On a day when the British government announced that it will spy on Muslim students, since universities have become "fertile recruiting grounds," Martin Newland comments on the current acceptance of undermining all symbols of religion with a skeptical, if not scathing  and supposedly informed eye:

Reactions in everyday secular society to manifestations of religiosity, such as the veil, range from a patronising accept-ance to the downright insulting. We are told, by the diligent self-publicist Salman Rushdie, that the veil "sucks". Columnist Allison Pearson says the veil is a "nosebag" and a "female-inhibiting shroud from the House of Taliban". Yasmin Alibhai-Brown claims that the veil is not mandated by the Qur’an. But what is mandated is that women cover themselves. What is also mandated is that men dress plainly. And the original texts have been followed, as in all the mainstream faiths, by teachings and interpretation which are also considered by the faithful to be linked to the will of God.

I’m sorry Mr. Rushdie but I don’t think I could comfortably vilify a majority of the female population of Cairo and many of the students at AUC. Nor do I think, Ms. Pearson, that any of them believe they are falling in line with the Taliban by being devout.