Burkha Gang and the Ban on Burkha clad shoppers



10 Responses to “Burkha Gang and the Ban on Burkha clad shoppers”

  1. Mariam Says:

    True, but we are not as cautious among veiled ladies as masked individuals. See here, here and here. More importantly it is extremely difficult to identify the thieves if face is hidden.

  2. Polite Indian Says:


    All this still just means that one needs to be extra careful with burkha clad customers.

    In general I don’t like burkha as I have mentioned elsewhere. I want the musllims to discard the burkha on their own.

    Bans like this are no good. They cannot stop these robberies. At best they can create communal tension.

  3. Mariam Says:

    extra careful with burkha clad customers

    How, as it will violate personal rights for some and strain relation among concerned parties. BTW, I’m more concerned with veiled individuals, which is not even a requirement in Islam otherwise Muslim women had to cover their faces while performing

  4. Polite Indian Says:

    What I am trying to say that being extra careful with burkha clad customers is better than a total ban on such shoppers.
    Being extra careful is very similar to racial profiling but I guess one can get away with it rather than just banning.

  5. Jo Says:

    These thieves probably were doing their theft wearing underwears also(though it is a rare practice).

    So I am enthusiastically waiting for a ban on underwears too. 🙂

  6. Nita Says:

    If shop-keepers start targeting those who wear burkhas by keeping a constant watch on them or following them around it will be extremely insulting to customers.

  7. Polite Indian Says:

    Nita, You are correct but I think it is better than banning burkha clad customers altogether.

  8. Thiagan Says:


    The jewllery shop owner is entitled not to engage in a commercial transaction in which he can not the see the other person. It is impaired communication and refusing to transact is a reasonable restriction. It is not for religious reasons but due to defective circumstances of the transaction and as a security precaution. Somali muslim taxi drivers are refusing passengers in Minnesotta, who ostensibly carry alchohol because their religion prohibits. Airport authorities have threatened to cancel the license. This refusal is illegal; they are licensed to ply passengers; carrying of alchohol is legal in USA and there is no perception of any security threat.

  9. Polite Indian Says:

    It might be a reasonable restriction but I think the reason they tried to ban the burkha clad customers was because of security reasons. What I think that banning may not be the solution to the problem of theft per se.

    I agree though that refusing to carry passengers carrying alcohol, or refusing to ring a pork item at the cash register, or asking the managers to remove pig figurines from work places are all ridiculous requests. To me at least, all religious requests sound ridiculous and these are no exceptions. My personal view is that religious sensitivities all over the world are highly over rated.

  10. Thiagan Says:


    It is a reasonable (not an evasive “might be”) restriiction and the jewellery owners were forced to retract by protesting mullas and their brainwashed followers. Thefts and losses for the trade is permissible. I note that, while you consider banning burkaa is not the solution, you do not suggest an viable alternative

    All religious requests are not ridiculous and all religious sensibilities are not overrated. Islam alone is guilty because the result of an intense scrutiny of Islam, Mohammed etc will reveal that it is ugly – honour killings, pedophile, temporary marriages, forced marriages, triple talaaq, female genital mutilation, women considered as baby making machines, wife beating etc.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: