Clit Nicker Sacked

On a tip from CGW

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD is known to WoJ readers as a radical Islamic headbanger who warned American Muslims against working in law enforcement in our ‘infidel’ nation (see here ).

Dr. al-Haj  is also an advocate for FGM and explained why female genital mutilation is “recommended”  and even ‘an honor’ for women…. Needless to mention that none of this has anything to do with Islam…. after all, its just a ‘cultural nick’, right?

Thanks to our petition the good doctor has been sacked. Needless to mention  that he is now in full blown victimisation mode and rants against  ‘racist bigot islamophobes’ who resist his cultural enrichment cuttings.

The doctor now has his own petition, accusing us of “lying” and urging all to “rebuke the islamophobes”:

You can sign his petition here:

Too late, he’s fired.
Note that religion was only referred to in the context of his own words/writing – we attacked the PRACTICE. He’s the one who based the practice on his religion, not us!
From the Mayo Clinic Public Affairs Dept.:
“Dr. Elhagaly is no longer employed or caring for patients at Mayo Clinic Health System in Albert Lea. We are working with his patients to transition their care to another physician. Because this is a personnel issue, we cannot comment further on Dr. Elhagaly’s employment status.
Female circumcision in children, referred to as female genital mutilation in U.S. legal statutes, is a felony-level child abuse crime. Mayo Clinic strongly opposes the procedure and it has never been performed at any Mayo Clinic facility.”
Thanks to CGW for sending this in!
The “ritual nick” to which he refers in an explanatory article on his site has no legitimate purpose.
Advocacy of an illegal practice, no matter how minimal, is unacceptable. To which females exactly is ANY cutting of the genitalia “minimal” BTW? No health-benefit arguments can be made for FGM – we know that the muslims copied the Jews in the practice of male circumcision – and now practice it not as part of a Covenant, but as something prescribed by allah and their “prophet”, and use modern-day justifications of health benefits (lower penile cancer rates, for example) –  but just “invented” legitimization of FGM for the purpose of controlling the sexual behavior of their females.
He makes an argument for excision of the clitoral hood, somewhat analogous to removal of the male foreskin, with the exception that it provides zero benefit in the vast majority of cases.  (In a video at his website, he proclaims that it prevents “morbid sexual excitement” ! ? !) The problem with his justifications is that this type of extremely limited “female circumcision” is so rare as to be virtually non-existent; the most common and widespread form involves complete removal of the entire clitoris, (and often the labia, including infibulation), analogous to the removal of the entire penis in the male. Obviously, this does not prevent sexual desire/arousal, but only sexual pleasure/release.
The bottom line is that, as an islamic “scholar”, he is free to make whatever recommendations he wishes, but in his capacity as a physician in the US, where FGM of any and all types is illegal, he  must suffer the consequences of his advocacy of such a practice. Advocacy of an illegal practice encourages people to break the law.
A little background:

12 thoughts on “Clit Nicker Sacked”

  1. You’re welcome, CGW.

    I’m posting his defiant drivel from his own website here before he takes it off:

    Clarification of My Position on Female Circumcision

    Some websites known for their Islamophobia have been waging a campaign against me because of statements I made regarding female circumcision, known as female genital cutting, (and many unjustifiably insist on calling all of its forms, female genital mutilation.[1])

    Some of those individuals behind the campaign may be themselves victims of an atmosphere of conflict and mistrust, created and promoted by people who have an interest in its existence. They may be feeling threatened, because they were told that the six million Muslims in America (Pew says 2.6) are here to destroy America from within and change their way of life forever. It is hard to imagine how six million people, many of them are recent emigrants working hard to survive, can force their way of life on more than three hundred million people, who have all the power in their hands. That is even so when those six million are in agreement on the desired way of life, which they are not. It is also hard to imagine how viscous human beings can become against someone they have never had any contact with, because of his position regarding a subtype of a medical procedure, or an ethnic practice.

    I feel it is necessary to explain my position to the public.

    Background and chronology

    About seven years ago, I was working on my PhD thesis in Islamic law titled ‎‘The Impact of Medical Advancements ‎on Religious Edicts and Judgeship.’‎ One of the issues to be discussed was female circumcision. Around that time, there was a concerted campaign to condemn, criminalize and demonize all forms of female genital cutting, which they called female genital mutilation. I had known that the permissibility of some form of this practice is agreed upon within Islamic orthodoxy of the past. This made me set out to research the form that is sanctioned and the science behind this campaign. I didn’t find a shred of evidence that the form sanctioned by Islam, which I will call here ‘ritual nick,’ was proven by any science to be harmful.

    Around the same time, as well, I received several questions from concerned Muslims about this practice and its position in the religion. It was expected that I will answer them with my convictions about the matter from the Islamic and scientific angles. However, I didn’t stop there. Knowing that the practice is illegal in America and other Western countries, I discouraged the enquirers and audiences every time I spoke about the issue from having it actually done. After all, the practice is not obligatory according to the vast majority of Muslim scholars, and nowhere is it emphasized like male circumcision. Also, it is not practiced in many conservative Muslim countries, such as Saudi-Arabia.

    I couldn’t stay out of this discourse, being a medical doctor with a PhD in Shari’a (Islamic law), who is aware of the issue from its theological and medical angles. I felt obliged to make the truth known, and to clear the name of my religion.

    Clarifying my position from five angles

    My position, as detailed in my PhD thesis, and the paper on the Arabic page of my website, was:

    To affirm that the only type of female genital cutting permitted in Islam is the ritual nick. In this ‎procedure, there is no excision of any part ‎of the clitoris. What is cut is the clitoral hood, which is the counter part of the male foreskin and much less in size.

    To denounce other forms of female genital cutting, and to call upon the Muslim scholars (clergy) to be on the forefront of the campaign against it, and to condemn silence in the face of these harmful practices.
    To explain that excessiveness in female genital cutting is a crime in Islam, and in some of its forms, it is comparable to killing.

    That, of course, is total BS. Go to “Female Genital Mutilation is the sunna of the prophet” and see for yourself!

    To denounce the performance of the above procedure, where it is legal, by anyone other than a licensed medical practitioner.
    To call upon Muslims in the West, or wherever the procedure is illegal to refrain from it, particularly that it is not obligatory according to the vast majority of Muslim scholars.
    To affirm that there is no science whatsoever that proves the one form of Islamically permitted circumcision “Sunni circumcision” to be harmful.
    (1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are not included in the “excerpted translation” on those radical sites.)

    Now, addressing the above from five angles: scientific, theological, ethical, professional, and legal:

    Scientifically, the one form of circumcision that is sanctioned in Islam, according to the position of the vast majority, as detailed in my thesis, has never been proven to be harmful. The part that is cut in this form is the counterpart of the male foreskin, and the procedure is comparable to it, though less extensive. [2] To spare you the details of the scientific discussion, I will say that there was not a single study, that meets any scientific standard, which looked separately at this type of circumcision, let alone proved its harm. The harm is also not conceivable, and there have been some potential benefits mentioned by some physicians[3] and sexologists. However, as I indicated in my thesis, their claims are not supported by studies that meet the scientific standards of today, so I won’t count on them. Nonetheless, the irrefutable fact is that no harm can be ascribed to this form of circumcision, to the extent that the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics said that the ritual nick is “no more of an ‎alteration than ear piercing.”‎[4] They also clearly said, “Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, ‎and pediatricians should decline to ‎perform them, even in the absence of any ‎legal constraints. However, the ritual nick ‎suggested by some pediatricians is not ‎physically harmful and is much less ‎extensive than routine newborn male ‎genital cutting.”[5]
    Theologically, the position I chose is that of the vast majority, who expressly indicated the permissibility of the procedure, and that it is, to an extent, recommended as well. The permissibility is an irrefutable consensus.
    Ethically, for those who separate between religion and ethics, I must say that ethics are to be seen within certain frames or contexts, including cultural ones. According to the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “The American Academy of Pediatrics ‎policy statement on newborn male ‎circumcision expresses respect for ‎parental decision-making and ‎acknowledges the legitimacy of including ‎cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions ‎when making the choice of whether to ‎surgically alter a male infant’s genitals.”[6] It is noteworthy that, for the Chinese, male circumcision, which they don’t practice, may also be called male genital mutilation! Will those who practice it in the West approve of this characterization? I think that when there is no medical harm, people of various cultures may decide what to do to their bodies.
    Professionally, as a physician of Mayo Clinic Health System in Albert Lea, I was always careful to distance my employer and professional caliber from this discourse, and in my answers, I never mentioned the name of Mayo Clinic Health System. I never even inferred that my positions have anything to do with my job. I never discussed the matter with co-workers or patients at my hospital, and never used the hospital’s tools or resources to recommend, justify or promote my position on this matter, which is, in the first place, a philosophical, not a practical one.
    Legally, I believe that I didn’t need to discourage people from the practice, as long as I didn’t encourage it. However, due to my concern for the safety of those who listen to me or read my answers, I did discourage them from this practice in every communication with them, verbal or written. As for myself, I have never performed that procedure. Moreover, I have never seen it done on any patient inside or outside the United States.
    Finally, I am willing to endure all the ‎consequences of my positions. I believe they were ‎well thought out, backed by science, ‎theologically valid, and legally safe.‎ These viscous attacks attempt to ‎undermine our confidence and debilitate ‎our energy to stop defending our religion ‎against unjustifiable assaults on its ‎teachings.‎ History says that mobs ‎have frequently controlled the discourse ‎and decided the conclusions. I will at least refrain from being a contributor to that trend by silence.

    [1] “The commonly used “female genital ‎mutilation” is also problematic. Some ‎forms of ‎FGC are less extensive than the ‎newborn male circumcision commonly ‎performed in the ‎West.‎” Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 5 May 1, 2010 pp. ‎‎1088 -1093‎.

    [2] The fact they are comparable may be found here: Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children [Online]/auth. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

    [3] For example, W. G. Rathmann, M.D, who graduated from the University of Nebraska, completed internships and residency training at U.S. Marine hospitals in Chicago, Seattle and Fort Stanton, N.M, and was a member of the senior surgical staff of Centinella Hospital, Inglewood. He said, “Redundancy or phimosis of the female prepuce can prevent proper enjoyment of sexual relations… Properly carried out, circumcision should bring improvement to 85 to 90 per cent of cases – with resulting cure of psychosomatic illness and prevention of divorces.”

    [4] Pediatrics Vol. 125 No. 5 May 1, 2010 pp. ‎‎1088 -1093‎. Although the ‎Committee on Bioethics of the American ‎Academy of Pediatrics reviewed ‎their ‎policy statement that was understood to be calling for ‎legalization of some forms of FGC, the ‎data they ‎quoted and science used in their ‎original article is not retractable without belying themselves or proof of the opposite.

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] Ibid.

  2. Thanks, Sheik.

    I just hate being viscous. I don’t mind being vicious, but being viscous is just plain icky!

    CGW

  3. Great job by CGW, and Sheikyermami’s article for the exposing this horrible Islamic Dr. Elhagaly of FGM, I wouldn’t want him near my family or anyone’s children, not to mention his beliefs. He got caught and now uses his “Taqiyya” trying to cover up his tracks concerning FGM. Kudos and thanks to CGW and Sheik for all you do, keep up the wonderful work!!

  4. A repulsive practice from an equally repulsive pseudo-religion. Another insight into their hatred and fear of women

  5. I love the irony in his last sentence…

    “History says that mobs ‎have frequently controlled the discourse ‎and decided the conclusions. I will at least refrain from being a contributor to that trend by silence.”

    Yes – much like the muslim mob that are hell bent on stifling any discourse on Islam as they are fully aware that ignorance is their friend.

  6. yes dear sheik
    there is something uglier than the sharia on the surface of this earth
    YOUR CORRUPTED SOUL

  7. yes dear sheik !
    there is something uglier than the sharia on the surface of this earth

    your corrupted soul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.