{"id":34599,"date":"2016-03-11T00:15:17","date_gmt":"2016-03-11T03:15:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=34599"},"modified":"2016-11-24T21:51:36","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T00:51:36","slug":"air-force-paper-on-the-passive-terrorism-of-hijabs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/03\/11\/air-force-paper-on-the-passive-terrorism-of-hijabs\/","title":{"rendered":"Air Force Paper on the Passive Terrorism of Hijabs"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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 \u201csexual deprivation\u201d and that headscarves worn by Muslim women represent a form of \u201cpassive terrorism.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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’.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> by Mikey Weinstein’s research assistant, Chris Rodda, claiming US troops celebrating Easter were “flaunting Christianity” and “convinc[ing] the Muslims [sic<\/em>] 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.<\/p>\n

Finally,\u00a0it is also worth noting author Tawfik Hamid (who previously advocated that the US military should stop apologizing to Afghan Muslims<\/a> and use the Koran instead) did not claim headscarves were a “form of passive terrorism,” as Hussain asserts. Rather, Hamid said<\/p>\n

The proliferation of militant Salafism and the hijab contribute to the idea of passive terrorism…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And he said “passive terrorism”<\/p>\n

occurs when moderate segments of the population decline to speak against or actively resist terrorism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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

All that said, Hussain isn’t exactly known for objective and non-sensationalist stories.\u00a0 He advocated the idea, for instance, that the US manufactured the impetus behind US involvement in Syria<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n