US DoD white paper: wearing hijab is "passive terrorism"

[Read the post]



Women are culprits of men not getting laid enough and so on becoming terrorists.

My solution: Terrorist need to jerk off more often, browse 4chan.


Do they call it “spank the Mohamad”?

1 Like

And this guy has a job?

I mean, I’m sure he’d be fine flipping burgers or something, but making big decisions about other people is obviously WAY out of his purview.

The fact that it even occurred to him to form an opinion…wow.


I certainly wouldn’t sign under the “passive terrorism” part of the hypothesis (or really any blame for the system on women). But one of Daesh’s selling points is all the opportunity for sexual enslavement of captured girls. In the context of societies with prohibitive barriers to any premarital contact between sexes and high economic thresholds for marriage, I’m sure it plays some role in the decision making of young men.

Plus - on the “lack of evidence” bit: What kind of evidence would you expect there to be, epistemologically speaking? Talking about the subjective reasons for human actions (which are always complex and manifold, even to the degree they can be known at all by the individual himself), who will self-report that as his primary motivation? To, I assume, his captors?

“Oh, I joined the terrorist organization and started massacring civilians, including children and the elderly, because I couldn’t get laid.” Are you really going to admit that (even to your self)? Or will you claim justification through divine calling, retribution for foreign meddling or economic desperation?


The process begins with the propagation of Salafi jihadist ideology within a community. Increasing numbers of women begin to wear the hijab, which is both a symptom of Salafi proliferation and a catalyst for Islamism (see, e.g., Mahmood, 2005).

Oh, he has a source! Maybe his source has more credibility. What does his source say about the hijab?

The women’s mosque movement is part of the larger Islamic Revival or Islamic
Awakening (al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya) that has swept the Muslim world,
including Egypt, since at least the 1970s. “Islamic Revival” is a term that refers
not only to the activities of state-oriented political groups but more broadly to
a religious ethos or sensibility that has developed within contemporary Muslim
societies. This sensibility has a palpable public presence in Egypt, manifest
in the vast proliferation of neighborhood mosques and other institutions of
Islamic learning and social welfare, in a dramatic increase in attendance at
mosques by both women and men, and in marked displays of religious sociability.
Examples of the latter include the adoption of the veil (hijab), a brisk consumption
and production of religious media and literature, and a growing circle
of intellectuals who write and comment upon contemporary affairs in the popular
press from a self-described Islamic point of view.
Movements such as these have come to be associated with terms such
as fundamentalism, the subjugation of women, social conservatism, reactionary
atavism, cultural backwardness, and so on—associations that, in the
aftermath of September 11, are often treated as “facts” that do not require further

Okay, so the source sounds credible, but he’s saying the exact opposite of what Hamid is saying — that the hijab is not necessarily a signifier of “fundamentalism, the subjugation of women, social conservatism, reactionary atavism, cultural backwardness, and so on.”

So, basically, Hamid is an idiot who doesn’t actually read the articles he cites.

I’m shocked. Aren’t you shocked?


Can’t imagine that that could result in any kind of radicalization!


Wait, did somebody bring up ‘sexual depravity?’

So, how does this relate to the more conservative Christian movements with their crosses and purity cults?

Because this can’t just be limited to one race or religion right? I mean the guys not being openly bigoted here is he? (Yes it’s sarcasm).


So let me get this straight:

For all intents and purposes, males are the ones who have structured our current sexual atmosphere in the world.

Unless I’m mistaken, it was mainly males who decided that sex, sexuality, and reproduction are all irreversibly entangled with one’s morality and their worth as a human being. (Usually religious belief comes into play somewhere therein too.)

Because of this attitude, sexual intercourse and sexual feelings are often unfairly attributed with negative connotations; with females being the gender that bears the brunt of the antipathy.

Because its been decided that the onus of sex (and consequently, reproduction) falls solely on us females for some reason, women are often forced into conforming to one-dimensional societal roles; ie, the Madonna/Whore Complex.

And because the available sexual archetypes for females are so severely limited, many women in the world tend to err on the side of prudence, repression and outright self-denial, especially when they realize that the consequences of having sex (or even expressing any sexuality) are so much higher for them than their male counterparts.

So… that means that although women outnumber men, many heterosexual men are not having nearly as much sex as they’d like to, because of the societal/moral constraints that their gender has imposed since time out of mind; demonizing sex and vilifying women…

And that in turn creates an atmosphere of frustration and resentment amongst a certain subset of the male population.

Is that about right?


Oh, yes, it’s our fault again, for not offering free vagina to all and sundry. “Is there a way we can blame terrorism on women? YES!”


So you’re saying we need to “just look at it”?


Hamid’s theory of radicalization states that terrorism stems from a lack of sexual activity among young men and that addressing this issue is key to reducing support for militant groups. “I believe young Muslims are motivated to join radical groups because of sexual deprivation,” he writes, claiming further that “addressing the factors causing deprivation in this life can interrupt the radicalization process and reduce the number of suicide attacks by jihadists.”

If you’ve never heard this theory before, let me assure you it is quite commonplace, and not at all unusual.

I have most frequently heard it from people explaining why they were violent and rageful before they left fundamentalist Islamic or polygamist Jack Mormon communities. They basically say “as soon as I got some compassionate, socially approved sexual expression in my life, I became a more compassionate, less sociopathic person.”

I ain’t sayin’ it’s right or wrong, I’m saying it’s a very widely held opinion, that I have heard expressed hundreds of times, and I am honestly surprised if anyone over the age of 12 has not heard it before.

Personally I wonder if it’s not putting the cart before the horse… confusing effects and causes, as it were.


There is indeed a trend in the right wing of all three Abrahamic religions to blame every bad thing in the world on the carnality of women. I must try to avoid essay writing on this subject, but I have a strong suspicion that the inclusion of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis has a similar origin to the inclusion of this bit of barking in the DoD paper; a group of people wanted to get their POV over.

But the important thing is that the sexuality has to be controlled and rationed by the patriarchy. Women voluntarily wearing a hijab - as a sign of group membership - are doing the controlling themselves, just like women who go the opposite way. I think this is all about who is making the decisions. Eve not only does what the patriarchy told her not to do (becomes educated, if you take the story fully literally) but she gets a man to do it too. Double naughty.

And women making their own decisions not to conform are obviously radicals, and so potential terrorists.

Yes, I do irony.



fuck raging against the machine

rage against the patriarchy!

i’ve been fighting against it for 42 years, ever since i was confronted with a grotesque demonstration of the double standard when i was in the 7th grade.


This seems to be yet another situation in which a person projects their own circumstances and motivations onto others. I’m imagining that he’s so convinced that the sexual deprivation is the cause because perhaps that was his personal reasoning. But that doesn’t mean that it is everyone’s.

Just like the people who say you can’t be fulfilled in life unless you have kids are only actually saying that they themselves wouldn’t feel fulfilled unless they had kids.

Just like some members of some religions believe that you can’t be a moral person without religion, but they’re only actually saying that they wouldn’t be moral people without their religion.

The fact that he ultimately blames women sounds like sexual deprivation is still an issue for him. It’s a pretty common trope for a dude who feels rejected by women to lash out at them as if they are the cause for them not finding him attractive (e.g. Elliot Rodgers and his homicidal pity party).


Dominionism at work.

Polygamist Mormon boys get dumped outside the community to make room for the elders, I can’t see how that would be analogous to the situation as described. Yes they’re full of anger, but at women?


So you think that the fact that women in secular Islamic countries did not begin to wear hijab until the countries were taken over by fundamentalist Islamists (who use capital and corporal punishment to enforce dress codes) is just a coincidence, and that these women who wear the hijab (virtually every single woman in the country) are actually liberated, free, and are doing this as a cool new choice?

And those of us who point this out are Islamophobic no doubt.

1 Like

Unfortunately, they tend to resort to sex with younger boys and each other, at least in some areas. Just like a Born Again Christian might do anal as a technical work around, in cultures where segregation of sexes is enforced, and per-marital sex can end in death, it’s a viable work-around.

And then there is the work around where clerics OK rape and sex slaves in the name of Jihad.

Re: The hijab, I am all for wearing what ever you want, and feel free to express your belief system through ritual and garments. But part of me feels this tradition is more about control, power, and shaming that it is about showing reverence for a god.

1 Like