Shaker Elsayed, Imam of Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Fairfax County, Virginia, thinks female genital mutilation is just fine in order to control the “hyper-sexuality of women.” This video was made of his explanation of just “cutting the tip” of young girls’ sexual parts in order to keep their desire and pleasure under control:
As you might imagine, this caused outrage. Dar al-Hijrah announced that the Imam was placed on administrative leave and “clarified” their beliefs:
1- The harmful practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is prohibited in Islam as well as the laws of the land.
2- We at Dar Al-Hijrah, DO NOT condone, promote, or support any practice of FGM.
3- The reference to “Hyper-sexuality” is offensive and it is unequivocally rejected. The Board of Directors is particularly disturbed by such comments.
4- We call upon the Muslim Scholars (clergy) to be on the forefront of the campaign against FGM and to condemn silence in the face of these harmful practices.
5- We at Dar Al-Hijrah, are committed to continue sensitivity training of our staff regarding these critical issues.
Elsayed even corrected himself, saying, “FGM is very harmful to women’s health, and anything in Islam that is harmful is in fact prohibited.” He also said he shouldn’t have used the word “hyper-sexuality.” “I take it back, and I do apologize to all those who are offended by it.”
However, Washington Post reporter Abigail Hauslohner covered this story with a lot less outrage than is merited. On her Twitter account, where she was promoting her piece, she told everyone that 400 people had signed a petition to support the Imam. Wait, what? To support the guy who believes in genital mutilation? Yep. That’s right.
She also described the poor mosque as being “embattled” by the controversy. Then, in a revealing tweet, she defended the mosque:
So, if the mosque, which is advocating ripping off the genitals of young girls, is not a hotbed of horror, what is? But the reporter didn’t let the moment go to waste. She, you see, is the true victim in this scenario:
No, the outrage isn't because she was #ReportingWhileFemale, it was because she was #ReportingWhileDefendingTheIndefensible.
