Veiled in anger, hiding the truth.

The manner in which someone dresses, and the perception which this conveys upon others is a challenge facing many in society.  However the wearing of clothing for religious purposes is a very old and established norm. That which is worn by religious leaders, both secular and ecumenical, and laity is something that defines one's identity. Despite this there is always challenges facing these individuals. Occupational guidelines and social traditions can be counter to such religious expressions.  In recent weeks this has been shown best in the debate regarding the niqab veil and the full length burqa, often worn by Muslim women. A court case in Hackney and a school in Birmingham are only the most recent locations where the wearing of the burqa has been challenged. 

  Birmingham Metropolitan College  has dropped it's ban on students wearing the full-face veil following complaints from those who wear it and attend the college. The ban which has been repealed was not solely targeting Muslim attendees, but also those who wore caps, hats and hoodies which made the wearer harder to identify. It was an effort to guarantee a clear recognition of all students attending the college. 

  Meanwhile a court case in Hackney has made the headlines when Judge Peter Murphy refused a 21-year-old woman from entering a plea unless she revealed her face from behind her full-length burqa. He clearly stated that he respected her "right to dress in any way she wishes", however he could not accept the plea "from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain". The concerns of Judge Murphy are based on the possibility that someone else could impersonate the accused if they are unable to identify her properly. 

  Both cases at the college and court raise not just the debate regarding the veil and burqa, but also the challenges it brings to the secular education and judicial systems within the UK. In the case of court plea, the protocol in place has been as such for longer than any debate about Muslim dress has been commonplace in this country. Meanwhile the U-turn performed by the college impacts on people far beyond the British Muslim Community. Both scenarios were neither created for the purpose of Muslim dress, however the manner in which each handles the fallout will be watched by Muslim and non-Muslim with increasing interest. 

  Though there are referencing in the Quar'an (Surah 24:31, 33:59) to which Muslims have interpreted as meaning the compulsory wearing of burqa and niqab; it would appear that the true source of authority can be traced to the idea of Namus, virtue. The context in which namus is predominant is with regards to male virtue. If a man's namus is violated, it is generally caused by a female family member. Such violations include the birth of a daughter rather than a son, if an adult daughter fails to dress 'appropriately', or even the rape of a daughter. To restore namus such 'methods' as honour killings, forced suicide, acid attacks, infanticide, and sex-selective abortions can be applied. The application of namus is not an Islamic invention, but would appear to predate all the Abrahamic faiths. It is a culture based ethical structure, which was adopted by Islam. It would seem fair therefore to not assume that this is a religious phenomenon, but rather a cultural one. Muhammad would have known about namus as he grew up in the Arabian Peninsula, and most likely adopted it for the Quar'an. It is commonplace for religious groups to adopt cultural habits of their coverts/adherents. This creates a spiritual path which members can relate to; it can also test the flexibility of a fledgling religion. For Islam, namus became and has become a cornerstone of the faith. Without it, the status of the burqa and niqab would not have developed to the position of prominence it enjoys in a Post-Modern world. 

  To those involved with Birmingham Metropolitan College and Blackfriars Crown Court, as well as all other Western minded people, the association of namus to the cases of veil and burqa would seem barbaric and inhuman. Chastising and killing of women and girls is something that the majority of the UK has reserved for the activities of those in the Dark Ages. However, the enforcement of the burqa and niqab is commonplace in the UK. Cases of honour killings and infanticide are also not foreign to the people of Great Britain due to its coverage on various media outlets. Despite the attitudes to these apparent alien practices, such attitudes towards women can also be found within the Laws found within the Torah (or New Testament). Too many have become fixated upon current outrages that they have forgotten past inhumanity. 

  It is more than clear that when the developments in Birmingham and Hackney are given further scrutiny it becomes apparent that it is more than a purely Islamic characteristic. It represents further examples of an ignorance towards Islam and its deeper faculties. The West understands to a cynical degree the factors and components which it's Christian heritage enjoys. A British child of 10 can know more about Christianity than a British adult of 70 will know about Islam. It is a reality which many ignore and prefer to hide through media scare mongering and political activism. Rather than understanding it we prefer to sweep it under the rug, making it gradually more and more taboo. A fear of the burqa and niqab is endangering us as a society, allowing ourselves to hide behind a veil of ignorance. If such attitudes are to be challenged, then a timidity towards such differences within society must be removed. 

Descartes and Wine: Dangers of Doubt.

  The works of Descartes permeates throughout much of society. The basic tenants of his work, in particular his 'Meditations', are a common topic of study for many university students. It is out of such an awareness that what I am about to write is grounded. From my time at university one of the many areas of knowledge which I left with was with regards to Descartes, and his argument relating to doubt.

  As all Cartesian scholars of varying experience shall know is that Meditation 1 focuses on the nature of doubt. My focus though is on the very beginning where the reader finds Descartes is pondering on reality, and whether one can trust what they see and subsequently know. He (Descartes) is sitting in front of an open fire, considering his thoughts with a glass of wine. Yet for me I am not reflecting upon any doubt which may be directed towards the fire, nor even the paper upon which Descartes is writing on. Rather it is the wine which is being consumed by this consummate Frenchman.

  Descartes concludes, as any person should know, that 'Cognito Ergo Sum', I think therefore I am.  Our capacity to think, and through that enables us to understand our universe through doubt and self-awareness. However the wine which Descartes is enjoying reflects a rather pedantic perspective from myself. When ones ability to think is interfered with, then the doubt must surely be exacerbated.

  As the ethanol enters your bloodstream and your brain becomes intoxicated, then doubt must surely become your enemy. When you are convinced into believing your senses when they are effected by the alcohol it becomes much more dangerous. Doubt becomes irrelevant when you cant tell the difference between doubt and false doubt. With a clear mind one can produce informed conclusions; however with intoxication there is every danger of foolishness. This is the fate of all those who consume sufficient alcohol to cloud both mind and doubt.

  Descartes' actions are an example of doubt becoming contaminated by human weakness. Our love of pleasure damages out capacities. Such harm can cause the wise to drift into madness, and all doubts to become clouded. One must learn to control the desire for intoxication, or suffer as a result. The mind is only limited by itself and only itself. If we restrict or damage this capacity, we become both Descartes' enemy and inadvertent friend.