Writing at The Intercept, Murtaza Hussain took issue with a “US military white paper [describing] wearing hijab as ‘passive terrorism’.”

A policy paper issued by the Air Force Research Laboratory, titled Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods & Strategies, includes a chapter setting forth controversial and unsubstantiated theories of radicalization, including the idea that support for militant groups is driven by “sexual deprivation” and that headscarves worn by Muslim women represent a form of “passive terrorism.”

In the interest of accuracy, it is worth noting the publication was not an Air Force policy paper, and it included the disclaimer that the views were expressly only the authors’.

It is also not unusual for the US military to publish academic collections of perspectives that might include “controversial” subjects. For example, now-retired LtCol James Parco — an advocate for Michael “Mikey” Weinstein — once compiled “controversial” opinions on religion in the military. Among the works was a piece by Mikey Weinstein’s research assistant, Chris Rodda, claiming US troops celebrating Easter were “flaunting Christianity” and “convinc[ing] the Muslims [sic] we’re on a crusade.” Despite the alignment of Parco, Weinstein, and Rodda, the military’s official publication of the works did not make it an Air Force policy position — just as it does not here.

Finally, it is also worth noting author Tawfik Hamid (who previously advocated that the US military should stop apologizing to Afghan Muslims and use the Koran instead) did not claim headscarves were a “form of passive terrorism,” as Hussain asserts. Rather, Hamid said

The proliferation of militant Salafism and the hijab contribute to the idea of passive terrorism…

And he said “passive terrorism”

occurs when moderate segments of the population decline to speak against or actively resist terrorism.

It is not a sound bite easily separated from the context of his paper, nor is the concept entirely from Hamid’s own mind.

All that said, Hussain isn’t exactly known for objective and non-sensationalist stories.  He advocated the idea, for instance, that the US manufactured the impetus behind US involvement in Syria.

Whether Hamid’s position has merit is certainly open to discussion. In that discussion, however, his position should be fairly presented — and not presented as a policy position of the US military.

ADVERTISEMENT