{"id":1569,"date":"2018-03-20T20:12:51","date_gmt":"2018-03-20T20:12:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1569"},"modified":"2018-07-21T08:36:24","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T08:36:24","slug":"islamic-veil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/islamic-veil","title":{"rendered":"Islamic Veil"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is an example of a broader issue. There is nothing intrinsically particular to Islam nor to the veil, besides being a kind-of-religion and a kind-of-piece of cloth.<\/h3>\n

Open Religion<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I see a huge difference between nonconceptual re-ligion (\u2018Open Religion\u2019) and any conceptual \u2018god-view\u2019 called religion<\/em> where openness, depth\u2026 are barely understood.<\/p>\n

For more about this, [see \u2018What is Open Religion?<\/a>\u2019].<\/p>\n

No room for oppression<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From a non-Islamic viewpoint, the Islamic veil frequently seems to be an instrument of female oppression. If oppression is the veiling reason, whether it be by father, mother, uncle, brother or even oneself (!), then there is of course no point in wearing it at any place of the world. The oppression of women for no other reason than being women, is never OKAY, as it is never OKAY to oppress anyone for just being this or that particular kind of person in sex, color, number of hairs or toes or anything in between.<\/p>\n

Moreover, using the veil as instrument of oppression has nothing to do with re-ligion. Nor has such use of any utterance of depth at all. For instance, in the same vein: why does a Western bride sometimes weir a veil? Oppression? I don\u2019t think so. If it would be, it would be so wrong.<\/p>\n

As high-quality symbol<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For more about symbolism, [see: \u2018Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.<\/a>\u2019]<\/p>\n

Acknowledging the importance of any true<\/em> symbol, wearing a veil is as such hugely interesting. It\u2019s a pity when a society bans such symbols. Even more: it\u2019s downright dangerous in view of what else may take the place of the banned symbols. People need the vertical communication that comes with symbols. If this isn\u2019t realized in a nice way, it will be so in a bad way.<\/p>\n

However, as you may have read when following the links above, true<\/em> symbolification emerges from completely inside. It is indeed a \u2018vertical communication\u2019, very different from a mere sign.<\/p>\n

Thus, instead of banning, it\u2019s better to support and inform. Needed is a proper insight in depth and symbolism itself. Not very common nowadays, regretfully.<\/p>\n

The wearing of a veil can also be very elegant.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why not? Elegance is beauty that comes from deep inside [see \u2018What is Elegance?<\/a>\u2019]. This way, it\u2019s always<\/em> related to re-ligion. Naturally, people make their holy shrines \/ temples beautiful. Almost never do they think that religion should specifically not<\/em> be beautiful.<\/p>\n

I personally have concrete experiences of finding a veil \u2013 properly worn \u2013 very<\/em> elegant. OK, most pronounced in meditational context and with the sea as a background\u2026 \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n

Thus, a true symbol can also never be imposed.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s organic. It needs to grow from deep inside, like a lotus in a pond. Thanks to Buddhism for this nice symbol of what a symbol is about. If you try to tear the lotus towards the surface of the water, you break it. It\u2019s dead.<\/p>\n

Likewise, aggressively imposing to wear a veil \u2013 or to use any \u2018symbol\u2019 from any \u2018religion\u2019 from any part of the world \u2013 is deadly to the symbol itself. Thus, it\u2019s anti-re-ligious. In a proper sense of the word, it\u2019s sacrilegious.<\/p>\n

So, there is no question of \u2018allowing any culture\/religion to impose its religious symbols on anyone.\u2019 It\u2019s just plainly impossible. There is no such symbol<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Should then any kind of veil be tolerated?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sure\u2026 on condition that oppression \u2013 aggressive as it always is \u2013 under disguise of religion be banned.<\/p>\n

This is applicable everywhere. Moreover, in a culture in which true Western enlightenment is essential, it runs counter to this culture. There is then not a question of tolerance versus no tolerance, but of a balance between tolerance-of-this versus tolerance-of-that.<\/p>\n

Equally so would be a banning of the veil, for the same reason.<\/p>\n

To do: making clear that \u2018religious\u2019 oppression is not<\/em> to be tolerated.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ah, I would like to see a \u2018day of the veil\u2019 on which all<\/em> women are invited to weir one (or a scarf\u2026) as a sign against such.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is an example of a broader issue. There is nothing intrinsically particular to Islam nor to the veil, besides being a kind-of-religion and a kind-of-piece of cloth. Open Religion I see a huge difference between nonconceptual re-ligion (\u2018Open Religion\u2019) and any conceptual \u2018god-view\u2019 called religion where openness, depth\u2026 are barely understood. For more about Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1570,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/205.jpg?fit=960%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-pj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1569"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1569"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1569\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1580,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1569\/revisions\/1580"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}