BY JACOB WARING
A military policy paper which was issued by the Air Force Research Laboratory, titled “Countering Violent Extremism: Scientific Methods and Strategies,” made the outrageous claim that wearing a hijab is “passive terrorism.”
I am appalled that such a suggestion has been made. It is mind-boggling to think that we are at a point where we are encouraging islamophobia carelessly and subjecting women of Muslim faith to this unwarranted scrutiny of being “terrorists.”
I genuinely fear that this paper will lead to this country to cavalierly follow France’s lead in regards to hijabs and similar head scarves.
The implications that hijabs are an act of passive terrorism encroaches on individual freedoms. Muslim women are not forced to wear the hijab and wear it for religious reasons.
Perhaps a certain number are forced to dress as they do but honestly, every society on this planet has forced social expectations onto woman of all race, creed and beliefs for various reasons.
For example, in America, we have a bad habit of having our daughters dress according to whatever the dress code for their schools is. Apparently, we do this to protect our sons from their naughty thoughts and sexual urges. Thus, we forced our daughters to wear clothing based on that idiocy.
It is just as wrong to force a Muslim woman to wear a hijab or any variation of a head scarf as it is to ban the use of one. The whole idea of passive terrorism is another ongoing act of stigmatizing Muslim women.
It is sadly hilarious that wearing a crucifix is not considered passive terrorism. Like, hey, it is not like Christianity has not been a vehicle to endorse genocide.
If you don’t believe me then ask all the heretics, church splinter groups, dissenters, atheists, agnostics, deists, pagans, infidels and nonbelievers who got murdered. Oh, wait? You cannot because they are dead.
Or how about yamakas, should they be considered passive terrorism? Is bombing the Gaza strip in order to continue seizing land from Palestinians with disproportionate military actions, which resulted in civilian casualties, okay?
Oh, you find it problematic that I am labeling crucifixes and yamakas as passive terrorism? Golly gee, maybe you will see why I have a problem with calling hijabs passive terrorism just as it is ridiculous to claim crucifixes and yamakas are passive terrorism. This is not rocket science but common sense, which is lacked in that military paper.
Apparently according to the paper, that militancy is primarily a product of sexual deprivation and that terrorism bears relation to religious dress.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, who wrote the paper, does not elaborate or present empirical evidence to support such a claim.
Let us pretend that statement is true and let us apply it to Catholics. I find it bizarre as to why are we not seeing priests and nuns doing the same.
Heck, a nun’s habit must be passive terrorism because nuns are just as covered as a Muslim woman. It does not make sense to apply that statement to one religious group thus it does not make sense when applying to Muslims and hijabs.
So, Malala Yousafzai is passively terrorizing us all? She wears a hijab thus she must have terrorized her way to a Nobel Prize. Putting aside my heavy sarcasm, the military paper is unfounded, islamophobic and plain stupid.
Articles of clothing, how much clothing covers a woman and faith based outfits should never be considered passive terrorism.
Let us reserve such labels for Ku Klux Klan white robes, Nazi arm bands and other such bigoted, racist and hateful regalia.
On a final note, for all you Muslim women who wear hijabs, keep on passively terrorizing us because no one should tell you what you should and should not wear.