Restrictions on face-covering garments are enacted to allay public concerns
In a significant move, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan signed a law on June 30, 2025, banning face-covering clothing in public places. This decision comes amidst growing concerns about the influence of certain religious organisations in the country.
The banned items include balaclavas, masks, niqabs, and burqas, as they hinder personal identification. According to the author, this move is a response to the troubles Kazakhstan has been dealing with for the past 10 years, which have now reached its shores.
The author, who has been closely following the situation, notes that these organisations are now more active in Kazakhstan than they were previously. They suggest that these organisations were more interested in Russia than Kazakhstan at the time. The author also warns about the dangers of sincere but half-learned individuals who simplify Islam, a religion they believe to be more complex than other religions.
The author's term for simplified interpretations of Islam is 'Islam-light'. They believe that subversive activities against the state can occur under the guise of religious confrontation. There is a concern that this symbolism could escalate into religious conflict.
The President of Kazakhstan believes the law should have been implemented earlier. The law is seen as a step to prevent religious symbolism from becoming a symbol of religious identity. The new law aims to calm society and remove religious issues from public attention.
Kazakhstan's unique feature is its multireligious nature, with Muslims, Christians, and Jews all represented. The author predicts that all reforms will lead to establishing clear relations between power and Islamic structures.
Interestingly, the search results do not contain any information about the Russian government's position on whether it is time to move away from symbolic forms such as face coverings that might be used under the pretext of religious conflict.
However, Kazakhstan's experience in coordinating the positions of indigenous religions could be beneficial for other countries facing similar issues. The author states that legality and faith are closely intertwined, and the new law allows for private religious practices and rituals at home, but prohibits public confrontations, even at a small scale.
In conclusion, the ban on face-covering clothing in public spaces in Kazakhstan is a significant step towards maintaining social harmony and preventing religious symbolism from becoming a symbol of religious identity. As the country navigates these complex religious issues, its multireligious nature and history of coordinating indigenous religions could provide valuable insights for other nations facing similar challenges.
