Its beyond me why some European countries are flooding itself with millions of immigrants from Africa and Asia when the results are rise in crimes and disturbance of social fabric?. Homogeneity in society is blessing, not heterogeneity.
Its non-nonsensical that you open gates for people of unknown background from far lands. Its not doctors, engineers or professors with PhD thesis who are crossing Alps to reach France. The ones who are riding boats on sea and crossing alp are failures of their respective countries, and lowest of their societies [economic
ally and morally]. Dont blame Islam, just shut your gates.
mate, more refugees are arriving in pakistan, iran, jordan for instance then these european countries, mostly the cause of their own doing, why is there a muslim refugee crises from iraq, syria, afghanistan, libya in the first plce, isnt it because of european/USA engagement in wars and creating crises situation there in the first place?
if the innocent nations are not shutting their doors, why should those guilty nations actively involved in creating the crises shut the doors in the first place?
the anger towards muslim refugees is misplaced and nothing but islamophobic, why have their people or governments not admitted their mistake in supplying weapons to syrian rebels which gave birth to ISIS rather than becoming islamophobic?
the issue is regional not even pan islamic, muslim refuges from indonesia, malaysia, bangladesh are not storming their lands, only middle eastern ones, so should this be a more regional issue compared to islamophobia displayed by these western nations? is there a global islamic movement to flood european countries with their inhabitants to make a great conpiracy of islamic europe? arn't there other migrants in europe from non muslim lands, as you stated from africa etc? is migration from turkey, an islamic issue, since their leaders spared no expense is europeanising their nation to back the EU move.
the issue with western countries towards islam was even before the ''refugee crises'' islamophobia was pretty apparent even before, i still remember switzerland banning halal meat and minarets and french banning niqab before there was any iraq invasion or syrian refugees or any bomb blasts or suicide bombings, the afghan ambassadors were frequently taunted for their burqa women even before there was nine eleven attacks in the very US capital by their proxy journalists, so their hatred and sectarian hatred towards muslim is much more ingrained/enshrined in their crusader christian background and mindset then anything else.
They "both see immigration and “continuously growing Muslim populations” as one of the greatest challenges facing their countries." I have already pointed out the Muslim population of Hungary amounts to about 0.05% and that the Muslim population of Burma is low (below 5%, and probably still lower after recent expulsions) and not growing at any speed. So that suggestion is plainly nonsensical. So why do they put it forward? This classic nationalist tactics to deflect attention from the real challenges by using small monirities of 'outsiders' as scapegoats. It is despicable, especially as coming from a Nobel Peace Prize Winner after the persecution of the Rohingyas - the suggestion is that is understandable thta they should have been treated in that way because of the challenge that they present to Burma.
P.S. See below, I would moderate this in view of the misrepresentation at the top of the article, it is better to look directly at the official statement linked above. But I am still rather shocked by the way in Aung San Suu Kyi has adopted a crude nationalist position on the Rohingya, and this statement does nothing whatever to mitigate my concern.
Immigration from disparate peoples always was a problem for any society that faced it; more than one country had collapsed because of it (Western Roman Empire dissolved due to barbarian immigration in 4th to 5th centuries, and ERE lost the entirety of Anatolia thanks to Seljuk Turk immigration in 11th century). How large a proportion of foreign element in the country is at this point in time is perfectly irrelevant for whether immigration as such is a problem or not. It is better to do something before open internal conflict becomes unavoidable.
Borders are one of best inventions humanity has ever created. You may disagree, but they had significantly reduced conflicts while preserving uniqueness of disparate groups. Of course, it also meant that conflicts became more formalized, and it is those formalized conflicts that are usually read about in history books, which creates a skewed perspective that, somehow, nation and nationalism are necessarily bad.
Arakan was infact ruled by muslim rulers from bengal for a long time, it didn't go to myanmar until few hundred years ago, should have been claimed by east pak/bengal. Arakan has a history of indian rule since log time most probably.
entire europe seem to be again turning towards nazi mentality it wont be long before they descend into that mode. nazis were welcomed, but gradually europeans realized that nazis were more harmful for them then anybody else.
the muslim countries also need to form an organisation to speak about this issue of islamophobia and try to address the migration issue by creating opportunities in their own lands and to make a political bloc so that aliens dont come and run havoc in their own lands and create crises situation.
As far as I know Arakan was a vassal state or protectorate of the Bengal Sultanate for a while from the mid-16th Century, but the (smaller) later kingdom of Mrauk-U was independent; its rulers assumed Muslim titles and fashions but were themselves Buddhist; so extensive Muslim influence there, with Muslims rising to high positions in the royal administration, but not a Muslim state under a Muslim dynasty. The boundaries of the kingdom cut across the present Bengal border, with Chittagong being included within it. Mrauk-U was not conquered by the Burmese until the closing stages of the 18th Century. This was in effect a border area with a complex history, which became no less complex under British rule because there was then no international border between Bengal and Arakan, and many people crossed over it from Bengal (and vice-versa?). The Burmese authorities have tried to rewrite that history by claiming that only people of Burmese origin are legitimate citizens of the region have refused citizenship to the Muslims, and have tried to drive them out, although the Burmese themelves did not conquer the region until the 1780s. The Rakhines are I think of Burmese origin, and had entered the land while it was under Arakanese rule, while quite a few of the Rohingya may well have entered from Bengal during the period of British rule, some of these doubtless being descended in turn from original inhabitants of Arakan who had been driven across the border during the Burmese conquest! On strictly historical grounds, I think the Rakhines, Rohingya Muslims and Burmese must be regarded as having an equal right to live there, and the Burmese narrative which represents the Rohingyas as simply being illegal Bengali immigrants is thus a sort of myth based on oversimplification and misrepresentation of that history.
Bengal sultanate helped a dethroned Arakan prince to regain his kingship back. They were probably vassal but my statement that no muslim ever ruled in Arakan still stands. Arakan were actually quite notorious for slave raids in Bengal.