Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
15
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#6367
Should Western Countries Ban Burkhas?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1597
rating
30
debates
65.0%
won
Description
This debate centers on the growing controversy in Western nations over the use of the burkha and other full-face coverings in public spaces. In recent years, several countries—including France, Belgium, Denmark, and now Switzerland—have introduced laws banning such garments, citing concerns about public safety, gender equality, and the integration of immigrants into society. Supporters of these bans argue that they are necessary to protect secular values, ensure women’s rights, and maintain open communication in public life. Opponents, however, contend that such laws unfairly target Muslim women, restrict religious freedom, and risk further marginalizing minority communities.
We will explore both sides: Should Western countries continue or expand these bans, or are they an infringement on individual rights and cultural diversity?
Round 1
Banning burqas in Western countries fundamentally undermines the principle of religious freedom that forms the bedrock of liberal democracy. The right to manifest one’s faith, including through dress, is protected by international human rights conventions and many national constitutions. When governments prohibit full-face coverings, they send a message that certain religious practices are unwelcome, effectively marginalizing Muslim women and reinforcing social divisions. Such bans do not empower women but instead strip them of agency by dictating what they can wear, often under the guise of protecting them from oppression. In reality, many women choose the burqa as an expression of personal faith or identity, and denying them this choice contradicts the values of tolerance and diversity that Western societies claim to uphold.
Furthermore, these bans risk exacerbating discrimination and fueling Islamophobia, which can lead to further alienation and radicalization within Muslim communities. Laws targeting the burqa are often framed as necessary for security or integration, yet they disproportionately affect a small minority and do little to address the root causes of social tension. The narrative that burqas prevent integration or threaten public safety is not supported by evidence; rather, it reflects a broader discomfort with visible expressions of cultural and religious difference. By singling out Muslim women, these policies foster a climate of suspicion and exclusion, undermining the very social cohesion they purport to protect.
The argument that burqa bans are needed to promote gender equality is deeply paternalistic. True equality requires respecting women’s autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies and lives, even when those choices may not align with mainstream expectations. Imposing dress codes under the banner of liberation replicates the same logic of control that critics claim to oppose. Western societies should instead focus on addressing genuine inequalities—such as access to education, employment, and healthcare—rather than policing women’s clothing. Embracing diversity and upholding individual rights are not only more just but also more effective in building inclusive, resilient communities.
Literally the only hard part of this debate is debating 4x over each part that may get me cancelled. Even parts quoting Qur'an and Hadiths that scream death to Jews and Christians as well as basically all other groups of 'infidel'.
====
Security
Other than when rules in Covid altered to encourage face covering's, generally face coverings add a significant security risk that is banned in most of the West. You cannot turn up to most places staying completely masked (and this is unfair on significantly different-appearing individuals that grew up actively bullied and/or quietly rejected due to it.
Whether it is an all black Helmet or other such stuff.
====
The Muslims that push full Burqa onto the women tend to be among the most severe ones.
The excuse many defenders of Islam in the West use is it is 'only the extreme ones' who do the bad things or want to turn Europe Sharia.
Noticeably, almost all mild to moderate Muslims in severity of devotion allows face to be revealed. It is strictly the extreme ones that don the Burqa.
For clarity, the Burqa is even more extreme than the Niqab. The Niqab is the eyes-showing one. The Burqa is on the left of this image
The reality is the brand of Islam that wants women to wear that is among the most very dangerous to insert into Western societies.
If you do not believe me, I want to show you some things from their Holy Scripture but before that lets clarify that in Sharia you absolutely must kill those leaving Islam or encouraging said leaving of it. The slaughter of the human is mandated if he is male, if female.imprisoning her as a form of blackmail is permissibld.
These are not twisting context they are literal commands or teachings.
I DISAGREE WITH any apostate killi g ALL LAW ENFORCEMENTNKNOW I serve Christ I serve Father I serve Holy Spirit. Allah of Quran is the devil!!! Never will I dare worship him!
I paste it SOLELY TO EXPOSE ISLAM I WISH TO WARN OTHERS OF THIS RELIGION
Use this site ti fact check them: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3017
Beliving in this is mandatory dor Sunni Muslims, Sunni are the majority especially the full Burqa wearers are severe Sunnis, Shi'ites tend yo wear Hijab that shows eyes if very severe, not Burqa.
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." Sahih Bukhari 9:83:17A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Muadh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu`adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle. Sahih Bukhari 9:89:271By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." Sahih Bukhari 9:83:37No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." Sahih Bukhari 9:84:64
This is extremely important to realise:
The Sunnis wearing Burqa and the fellow believing men related to them either are extreme Sunnis believe in using murder as a form of blackmail to keep people in their religion (or they are ex Muslims and are likely ending up hunted down by said severe Sunnis).
This is not disinformative hate speech, I literally showed the Sunnah making it crystal clear!
Now, if that brand of Islam gets able to be represented it is entailing adhering to the following:
Ahmad takes the words of Surah 33.26, "Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" as the foundation of his theory that, while some of the more serious offenders may have been proscribed, the bulk of the tribe was probably exiled like the others. At first sight it does seem strange that Muhammad should despatch the whole tribe while he had let the others go free, but there is concrete evidence that he had intended to execute the Banu Qaynuqa in the same way.According to Ibn Sa'd (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 32-33), when the tribe surrendered, Muhammad ordered his companions to tie the men's hands behind their backs to prepare them for beheading. It was only the remonstrances of Abdullah ibn Ubayy, then still too influential to be refused that made him abandon their execution and order their banishment instead.What is most significant about Ahmad's assessment of the historical genuineness of the massacre is that, in querying it, he finds himself free from the need to justify Muhammad and accordingly treats it for what it really was - an unjustifiable atrocity. He says:No one could come out of such a holocaust - 600 to 900 killed in cold blood in one day - without damage to his personality. 'All and Zubayr's holocaust legacy of massive deadness would not have left them in peace. (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 86).
To behold the slaughter of many men in battle is indeed one thing - to unemotionally witness the execution of a whole tribe is another entirely. Ahmad continues:The very idea of such a massacre by persons who neither before nor after the killing showed any sign of a dehumanised personality is inadmissible from a psychological point of view. (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 87).
Ahmad has challenged a story whose historical accuracy has hitherto never been questioned and, while the external evidences may weigh against him, he is to be commended for seeing the tragedy for what it truly was - in his own words, a "massacre" and a "holocaust".In their determination to exonerate Muhammad the Muslims have found themselves in an awkward situation. If they admit the story, they find themselves obliged to counter the suggestion that it had the nature of an atrocity. If, however, this is conceded, they strive to challenge the reliability of the narratives! Either way none dares admit that Muhammad was the leading figure, or at least a willing accomplice, in a "holocaust".Shortly before the conquest of Mecca Muhammad attacked the remaining Jewish fortress at Khaibar and, while not gaining an outright victory, nevertheless brought it into subjection. Here he was poisoned by a Jewish woman. Although she did not succeed in killing him, Muhammad complained to the day of his death of the effects of her act of revenge. Ibn Sa'd says she was put to death (Vol. 2, p. 249), but this is disputed by Bukhari who states that Muhammad refused to sanction her execution (Vol. 3, p. 475). Which of the two is true, "God only knows".By the end of his life Muhammad's relationship with the Jews had deteriorated to the point of irreconcilable hostility. We have not spoken of his relationships with the Christians, which seem to have been a bit more amicable though much less frequent, but his contacts with their armies during his latter days seems to have hardened his heart against them also. The later passages of the Qur'an breathe out denunciations of both groups in vehement language. This tradition tells its own story:It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 965).
This same Umar, on becoming Caliph just two years after Muhammad's death, proceeded dutifully to put this injunction into effect and by the end of his reign all the Jews in the Hijaz had duly been
They are donning symbolism of the most severe branch of a religion that began as a warmongering genocidal regime and still appears to be it even to each other.
This is not phobia. This is theology and history.
Thoss in the West do not allow Nazis to easily at all spread their beliefs in the West, so why would they let people who literally think God permits antisemitic genocide and discplacement from homelands be welcome?
Round 2
Embedded in AdaptableRatman's rant against Islam is the claim that burkhas are a "significant" security risk. No evidence is provided.
Allowing Muslim women to wear burkhas in Western nations presents a minimal security risk for several key reasons:
- Security protocols already address identification concerns: In most Western countries, authorities can require individuals to temporarily remove face coverings for identification purposes, such as during security checks or when verifying identity for official documents. Even in conservative Muslim-majority countries like Saudi Arabia, women are required to show their faces for security checks3. This means that the presence of a burkha does not prevent law enforcement from confirming someone's identity when necessary.
- No evidence of widespread misuse: The argument that burkhas are used to conceal criminal activity is largely hypothetical and not supported by significant evidence of widespread misuse in Western societies. The vast majority of Muslim women who wear burkhas do so out of personal, cultural, or religious conviction, not for nefarious purposes.
- Bans may increase, not decrease, security risks: Blanket bans on burkhas can exacerbate social tensions and discrimination, potentially increasing feelings of alienation and marginalization among Muslim communities. This social exclusion can, in some cases, create conditions more conducive to radicalization than the presence of religious attire itself.
- Freedom of religion and expression: Western democracies are founded on principles of individual liberty, including the right to religious expression. Singling out Muslim women for restrictions undermines these core values and can be seen as discriminatory.
In summary, allowing burkhas does not present a significant security risk because existing security measures are sufficient to address legitimate concerns, and the overwhelming majority of wearers are law-abiding citizens. Blanket bans are more likely to create social problems than to solve security issues.
Security is as follows:
- CCTV images become futile as at most they can estimate body proportions only and height estimation woukd depend on heels. This means robbers even if male can show up in Burqa and do the crimes. In fact this increases Islamophobia so that is bad for the Muslims.
- Those that wear Burqa are the severe Sunnis
- Severe Sunnis doctrinally believe in extreme misogyny, killing apostates, killing Jews, waging war with Christians and much more, lgbtq+ as well have to worry big time.
It is illegal in most of the West to openly don Nazi clothing and style because it represents a genocidal evil regime and code of operating. The Burqa is representing a genocidal evil regime. Specifically the Burqa is used by the most severe strain(s) of Sunnis.
Round 3
While it is true that full-face coverings can theoretically be used to obscure identity, the actual incidence of crimes committed using burkhas is extremely low relative to the millions of people who wear them peacefully. Studies examining the impact of burkha bans in Europe have found that such restrictions do not reduce crime or terrorism; in fact, countries with veil bans have experienced significantly more terrorist incidents and casualties than those without such bans, suggesting that targeting burkhas may actually undermine security by alienating communities and fueling resentment. Security concerns can be addressed through targeted measures—such as requiring face unveiling for identification in sensitive settings—without resorting to blanket bans or stigmatization.
Furthermore, the argument that burkhas are uniquely associated with extremism or "severe Sunnis" is not supported by the diversity of Muslim practice worldwide. The vast majority of women who wear burkhas do so as an expression of personal faith, cultural tradition, or family preference, not as a political statement or endorsement of violence. Equating the burkha with extremist ideology is both factually incorrect and deeply unfair, as it ignores the lived experiences of millions of Muslim women and risks inflaming Islamophobia. In fact, public rhetoric and policies targeting burkha-wearers have been shown to increase hate crimes and discrimination against Muslims, which in turn can undermine social cohesion and public safety.
Finally, comparing the burkha to Nazi symbols is a false equivalence. Nazi regalia is banned in many countries because it is an explicit emblem of a regime responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity. The burkha, by contrast, is a religious garment worn by women from a variety of backgrounds, and its meaning is shaped by context, intention, and individual choice. Banning the burkha on the grounds of security not only infringes on religious freedom but also risks exacerbating the very tensions it purports to solve, making society less safe and less just. The evidence shows that respectful accommodation, not prohibition, is the most effective way to balance security with civil liberties.
Pros of facial recognition technologyImproving security systems and identifying criminals are often cited when arguing in favor of facial recognition, as well as getting rid of unnecessary labor or human interaction. However, there are also plenty of other examples.1. Finding missing people and identifying perpetratorsFacial recognition technology is used by law enforcement agencies to find missing people or identify criminals by using camera feeds to compare faces with those on watch lists.The technology has also been used to locate missing children. Sometimes it is combined with advanced aging software to predict what a child might look like based on photos taken when they disappeared. Law enforcement agencies often use facial recognition with live alerts to help track potential matches.2. Protecting businesses against theftFacial recognition is increasingly being deployed as a means of identifying known individuals before they commit crimes like theft or public affray. It's common to see CCTV in shops and places of work, and by using facial recognition software it's possible to create tools like automatic cross-referencing to match individuals to a database of known suspects.The technology has the dual purpose of helping to prevent crime before it happens, and also – some would argue – a deterrent for would-be offenders.If something is stolen from the business, the software can also be used to catalog the thieves for future reference.3. Better security measures in banks and airportsFacial recognition has also come to be used as a preventative security measure in sensitive locations such as banks and airports. Similar to identifying criminals that come into shops, the software has helped identify criminals and passengers that pose a potential risk to airlines and passengers.Border checks have also been sped up at some airports through the use of facial recognition cameras at passport-check gates.Institutions like banks use the software in the same way to prevent fraud, identifying those previously charged with crimes and alerting the bank to watch specific individuals more carefully.4. Drastically reduces human touchpointsFacial recognition requires fewer human resources than other types of security measures, such as fingerprinting. It also doesn’t require physical contact or direct human interaction. Instead, it uses artificial intelligence (AI) to make it an automatic and seamless process.It also limits touchpoints when unlocking doors and smartphones, getting cash from the ATM or performing any other task that generally requires a PIN, password or key.5. Better tools for organising photosFacial recognition can also be used to tag photos in your cloud storage through iCloud or Google Photos. Users who wish can enable facial recognition in their respective photo app’s settings, resulting in named folders for regular photo subjects. Facebook also used facial recognition to suggest people to tag within a photo.6. Better medical treatmentOne surprising use of facial recognition technology is the detection of genetic disorders.By examining subtle facial traits, facial recognition software can, in some cases, determine how specific genetic mutations caused a particular syndrome. The technology may be faster and less expensive than traditional genetic testing.7. Enhancing retail customer experiencesFacial recognition technology can also be used to personalize customer experiences in retail settings. By recognising returning customers, stores can offer personalized greetings, tailor product recommendations, and provide a more customized shopping experience.This can enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, as shoppers feel recognised and valued by the business. Additionally, it can streamline the checkout process by allowing for facial recognition payments, reducing wait times and improving overall service efficiency.
Facial identification of suspects by humans plays a crucial role in crime solving, with advancements in facial recognition technology aiding this process. While humans are still relied upon for initial identification and in cases where technology falls short, tools like facial recognition software and databases are increasingly used to quickly identify suspects and solve crimes.Here's a breakdown of how facial identification is used in crime solving:1. Human Identification:
Google AI. Sources it used include:
As for the tensions, I stand by all that is said. Extremist Sunnism is genocidal, extremely sexist, vigoted, ruthless and essentially it represents values antithetical to Western societies.
Round 4
The mere inconvenience to facial recognition systems does not justify a blanket ban on religious attire, especially when less restrictive alternatives exist.
While security and identification are important, banning burkhas because they hinder facial recognition is neither necessary nor proportionate. There are respectful and effective alternatives for identity verification that do not infringe on fundamental rights. Singling out burkhas also risks unfair discrimination, especially when many other face coverings are socially accepted. A balanced approach protects both security and individual freedoms.
The technology itself is not foolproof and can be thwarted by many means, not just burkhas. Its effectiveness is debated, and over-reliance can lead to errors and biases. Most societies do not require citizens to be constantly identifiable by facial recognition in public spaces. Many people cover their faces for various reasons (e.g., masks, scarves, costumes, medical needs).
Forfeited
I won imo
Con obviously wins on arguments but also obviously used AI heavily. But Pro also used nothing but copy-pasting other sources in R3 and forfeited R4. So I'm really not sure how to vote here.
So is it a Text Debate?
Sorry it was neom city, autocorrect mess sometime.
Saudi, is more liberal now then even many of western countries. They are making dajjal's headquarter names as neon city. Why complaining now?
Tell me one thing how a woman is free if she shows her face and not free if she hides? A woman is free if she can choose what they wants, whether it's showing her face or hiding her face.
Yes wonderful when women of west go to Saudi in Ramadan they are so free.
Nice first round argument.