the rest of Southeast Asia for centuries before the Muslim invasions. 

The Muslim invaders cut off a cultural link between India and its neighbors to the East. Buddhism was a civilizing force throughout Southeast Asia for centuries. It was a common thread of thought and practice, based in meditation and individual responsibility. While Buddhism did not bring generalized peace or justice to the region, it did provide a common language of diplomacy and cultural exchange. This was disrupted by Muslim invasions. The net result in modern times was seen in the violence associated by India-Pakistan partition in 1947. This is summarized in this quote from Wikipedia:

According to historian Will Durant, "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". By the estimate of Koenraad Elst the population of Indian subcontinent reduced by almost 80 million between 1000 and 1525.[108] In course of their conquests and rule in India, the number of Muslims in India increased through Immigration and Conversion. The Ancient Indian Kingdoms in Afghanistan and Pakistan became Muslim majority areas, as did the Eastern Part of Bengal. This would ultimately lead to the Partition of India in 1947 after the end of British rule.

My internal question is, "Why would an American President choose to push the Muslim agenda, fostered most vehemently by Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the face of religious violence against peaceful civilians in The West?" There is no widespread oppression of Muslims in North America and Europe. Civil disdain by non-Muslims for the religious trappings which symbolize the current insanity in Syria and Iraq is not hard to understand. 

That nonviolent disdain is not "persecution" or "phobia". And someone can have disdain for a belief system while also tolerating it. Our President has simply displayed, once again, his handlers' determination to suppress dissent and open discourse about ideas. And, among his corporate handlers, OPEC's Muslims are a very powerful force. 

No comments:

Post a Comment