March 23, 2025 - 8:00am
Is there any public benefit to the “advancement of religion”? Under the Charities Act 2011, places of worship can achieve charitable status if they demonstrate that their activities are for the public benefit. But what if the views espoused in such settings cause harm to wider society?
This is an urgent question, because yet another mosque has fallen foul of the rules. This time it’s the An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre, a registered charity in Birmingham which posted a video of a preacher who effectively condoned domestic violence and marital rape. Mahamed AbdurRazaq was advising a congregation on what a husband could do if his wife refused to have sex with him.
“If she continues to refuse having intercourse with him then […] he doesn’t sleep with her in the same bed,” AbdurRazaq states. “If that doesn’t help then he’s allowed to hit her.” Elaborating further, he says that men should hit so that it “does not bruise and that does not break bones”. Imagine being a woman in this part of the community, scared of saying no to your husband because he might beat you up.
Part of the problem is that many literal interpretations of the Quran are misogynistic. Chapter Surah An-Nisa in the Quran states: “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other […] So righteous women are devoutly obedient.” It goes on: “But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance — [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.”
But what’s really concerning is that the Charity Commission has simply issued An-Noor with “advice and guidance”. This is just the latest in a long line of cases where religious settings have been allowed to promote hateful content and get away with a slap on the wrist.
Shakeel Begg, head imam of Lewisham Islamic Centre, was found by a High Court judge in 2016 to be an “extremist preacher”, and was deemed to have “promoted religious violence”. Yet he was allowed to remain a preacher at the registered charity, which regularly hosts schoolchildren.
As far back as 2009, the Charity Commission launched an investigation into the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF), after multiple reports claimed that its schools in Haringey and Slough were promoting the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir — a pan-Islamist group which seeks to establish a global caliphate. Despite that, the charity watchdog was “satisfied” that the ISF was operating as a charitable educational organisation. A relevant detail here is that Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in several Muslim countries, and was finally proscribed by the British Government last year.
A former civil servant who worked in counter-extremism tells me that part of the problem is the lack of expertise in the sector. The other is fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic. “They’re risk averse,” he says. “They’re scared that someone will take them to court, and [if they get it wrong] they’ll have to pay costs and damages. I used to say, ‘You’re a massive Government organisation. Losing a case here and there shouldn’t make a difference!’”
But the Charity Commission isn’t totally impotent: sometimes, it acts. In the high-profile case of the Captain Tom Foundation, created by the late soldier’s family after his famous garden laps during Covid, the watchdog found there had been repeated instances of misconduct. His daughter and her husband had been lining their own pockets and were subsequently disqualified from being charity trustees for a period of 10 and eight years respectively.
So the Charity Commission can do something when it wants to, but only if it’s an easy win. By not fully reprimanding An-Noor for its misogyny, the watchdog is not only exposing itself as hypocritical but also putting women in danger. Last week, Lord Walney, the Government’s former anti-extremism tsar, said the charity regulator was carrying out investigations at a “glacial pace”. He claimed: “Ministers must act to dispel the climate of fear that is frustrating effective action to protect our liberal British values from religious extremism.”
Yet things are unlikely to improve under Labour, considering its creation of an Islamophobia Working Group tasked with imposing a new and broader definition of anti-Muslim prejudice. Critics have claimed the move will create a de facto blasphemy law which limits free speech. And, as the An-Noor case demonstrates, religiously sanctioned misogyny and abuse will continue unchecked unless politicians take a stand.
Iram Ramzan is a journalist and commentator who has previously worked at the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times. She writes the Substack Off The Record With Iram.
Iram_Ramzan
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis was not a bad article until this, “People may be confused as to why so many Conservatives have drunk the Kool Aid when it comes to trans ideology. But it’s not surprising to me at all: the notion that the brain is ‘sexed’ as opposed to bodies is a deeply regressive and conservative belief “
What utter nonsense. The reasons the Conservatives support/ed trans ideology were purely pragmatic and financial, ie, to show that they were as progressive as Labour and the Lib Dems, to do as Stonewall wanted them to do, to facilitate money making by Big Pharma, to align themselves with the EU and the UN, possibly the WEF also.
Julie Bindel’s ideas about the Conservative Party are way out of date.
To be truly conservative would be to catagorically state that there are only two sexes, to treat troubled confused children with compassion not drugs, and to uphold the rule of law by protecting all of us; men, women, gays, trans, whatever, against threats of violence, intimidation and discrimination with sufficient police on the streets and justice infrastructure. The laws were in place to do that long before 2010.
Yes I choked on “the notion that the brain is ‘sexed’ … is a deeply regressive and conservative belief”. There was a great article a few days ago on Quillette by David Geary on this topic. The brain is in most cases quite ‘sexed’. Scientists looking at brain scans can correctly identify the biological sex 93% of the time. That’s not regressive conservatism and its not ‘belief’ folks, that’s a verifiable scientific fact.
Yes. I mentioned this before on Unherd but it’s also relevant here. In her book Testosterone Carole Hooven says how there are three peak in testosterone level in men. The first occurs in the womb and it affects the development of the foetus including the brain. There is no doubt in my mind that men’s and women’s brains have differences.
Being able to tell the biological sex of the cells that make up a brain is entirely different from concluding that the female version of that brain wants nothing more in life than to dress in pink and embrace mindless bimbo or housewife-dom.
Biology does not absorb oppressive social constructs invented by a particular culture at a particular time.
Who comes to that misogynist conclusion, besides you? Dressing in pink and being a bimbo or no femininity – that’s the choice? Wow, Lady, I’m very glad I don’t live in your oppressive social construct.
I agree. Its such an impoverished view of the world. Acknowledging any innate differences, even those scientifically demonstrated, can’t be allowed because two-dimensional thinking translates all difference (no matter how complex, interdependent or complimentary) and distils it to superiority versus inferiority.
An excellent move to remove a specified sub-group from a job about equality.
In an egalitarian society Equality means eliminating boundaries – not specifying groups for special attention.
The author seems to have missed this angle completely – whether intentionally or unintentionally.
This has nothing to do with Trans issues/groups – it’s just a bit of common sense that has recently been sadly missing.
e.g a “Women’s Day” in Parliament is wrong unless there is a “Man’s Day” – so scrap it.
A “Women’s Hour” on BBC is wrong unless there is a “Man’s Hour” so scrap that too.
BLM when ALM is what matters …
A plague on all this divisive nonsense ….
Indeed. I am not sure Julie is right in saying that women have been erased in this context.
That’s the hilarious bit about this – feminists were happy with an “equalities” minister working specifically for women.
I wonder what’s more damning about modern feminists – the sheer hypocrisy and hilarity of the concept, or the fact that removing it is so outrageous for their peculiar, weird world view.
Absolutely. I remember when I was working for an organisation that had an equality advisor. When I mentioned disable people, she wasn’t interested, but had to change her tune when the Disability Discrimination Act (as was) came in. Over the years I’ve come to realise that favoritism and nepotism are as discriminatory as their opposites, but it’s questionable how or if they should be eradicated.
This woman says hear, hear.
A government department whose title singles out women, as distinct from others facing inequality, suggests that that this group is so exceptional in the inequality they face that it would be unconscionable to lump them in with the generality facing inequality.
Well, those times are long gone, and if the author thinks it’s a good idea to preserve women in the ministerial titles as the ultimate societal victims of inequality, I would suggest the majority of women don’t want the government to designate them as the most needy, pathetic victims, requiring protection above all others.
I read recently that the feminist explanation of why so many women acquiesce to biological males entering women only spaces is that they have internalised misogyny. The trans movement emanates from the “Patriarchy”, as a means for men to horn in areas set aside exclusively for women.
The uncomfortable truth for the author and her ilk is that they were the handmaidens of the trans movement they rail against. Feminists like her aggressively denounced the idea that there were fundamental, biologically derived, innate differences between males and females. Gender roles were the product of nurture within a society controlled by the “Patriarchy”, with the intent of keeping women submissive and controlled.
Well, the trans movement has just extrapolated feminist dogma. From the assertion that male and female have no intrinsic biological programming, to the trans movements dogma of there being no such thing as male and female or men and women, was a relatively small ideological jump.
The author may rail against the trans movements “erasure” of “women”. But the truth is that the bitter, aggressive, ideological denunciation by her and her ilk of the idea that there are intrinsic differences between males and females in their natural behavior, was the fundamental first step in the erasure of women as a separate, distinct part of humanity, that the trans movement built itself on.
The phrase “hoisted by their own petard” neatly sums up the situation.
I used to imagine a petard was a long pointy thing, like a halberd, but apparently it’s a small explosive device like a grenade. Presumably they used to go off prematurely quite often.
The word petard has an interesting etymology. It’s from mid-16th century French pétard, from péter ‘to break wind’.
Hoisted adds a particularly vivid element to the idiom.
I’m perfectly used to people using their own language to communicate. I grew up listening to Polari on the radio.
But nobody ever suggested that Polari be made compulsory.
If transpeople want to use their own words when talking to each other, then fine. If a transwoman wants to call other transwomen ‘woman’, who are we to tell them not to?
But the rest of us no more have to play along than we had to agree to use Polari in the 1960s.
Are you talking about “Around the Horne”?
We all vaader your jolly old eeek
Not good enough. Scrap the “Equalities” part too. Probably “intergovernmental relations” too. And what does the “Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster” actually do ? That appears to be a business adminstration role – so why on earth would you appoint a politician to do this ?
The UK Cabinet is at least 2x too large, more likely 3x. That’s not only expensive and wasteful, but it makes for slow and poor decision making.
These ever-expanding departments of “good intentions” (Gordon Brown was the worst offender in creating these) are a total waste of resources – and worse they take limited resources and effort away from areas that need them. None of them have any realistic or achievable goals. At most, they promote “positive discrimination” – i.e. actually putting effort into making sure we don’t always get the best people doing jobs (which is one of the main things good management is really about). No wonder national productivity is so poor.
Certainly there should not be a minister for Women if there is not also one for Men. But why waste time and money on this in the first place. It’s not like we haven’t got real problems to solve.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster basically allows another minister to attend Cabinet and get the salary for doing so. His real job is whatever ministerial post(s) he is appointed to.
“how can equality legislation combat sexism when it applies equally to men?”
I’d have thought that applying equally to men and women was the sine qua non of any meaningful equalities legislation.
That you, or anyone, would think otherwise is indicative of an extremely sexist and biased attitude.
She’s used a very common fallacy – bifurcation. It’s presented as a choice between sexed bodies OR brains. Why can both not be possible?
Edit – in fact, it’s just a rehashed incoherent précis of assorted other rants that, predictably, lay the blame with men and Tories.
The reason that Conservatives have drunk the Kooi-aid is simple cowardice. Faced with the trans juggernaut (a proven career killer) they have abandoned logic and truth out of a desire for self-preservation. Conservatives know that sex is immutable, they are just too cowardly to say it publicly. And they are not the only ones.
I don’t expect Braverman or Badenoch to be coy on this.
Given that you can hardly find a white man in the cabinet – I would say that we can comfortably cancel any ministerial job for Equalities held by a non white or a woman.
Equality of what ? Woman and people of colour hold all the seats and are in power.
You want someone to represent minorities in Government – please offer me a job. A 58 year old white male, running my own small business, paying my taxes etc.
I am available and you dont even need to pay me a pension because I have bothered to sort out my own.
White males – the minority the greatest at threat from bias and prejudice in Britain in 2022
You are 100% correct. White males represent the biggest threat to woke takeover of government and business. Men of European ancestry are being subjugated through DEI, homosexuality and transexual ideology. It is cultural genocide on a massive scale targeted at the gatekeepers of Western Enlightenment values. Note how those who stand up to Woke ideology are immediately tarred with the “far-right” brush so as to neutralize any objections they may make: not just men, but church-goers, anti-trans feminists, professors, and now even American moms who are angry with the public school system that is hell-bent on creating foot soldiers for woke causes.
A non-white, non-Christian friend of mine once remarked many years ago that we in the West underestimate at our peril the hatred that the rest of the world has for us. At the time, I humored him with a good-natured shake of my head thinking that he was merely being hyperbolic and needlessly provocative. Now I’m starting to wonder if he wasn’t trying to warn me all along.
The problem when someone bangs the same note on the same drum all the time – they become tone deaf.
I am glad there is no Minister for Women. I do not wish to be patronised in that way.
“Scrap the Equalities post altogether” is a good starting point for discussion. Why, after all, should there be such a post that excludes half the population of the UK and prioritises women who now benefit from a majority of university places and jobs in several well paid sectors?
The rest of the arguments are reality as reconstructed through the usual feminist/leftist Bindel lens. Gender conversion is “perfect fodder for old school Tories.” Really? No one has ever heard such notions originate from that school. Gender ideology is solely a construct of the post-modernist, neo-Marxist camp favoured by many Labourites. But Bindel being Bindel, blame must be lain at the feet of conservatives.
I was going to make the same comment (about scrapping the equalities post altogether). The renaming (scrapping ‘women’) in the title is a start. It’s a feminist entity, so if I take women at their word that they only want equality with men, why was ‘women’ in the original name at all? “Women only” in anything is actually incompatible with feminism. How will we ever have equality, when women want to self-segragate?
Gee, I didn’t know it was conservatives pushing the gender fluid nonsense all along, thanks for pointing it out.
sarcasm button off.
Sort of ironic. For years women attacked men for what they were. They got specific representation in parliament, demanded the right to redefine “women” as victims of a patriarchal society, demanded quotas and tried to invade mens’ spaces. Now the trans activists come after them with the same tactic.
Addendum: men, never try this.