Abstract
AbstractThe concept of Islamophobia and the persecution of the Rohingya minority—these two phenomena are highly significant in the world context. These factors have affected systematic violence and statelessness for many years by the Myanmar Buddhist majority and the Myanmar government itself. The Rohingya community has a significant connection with several factors, including political, economic, national, and religious relations. This paper is dependent on a qualitative research methodology using secondary data was used. Myanmar is a non-secular, Buddhist-dominated country where the Buddhist majority holds a perception of Islam to justify their violence towards this community and to ensure Buddhist domination. This paper will shed some light on the argument, and discusses the extent to which Islamophobia is significant behind violations of human rights in the Rohingya community.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference71 articles.
1. Adhikari, M. (2021). Peacebuilding with “Chinese characteristics”? Insights from China’s engagement in Myanmar’s peace process. International Studies Review, 23(4), 1699–1726. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab039
2. Ahmad, S., & Owoyemi, M. Y. (2012). The concept of Islamic work ethic: An analysis of some salient points in the prophetic tradition. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(20), 116–123. https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_20_Special_Issue_October_2012/12.pdf
3. Ahsan Ullah, A. K. M. (2016). Rohingya crisis in Myanmar: Seeking justice for the “stateless.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216660811
4. Akins, H. (2018). The Two Faces of Democratization in Myanmar: A case study of the Rohingya and Burmese nationalism. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 38(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2018.1475619
5. Alam, M. J. (2018). The Rohingya minority of Myanmar: Surveying their status and protection in international law. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 25(2), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-02503002