The government of Sri Lanka has banned “full face coverings” (the burqa). The country’s president, Maithripala Sirisena explained that “the emergency measure would prohibit any garment which ‘hinders identification’ for the sake of national security.” The president’s office stated that “no-one should obscure their faces to make identification difficult”. Other countries have also banned the burqa for the same reason.
So far, the burqa has been banned in China, Tajikistan, Morocco, Latvia, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, Chad, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, and France. Algeria banned the burqa in the public sector last year.
In Chad, two Boko Haram jihad suicide bomb attacks killed 23 people in 2015, which led to the country’s Prime Minister Kalzeube Pahimi Deubet condemning the use of the burqa as “camouflage,” and ruling that all burqas on sale in markets must be burned.
The burqa is also an oppressive garment forced upon women in the name of Islam (cf. Quran 24:31 and 33:59). As expected however, Islamic supremacists were quick to oppose the ban with one Muslim leader calling the ban “stupid”…..
Muslim leaders in Sri Lanka….have voiced opposition to the face covering ban. It is the stupidest thing to do,” complained Hilmy Ahmed, vice-president of the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema organisation, which represents Muslim clerics.
Ahmed went on to condemn what he called “interfering with the religion without consulting the religious leadership”, clearly revealing his own failure to accept that the safety of innocents living in Sri Lanka far outweighs his supremacist entitlements.
“Sri Lanka Bans Islamic Face Veils After Deadly Easter Bombings”, by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, April 29, 2019:
The government of Sri Lanka has banned full face coverings, including but not limited to the Islamic burqa and niqab, as an emergency measure following the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks targeting Christians and tourists.
President Maithripala Sirisena said the emergency measure would prohibit any garment which “hinders identification” as a national security risk, after blasts which killed hundreds were attributed to the National Thowheed Jamath (NTJ) group.
“The ban is to ensure national security… No-one should obscure their faces to make identification difficult,” the president’s office confirmed in a brief statement.
The Islamic State has also claimed responsibility for the attacks, which is something it often does following mass casualty events regardless of whether or not it has a legitimate link with them — although Sri Lankan deputy defence minister Ruwan Wijewardene has said the authorities believe the attacks “could not have been done just locally” and are seeking to establish if the NTJ had assistance from larger terror networks overseas.
Muslim leaders in Sri Lanka, which has a Sinhalese Buddhist religious majority, have voiced opposition to the face covering ban.
“It is the stupidest thing to do,” complained Hilmy Ahmed, vice-president of the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema organisation, which represents Muslim clerics, in comments to the BBC.
“Three days ago we took a voluntary decision regarding this. The All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema told all Muslim women not to wear face veils for security reasons. If they wanted to wear a veil, then they were told not to come out,” Ahmed told the British broadcaster.
“We strongly criticise the decision. We will not accept the authorities interfering with the religion without consulting the religious leadership,” he warned.
Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon while it was part of the British Empire, and for the period up to the 1970s when it was an independent Commonwealth Realm with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state….

Hugh Fitzgerald says
Now is the time for those countries that only ban burqas in some regions (as Germany, in 16 of its states), or as Canada, but only in farsighted Quebec), or not at all (as the U.K., Australia, U.S.) to follow the a example of Sri Lanka, and “for security reasons” that nobody can deny, to ban the burqa/niqab/chador.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Minnesota Model, Halima Aden, Makes History As The 1st To Wear Burkini In Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue”
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/04/29/minnesota-model-halima-aden-makes-history-as-the-1st-to-wear-a-hijab-in-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue/
Virtue signalling on steroids. Obviously, the editors have lost sight of why men buy this issue.
windrush48 says
Better to ban ‘islam’, the root cause, and not the burka, which is only a ‘symptom’.
European pagan says
Burka should be banned everywhere. And I think it is not in the quran or hadith that they have to cover their face
Thoughtful says
Banning a garment is a silly idea, what is much better is the banning of the Islamic cult which lies behind it, and one which is now banned in 20 different Islamic countries – Salafism.
Every Islamic Jihadist attack in the West so far as I can tell has been comitted by a Salafi. In Turkey any woman wearing a Niqab would be arrested and looking at a 25 year prison sentence, not for the garment, but for following the ideology of Salafism. Her husband would also be arrested and risk imprisonment.
Don’t ban the symptom, ban the illness !
CRUSADER says
Banning a burqa is a beginning.
It erodes the encroachment of Shariah.
It’s a good thing. It’s not the biggest thing.
But, Thoughtful, you really should support this arrow against Cultural Jihad.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Presenting Salafism.as the bogeyman smacks of misdirection. The problem is all of Islam, not just one of its many flavours! And the forced covering of women, which comes directly from the instruction of Mohammad to us through the Koran, is one of its most important emblems,
Every time you see a woman covered in a hijab, niqab, burka, abaya, etc., you are witnessing Mohammadans flying their nation’s flag in defiance of your hard fought and won mores, values and laws! The forced covering of women should be no more tolerated than the flying of the IS flag. Both are emblems/flags of conquest flown by Mohammadans. There is nothing “silly” about this interdiction. It is a serious case of survival.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
The exact instruction, which comes directly from Allah to Mohammad, can be found in Koran 33:59:
Sahih International translation: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.”
(This reinforced and augmented by several Hadith.)
Note that the word “abused” which also is translated into “molested” or “hurt,” is veiled permission to assault/rape non-believer women or women who do not comply, and is understood as such by most if not all Mohammadan men.
gravenimage says
Salafism is just one small part of the problem–the problem is Islam.
CRUSADER says
“…burqa has been banned in China, Tajikistan, Morocco, Latvia, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon, Chad, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Bulgaria, and France. Algeria banned the burqa in the public sector last year.”
Hear that, Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts….?
Iranian author and campaigner for women’s rights:
“Wind In My Hair”
by Masih Alinejad
Walter Sieruk says
For that ruthless cruel brutal heinous l regime of Iran that is so unfittingly has the word “Republic” in its title ,for its called “ The Islamic Republic of Iran” [ I R I]. On the topic of this Islamic tyranny a former Muslim revealed that “The IRI system recognizes women as dependent upon men and incomplete human beings who need to be supervised and controlled by men and the State. This author further exposed that “Women are created for the purposes of giving pleasure to men and child bearing – functions that confine them to the home” This is a male Chauvinistic as can possibly be. In addition this writer further makes it known that “The IRI legal system still retains traditional patriarchal bias that can be described as nothing but systemic subordination of women , which is undoubtedly a human rights violation .” This author further reveals that “Iran is of what Islamic fundamentalists desire, an Islamic State, and the consequence of achieving it “State Terror. Instead of utopia, Iran is an Islamic totalitarian nightmare…” and “the Islamic Republic of Iran exists and operates as what every Islamic fundamentalist dreams of, an Islamic state ruled by Sharia …What followed its establishment was the inevitable consequence and inexorable logic of its Islamic premises; state terrorism, a merciless tyranny.” [1] This heinous Islamic has been also exposed by another author who was born and lived in a Middle Eastern nation for many years. She wrote “Female freedom and independence is one of the greatest sins in Islam…” and “Women in Islam are considered unclean, deemed inferior even to dirt.” [2] All this is wicked, unjust and misogynistic to the extreme. Islam had not regard for human life, regardless of what the apologists for this religion will claim.
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM BY Ibn Warraq. pages 345-347.
[2] THEY MUST BE STOPPED by Brigitte Gabriel pages 62, 172
Walter Sieruk says
The harsh brutal oppression of girls and women in this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran has ,many times, becomes even worse the forcing females to wear hijab against their will . As this following example reveals.
That heinously cruel and murderous Islamic tyranny of Iran is very brutal and vicious to the Iranian people. Especially regarding females. Both girls and women. For example a teenage girl in Iran was talking to her boyfriend on the phone and then the Islamic state “police” walked over to her and shot her dead. They did that wicked and malicious thing to her because she was talking to her boyfriend and they also didn’t like her clothing. [1] That was a clear cut case of murder and vicious Islamic madness by Iran’s Islamic state “ police”, who call themselves the “Revolutionary Guards”, they got away with their hideous and malice –filled evil because the mullahs as well as other villains in power in that tyrannical Islamic regime.
[1] A TIME TO BETRAY by Reza Kahlili page 240
Walter Sieruk says
So after the Easter, Sunday bombings the authorities ban the Burqu, done is naturally as a security measure to ensure the protection and safety in the people in that nation. For the religious garment could be used as a concealment for gun and even bombs. Of course the imams complain and object to this. The point is what else may they expect since those mass jihadist mass murders against all those non-Muslims of Sri Lanka ?
Nevertheless Muslim clerics are not men of reason therefore they object and complain much , they must really care nothing at all about lives of the people of Sri Lanka who are not Muslims.
With all this it’s still important to reiterate that the governmental investigation agency of Sri Lanka discovered the identities of the individual Muslim terrorists who engaged in those murderous jihad terror attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka and found that most of those violent and deadly jihadists were highly educated and came from middle class families. This is yet further proof that it’s not a lack of education or poverty that causes and incites some Muslim to become terrorists. It’s the religion of Islam which contains in its “holy book” ,the Quran, instruction for violence and killing for the advancement of Islam. As in, for example 2: 191, 5: 33. 9: 5, 111,112. 47:4.
KRJ says
You would think they’d want to cooperate, but no. Islam in Sri Lanka btw is a minority “religion”. Wait til they start gaining ground.
gravenimage says
Yes–Muslims are only 10% of the population there.
Mike Stevens says
This is the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights when it upheld Belgium’s burqa ban:-
“Judges said the nationwide prohibition, which came into effect in 2011, did not violate the rights to private and family life and freedom of religion, or discrimination laws.
The court found Belgium had the right to impose restrictions aiming to ensure the principles of “living together” and the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Its ruling said the government had been responding “to a practice that it considered to be incompatible, in Belgian society, with social communication and more generally the establishment of human relations, which were indispensable for life in society…essential to ensure the functioning of a democratic society”.
Every government or lawmaker opposing a ban should be made to read that last paragraph.
sidney penny says
Two hot words.( in the sentence beginning with the Court found…)
together and others
abad says
It is a step in the right direction.
Now all Sri Lanka has to do is make Islam illegal on its turf and it’s all set.
Islam does not belong in Sri Lanka.
Kenek says
islam should have been banned, not just the burka. Buddhists have an excellent understanding of the islamic cult.
gravenimage says
Sri Lanka bans burqa after deadly Easter bombing, Muslim clerics cry foul
………………….
This is a good first step.
sidney penny says
“Muslim leaders in Sri Lanka….have voiced opposition to the face covering ban. It is the stupidest thing to do,” complained Hilmy Ahmed, vice-president of the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema organisation, which represents Muslim clerics.”
Note Himly Ahmed’s position.He is not just an ordinary Muslim in Sri Lanka.This is what the infidels in Sri Lanka and else where have to deal with.
He is not just an ordinary Muslim office worker or bus driver
Rhonda says
They have us over a barrel because they identify Islam as a religion and therefore its practices are protected. What do you think might happen if democracies (and whomever else in this world) changed their laws so that Islam could not be included as a religion and therefore could not make use of the same protections because the Qur’an directs members to slay non-believers, among other nefarious edicts.