Portugal bans burqas in public spaces

[River 128,329]

20 hours ago, Delulu Rogers said:

Okay I’ll mention it again cause nobody responded the first time. 

Forget about Europe, Islamophobia, anti-Arab etc. 

There are many Muslim countries that also have a ban on niqab and burqa. Is there another side to the argument/reason for the ban that we aren’t discussing? Surely the Muslim countries can’t be islamophobic. So what’s the reason?

 

Yes Muslim countries can ban a anything related to Islam that they feel like it not good for them anymore, they have their Ulama that advising them about anything related to Islam and it's their business, not ours

A non-muslim country shouldn't ban anything Islamic and fight against their own Muslim citizens, just because they don't like it.. they are abusing their power to harm a minority.

2 hours ago, GagaisHotAF said:

not at all. some people are just sick of the toxicity of religion. France banned burqas a long time ago because they are a secular society. people are just dramatic af about the ban.

you can still see women in burqa in France here and there because the police is not wasting their time to fine a woman that does absolutely nothing but wearing a burqa..

24 minutes ago, MarvinGa said:

Ok. Maybe not 100% appropriate example, but it’s about the „idea” - so, Indonesia can ban ONE Gaga’s show in arena because of „religious protests” but Portugal isn’t allowed to ban thousands of burqas in public space? 

This is called caring for the culture and assets of a given place when they begin to deviate from the main idea - every country has the right to do so and every tourist should respect it. 

Gaga is not a citizen of Indonesia, so your example makes no sense here.

[Bronco 27,022]

16 minutes ago, Delulu Rogers said:

I’m not understanding what you mean 

Well...why would a white supremacist party seek to introduce a law that explicitly targets a non-whire racial minority in their country? 

Like lets think here. You asked why people treat this law differently to a ban on the garments in an islamic nation. And the answer is really simple - the motivation behind that law. 

[Bronco 27,022]

8 minutes ago, River said:

Yes Muslim countries can ban a anything related to Islam that they feel like it not good for them anymore, they have their Ulama that advising them about anything related to Islam and it's their business, not ours

Its also worth pointing out that the laws in question are often the result of authoritarian leadership in those islamic nations deliberately targeting tribal populations & weaker islamic sects as a method of ensuring their continued political power. 

For example - President Rahman of Tajikistan. Ever since the civil war ended in 1997 and the deal established legal powersharing between him & an islamic political party, he's increasingly used laws to restrict the practice of islam (despite Tajikistan being 96% muslim) because it poses a threat to his dictatorship.

[Delulu Rogers 7,676]

17 hours ago, Bronco said:

Well...why would a white supremacist party seek to introduce a law that explicitly targets a non-whire racial minority in their country? 

Like lets think here. You asked why people treat this law differently to a ban on the garments in an islamic nation. And the answer is really simple - the motivation behind that law. 

You misunderstood what I was asking. I was not asking what the motivation behind Portugal or European countries are. I’m specifically asking what the motivation behind Islamic countries are to do this ban. 

 

[Delulu Rogers 7,676]

17 hours ago, Bronco said:

Its also worth pointing out that the laws in question are often the result of authoritarian leadership in those islamic nations deliberately targeting tribal populations & weaker islamic sects as a method of ensuring their continued political power. 

For example - President Rahman of Tajikistan. Ever since the civil war ended in 1997 and the deal established legal powersharing between him & an islamic political party, he's increasingly used laws to restrict the practice of islam (despite Tajikistan being 96% muslim) because it poses a threat to his dictatorship.

This was an answer I was looking for 

[gagzus 24,506]

It’s a shame that people don’t understand that this is simply Islamophobia because western white people wont even let women wear shorter skirts, wouldn’t let them wear trousers or even vote until the last 100 years not to mention the autonomy of their bodies are now in question. But god forbid we give people the choice to wear a Burqa should they desire to. Perhaps let’s no longer allow nuns to wear habits next. 
 

Oh wait we won’t because they’re majority white Christian or catholic. That’s the difference. White people think colonial rules should be the only rules.

[Delulu Rogers 7,676]

18 hours ago, River said:

Yes Muslim countries can ban a anything related to Islam that they feel like it not good for them anymore, they have their Ulama that advising them about anything related to Islam and it's their business, not ours

A non-muslim country shouldn't ban anything Islamic and fight against their own Muslim citizens, just because they don't like it.. they are abusing their power to harm a minority.

Sorry this is dripping with hypocrisy. I’m not even arguing one thing or the other but essentially you’re saying a Muslim country can fight against its own citizens and make laws against what they “feel like is not good” and that’s okay? And then you say it’s their business and not ours meaning we shouldn’t question it or criticise it? 

There would be no difference in level of freedom or how a Muslim person would feel/be treated living in Portugal or in a Muslim majority country with the same law being applied but according to you one is okay and one is not based on if Muslims are majority or minority in that country? 

Any government can restrict freedoms on its people regardless if that group is a majority or not. Surely you know this. And if we are against Portugal doing this cause it targets certain Muslim women then logically we should be against other Muslim countries that have the exact same law. To have a “well they don’t think it’s good for them/ their business not ours” attitude towards one and not the other is simple hypocritical. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,126]

57 minutes ago, Delulu Rogers said:

This was an answer I was looking for 

Which is a similar motivation to that of Western countries: the abuse of state authority to abridge civil liberties and control the population by dictating what religious practices are and are not acceptable.

[River 128,329]

1 hour ago, Delulu Rogers said:

Sorry this is dripping with hypocrisy. I’m not even arguing one thing or the other but essentially you’re saying a Muslim country can fight against its own citizens and make laws against what they “feel like is not good” and that’s okay? And then you say it’s their business and not ours meaning we shouldn’t question it or criticise it? 

There would be no difference in level of freedom or how a Muslim person would feel/be treated living in Portugal or in a Muslim majority country with the same law being applied but according to you one is okay and one is not based on if Muslims are majority or minority in that country? 

Any government can restrict freedoms on its people regardless if that group is a majority or not. Surely you know this. And if we are against Portugal doing this cause it targets certain Muslim women then logically we should be against other Muslim countries that have the exact same law. To have a “well they don’t think it’s good for them/ their business not ours” attitude towards one and not the other is simple hypocritical. 

I mean you can question it and criticize it as well if you want, nobody's stopping you.

But how well are u educated about Islam in a country and government level? the laws, etc.?

At the end it's all about the motivation, the reason why, which as a non-Muslim, I don't know the reason, in a religious level, why in a Muslim country they decided to ban the burqa.. in some sense, it's about their own evolution as a religion and a society and it's not my place to interfere.. but if the reason, is to fight a certain sect of Islam in the country, then I think it's the right time to criticize them, because at this point, it's all about discrimination. 

but I know that in a country like Portugal, a non-Muslim country, the reason is Islamophobia, not security, not feminism, simply because they want to show that they are in power and the Muslims should obey.

[Delulu Rogers 7,676]

57 minutes ago, River said:

I mean you can question it and criticize it as well if you want, nobody's stopping you.

But how well are u educated about Islam in a country and government level? the laws, etc.?

At the end it's all about the motivation, the reason why, which as a non-Muslim, I don't know the reason, in a religious level, why in a Muslim country they decided to ban the burqa.. in some sense, it's about their own evolution as a religion and a society and it's not my place to interfere.. but if the reason, is to fight a certain sect of Islam in the country, then I think it's the right time to criticize them, because at this point, it's all about discrimination. 

but I know that in a country like Portugal, a non-Muslim country, the reason is Islamophobia, not security, not feminism, simply because they want to show that they are in power and the Muslims should obey.

I agree with you on the Portugal stance but people shouldn’t turn a blind eye to Muslim countries that have the same laws. Regardless of how well we know the government, Islam etc at the end of the day, restricting what people wear is restrictions on humans rights and freedom. Period. The whole “evolution of a religion and society” should happen naturally over time, not because of laws in place to restrict personal rights. 

We need to hold everyone to the same standard and all too often people are very quick to dismiss/brush off/excuse the laws/behaviours of Muslim governments/societies and that shouldn’t be the case. 
 

 

[GagaisHotAF 459]

On 8/31/2026 at 4:07 PM, River said:

Yes Muslim countries can ban a anything related to Islam that they feel like it not good for them anymore, they have their Ulama that advising them about anything related to Islam and it's their business, not ours

A non-muslim country shouldn't ban anything Islamic and fight against their own Muslim citizens, just because they don't like it.. they are abusing their power to harm a minority.

you can still see women in burqa in France here and there because the police is not wasting their time to fine a woman that does absolutely nothing but wearing a burqa..

Gaga is not a citizen of Indonesia, so your example makes no sense here.

it’s their business in a muslim country? but not their business in portugal?

[GagaisHotAF 459]

On 8/31/2026 at 3:46 PM, Bronco said:

Nothing says secular government like targeted legal restrictions against the freedom to practice religion. 

one’s religious traditions shouldn’t pose security risks. there are 2 billion muslims in the world, they aren’t oppressed. if they are against the laws in portugal, they can go somewhere else where there are more people with their same beliefs 🤷🏻‍♂️

[GagaisHotAF 459]

On 8/31/2026 at 3:16 PM, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I am too, but states banning the practice/expression of religion (and disproportionately targeting one specific religion) ain’t it. The battle for secularity is fought in the realm of civil discourse, not government censorship of civil religious practice.

not allowing burqas isn’t censorship. it is for security reasons. they are free to move to a country that have beliefs like theirs. 

[nATAH 57,657]

1 hour ago, GagaisHotAF said:

one’s religious traditions shouldn’t pose security risks. there are 2 billion muslims in the world, they aren’t oppressed. if they are against the laws in portugal, they can go somewhere else where there are more people with their same beliefs 🤷🏻‍♂️

disgusting

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,126]

9 hours ago, GagaisHotAF said:

not allowing burqas isn’t censorship.

It’s decidedly the abridgment of a religious liberty.