ABOUT FRANCIS BUCHANAN’S BOOK: It helps the Rakhine,
and shows how carelessly the Rohingya and supporters pick their ‘evidence’.
So, here it is:
1) We never said there was no Muslims in Arakan 300 years ago,
but there were very few.
2) Buchanan observed small communities of Hindus and Mohammedans,
but he recognizes that the MAIN and HISTORICAL and DOMINANT culture
is the YAKAIN,
and that is why he calls the YAKAIN people
the PROPER NATIVES and the REAL NATIVES.
And the Hindus and Mohammedans were small communities of
recent OUTSIDERS or STRANGERS -
and they were called KULAW YAKAIN, and STRANGER ARAKAN.
3)Let me give you another way to understand this:
in Malaysia, who are the PROPER and REAL NATIVE people?
The Chinese, the Indians, or the Malays?
The answer is........the Malays, of course.
(actually we can go further back and say the real natives are
the aboriginal people called the Orang Asli,
but let us not get ridiculous or we will have to say that the
Arabs and Mohammed were not the PROPER and REAL natives of Arabia,
because the REAL and PROPER natives of ARABIA were various people
known as Lakhmids, Ghassanids, Kindites, Nabataeans, Sabaeans,
Minaeans, and others.
This was all many centuries before Islam,
when that area (Arabia) was mostly Jewish, Christian, Canaanite,
Zoroaster, or other religions and cults.
We can talk about that another time.)
But, let's go back to Malaysia - it's clear the Chinese and Indians are not
the indigenous REAL and PROPER natives and I believe that they know and
accept that also.
(Another issue to deal with another time is the terrible way that the Malays
treat the Chinese and Indians, and any non-Muslim, and the very racist
Bumiputera policy.)
4) Buchanan uses the word 'ROOINGA'......so what?
That means almost nothing!
Why? Because NOBODY used that word.
The British were very good at writing reports and research -
they never heard it.
The Dutch, the Portugese, the Chinese, the Indians
- all never heard it.
The Muslims didn't seem to use it,
it was not an important word for them,
they forgot about,
it was not used by the Bengal Muslims,
not used by the Chittagong Muslims,
not used by the Bengali V-Force,
not used by the Mujahid Party in 1948
when they gave an ultimatum to the government,
and not used by U Nu.
So when 'Rohingya' started to be used, it was a new word for EVERYBODY -
and it had a purpose,
and that purpose had no compassion, tolerance, or metta.
I hope I helped you all to understand this.
Copy right@ Ar Mrat Khine reshare@ Rick Heizman
and shows how carelessly the Rohingya and supporters pick their ‘evidence’.
So, here it is:
1) We never said there was no Muslims in Arakan 300 years ago,
but there were very few.
2) Buchanan observed small communities of Hindus and Mohammedans,
but he recognizes that the MAIN and HISTORICAL and DOMINANT culture
is the YAKAIN,
and that is why he calls the YAKAIN people
the PROPER NATIVES and the REAL NATIVES.
And the Hindus and Mohammedans were small communities of
recent OUTSIDERS or STRANGERS -
and they were called KULAW YAKAIN, and STRANGER ARAKAN.
3)Let me give you another way to understand this:
in Malaysia, who are the PROPER and REAL NATIVE people?
The Chinese, the Indians, or the Malays?
The answer is........the Malays, of course.
(actually we can go further back and say the real natives are
the aboriginal people called the Orang Asli,
but let us not get ridiculous or we will have to say that the
Arabs and Mohammed were not the PROPER and REAL natives of Arabia,
because the REAL and PROPER natives of ARABIA were various people
known as Lakhmids, Ghassanids, Kindites, Nabataeans, Sabaeans,
Minaeans, and others.
This was all many centuries before Islam,
when that area (Arabia) was mostly Jewish, Christian, Canaanite,
Zoroaster, or other religions and cults.
We can talk about that another time.)
But, let's go back to Malaysia - it's clear the Chinese and Indians are not
the indigenous REAL and PROPER natives and I believe that they know and
accept that also.
(Another issue to deal with another time is the terrible way that the Malays
treat the Chinese and Indians, and any non-Muslim, and the very racist
Bumiputera policy.)
4) Buchanan uses the word 'ROOINGA'......so what?
That means almost nothing!
Why? Because NOBODY used that word.
The British were very good at writing reports and research -
they never heard it.
The Dutch, the Portugese, the Chinese, the Indians
- all never heard it.
The Muslims didn't seem to use it,
it was not an important word for them,
they forgot about,
it was not used by the Bengal Muslims,
not used by the Chittagong Muslims,
not used by the Bengali V-Force,
not used by the Mujahid Party in 1948
when they gave an ultimatum to the government,
and not used by U Nu.
So when 'Rohingya' started to be used, it was a new word for EVERYBODY -
and it had a purpose,
and that purpose had no compassion, tolerance, or metta.
I hope I helped you all to understand this.
Copy right@ Ar Mrat Khine reshare@ Rick Heizman