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.
SubscribeFollowing the atrocities of October 7, at a mosque in east London located not far from a synagogue, an imam rose to the pulpit. “Oh Allah, curse the Jews and the children of Israel,” he prayed. “Oh Allah, break their words, shake their feet, disperse and tear apart their unity and ruin their houses and destroy their homes.”
Twice the local police were asked what they intended to do and each time they concluded that in the context of the sermon the words did not reach the threshold of criminality nor apparently did they intend to record it as a non-crime hate incident and visit the Imam to “check his thinking” like Alyson Pearson and others.
This story appeared in the Telegraph yesterday. Not surprisingly the comments below the line expressed disgust at the two-tier policing. If people feel that one particular community has the privilege of free reign to say whatever it likes but the majority community will be visited with the full force of the law for any offence caused to the favoured community that is bound to ferment resentment that will eventually result in the sorts of attacks that occurred after the Southport killings but on a much wider scale the next time an incident arises to spark off unrest.
It is the most basic psychology that if you play favourites the favourite will eventually get blowback from those not so favoured. Gaslighting by claiming that two-tier policing doesn’t exist and such a claim should be shut down will not fix things. You would almost believe that was the government’s intention with a view to imposing further repression.
Upvote from me. I think non crime hate incidents are a nonsense.
I personally don’t care if people call on their gods to do things, so long as they do not call on their congregations. Indeed it is better that they suggest, aside from the law of the land, that justice is left to their god to mete out while here on earth people stay out of it.
I worry though that it is a sign of more violent (or repressive) times to come.
In 2008, Channel 4 broadcast a Dispatches documentary, Undercover Mosques. It uncovered some alarming teaching and literature being sold in mosques up and down the country. I remember watching it and feeling thankful that it had been brought to light sure that such teaching would be challenged forcefully for its overt hatred and misogyny.
However, the reverse happened. The police decided to investigate the program makers and accused them of television fakery.
Eventually the police were forced to issue an apology but the damage was done and clearly, such teaching was allowed to go on unabated.
Yes – and part of the problem is that funding for British mosques has come from groups who adhere to extreme fundamentalist versions of it. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
It’s astonishing that as short a time ago as the 1970s women in Iran wore bikinis and mini skirts while women in the U.K. now wear the burqua. In Egypt Nasser mocked the idea that anyone would try and tell women what to wear. In Afghanistan heads went uncovered.
As Mark Steyn would say, “The process is the punishment”. What good does a police apology do after weeks or months of the process of police harrassment? Free speech (or film-making) has been effectively punished and deterred: mission accomplished.
If the force of law is there to police crime, the first word of “non-crime hate incident” should indicate the role of the police in these things.
Successive British governments have imported an alien and incompatible culture into our midst.
I dread the reconning that will eventually result. No amount of government mandated suppression of free speech and school room brainwashing (right-think education) will avoid what is to come.
I’m afraid we’re at the point where illiberal policies will be necessary. Islam has brought nothing but trouble to Britain.
We should outlaw halal, outlaw head coverings and close every mosque. If Muslims don’t like it, they can go somewhere else. There are lots of conservative Muslim countries to choose from.
I don’t want to defend any of these practices, but before we get too high and mighty about this we should remember that well within living memory it was acceptable in this country for a teacher to beat a child with a cane. I doubt many bones were broken as a result, but bruising could be extremely heavy, and there was doubtless psychological damage.
And while not condoned by the church, DV is common enough in the U.K., with both male and female victims, and little concern about whether it leaves bruises, unless these are visible.
It’s true: a lot of beliefs common in Muslim communities were widespread in England 75 years ago.
But it doesn’t follow that we should import millions of people with backward views, especially people who think those views are divinely inspired.
That’s the thing with religion: it’s just human – male – projection of wishful thinking into “divine law”. There can be no more blatant example than ascribing the use of violence against women to an “all-powerful” god figure. The Catholic church was equally culpable in the past. Think of the damage caused to unmarried mothers having their children removed and used as slave labour.
What the author describes is iniquitous and a shame on our society for allowing it. It’s not just turning s blind eye to violence, but actively promoting it via charitable status. The religion in question is the last redoubt of a way of thinking that humanity should have been able to divest itself of by now; but of course, its leaders are too pathetic and cowardly to move away from their position of treating women as sub-human.
That the origins of religion are human I take as a given. That they simply represent the interests of one sex against another is more questionable.
Rather I would say that they seek to solve problems that biology (and the human condition more broadly) has lumbered us with. A key problem being: how do you get men to stick around and raise the children they have fathered when in many ways it is in their interests not to do so. The answer that many societies have hit on is to offer them guarantees of paternity and exclusive sex rights to a limited number of women (often just to one woman). In return they provide Labour and resources.
Stand on any suburban street and what you see are two rows of family arrangements set up basically to suit women (each woman gets a guaranteed provider) with the men receiving inducements and perks to go along with it.
It’s a compromise for everyone, but I’m not sure there is any better alternative. It may be breaking down as an arrangement.
It’s the insistence of males on projecting their ‘dominance’ onto an all-powerful god-figure that’s objectionable, i.e. religion per se.
If these ‘laws’ were seen for what they are – ways of organising society for the better – as you describe, there would be no need to kill in the name of an organising principle, and absolutely no need to inflict violence on women who, for whatever reason, (e.g. the guy has stopped bathing and just stinks) lose their appetite for a physical relationship.
It’s actually amusing to think that one of the sanctions quoted by these cowards is: the man will remove himself from the marital bed. “I wish!” i can hear a million women shouting.
This one has always struck me as odd. But presumably for Moslem women this is a significant form of rejection.
God is the ultimate form of clout!
I’m afraid I feel your’s is a false and quite dangerous argument. We have been fortunate to live in an evolving society. Islam does not allow for that just as it does not allow for apostasy or pluralism. It will not allow for its holy books to be watered down in any way.
That’s not wholly true. That applies to modern fundamentalist Islam but not to Islam as it has been traditionally practised. Various ways have been found of softening the impact while still conforming to the word. People, especially intelligent people, tend to be more reasonable than their gods. You’ll see the same thing in the Old Testament, where the prophets render their god more reasonable.
Under the Ottomans, for example, I believe only one woman was ever stoned for adultery – and that caused outrage. In general the evidential requirement was set so high as to make conviction for adultery well nigh impossible.
It’s the old conundrum of just how far liberal societies should tolerate illiberal ideologies like lsIam. Strangely it’s a conundrum that our politicians don’t even like to acknowledge exists.
“don’t even like to acknowledge” …which is, of course, the problem!
Islam simply has no place in Europe, the end game is it will always try to establish dominance and subjugate non muslims
So what benefit does Islam bring Europe, not much
But it brings many disadvantages
No one with free will and average intelligence would choose to follow Islam
Just another shining example of the double standards applied across society. What could possibly go wrong with this?!
All this does is further the cause of Mr Robinson & Co.
I think the free speech issue on this is absolutely clear. Religious theory and practice should be wholly up for debate and criticism, regardless of how offensive believers might find this. It should also be perfectly possible to discuss whether religion or culture has a negative social impact.
Obviously we all regret purely offensive criticism, but this should be answered with good sense, not with censorship.
Europe has allowed Muslims to immigrate unchecked for years. Europe promoted multiculturalism which has been an abject failure as Muslims have no attention of assimilating. Bruce Bawer wrote a good book years ago in 2006 called “While Europe Slept”.that identified the problems with allowing Muslim immigration into Europe. Worth the read.
Back in the 90s I remember both my geography teacher and French teacher explaining to us that Britain does ‘multiculturalism’ whilst France does ‘assimilation’, the subtext at the time clearly being that an expectation of assimilation is somehow intolerant and cruel and that the British multicultural model is clearly superior.
Of course 30 years on it’s quite clear that in practice both Britain and France have been pursuing multiculturalism and that it’s been a complete disaster in both countries. Even Merkel (before she went on a mad one in 2015 and invited a million culturally non-aligned incomers) admitted that “Multikulti ist gescheitert, absolut gescheitert” (absolutely failed).
What pains me to see is that Ireland is on the cusp of embarking on the same experiment, even though they should quite easily be able to see the results of the exact same experiment in Britain (more specifically England) and France over the last 40 years.
Easy answer, remove the tax free status for all religions. Rather than trying to pick and choose which parts are acceptable (there are plenty of bible passages that aren’t much better than the Islamic nonsense when it comes to treatment of the women) just make them all pay tax like everybody else.
There’s an issue with this where Islam is concerned in that money is available to mosques which is tied to more extreme forms of Islam.
Otherwise I am with you. I don’t really see why religions should be charities.
I’d go further, and abolish all charities.
Most are sock puppets, dependent on government funding. Those that aren’t are often beholden to corporate interests. Few are genuine grassroots efforts.
As for the bible, I agree it contains lots of abhorrent material, especially in the Old Testament. But it’s balanced by some good passages that are hard to find in the Koran.
I wouldn’t abolish charities but they should not receive tax subsidies or government funding. They should be entirely dependent on individual voluntary donations.
It’s sad that nonprofits and charities often take on a life of their own that seeks to maintain and grow income, salaries, mission and influence, promoting polarization to ensure the dollars keep rolling in. I don’t know of a solution to this that is not worse than the problem.
I think the Church realised that God was an evil b***ard, murdering people left right and centre who he didn’t like in the Old Testament so their PR team gave him a bit of a makeover in the sequel, turning him into a bit of a sandal wearing lefty like his son
Great idea. Let’s also abolish the printing press and the internet – these lead to misinformation, pornography and slander. Never mind that they’re also the leading engines of progress and information and education. Much simpler to shut it all down.
Part of the UK’s huge problems is a complete blindness to the history that made it great. Virtually all the social advances that Britain brought to the world, like the abolition of slavery, the reform laws, the educational system; and all of its useful charity org’s – came out of the Christian churches that animated Britain since the 1600s.
Islam has brought nothing whatsoever of value to the UK or to Europe. Bar the doors. Carthago delenda est.
I didn’t say anything should be abolished, so your hyperbolic rant is rather meaningless
If someone wants to give to any charity why should they receive any tax relief or the charity receive gift aid? There are plenty of non-religious charities that I regard as inimical to civil society that I have to indirectly support because of gift aid. Charity should be a matter exclusively for the donor and should not involve the rest of us.
You don’t have to agree to gift-aid your donations. I always refuse.
You don’t have to gift aid your gift. But I do so for both religious and non-religious charities on the basis that if I am forced to subsidise charities I disapprove of I jolly well want to balance the books by having the charities I do approve of receive subsidies even if I think there is no logic to the system.
I could not have easily afforded to send my sons to Public Schools without the charity tax breaks that have been withdrawn and so they would have had to be educated entirely at the taxpayers expense rather than my receiving a small contribution from the taxpayer. However, if less was wasted by endless subsidies and pointless government jobs then we all might retain more of our own money to select the objects both of expenditure and charity.
Inclined to agree. At least we’ve made a start with privileging education for the rich with tax breaks
It is unfortunate but true that there are several aspects of Islam, as written in the Quran (ie not just some nut job’s interpretation), that are totally incompatible with modern western values. If they just get brushed under the carpet and ignored, then the divisions will just get worse. The Labour party have a vested interest in brushing the real issues under the carpet, thereby fuelling the rise in Islamophobia they claim to be concerned about.
Those Muslims who put integrating into their country of residence ahead of the strict written word of the Quran need to be encouraged to stand with their non Muslim countrymen in calling out those who feel their religion makes them superior and therefore not subject to the laws of our land. This is the only real way to tackle Islamaphobia.
Hmmm… as of 15.50 UK time, 36 comments but only 25 actually shown.
Many important points have been censored, none of them which haven’t been freely discussed before in Comments.
Come on Unherd… are you trying to trying turn us – long-standing subscribers – into Richard Littlewoods?? Whence your financial model if you continue in that vein?
Think again.
I noticed one of my comments appeared, got replies, then disappeared. What I fear is happening is that some people flag comments they disagree with, and that they disappear until a moderator has a look. If so, it’s appalling behaviour – especially when the article is about threats to free speech.
You and I don’t always agree, but I’m right with you on this one.
Labor is anti-semitic and misogynistic both in their support of Islam and transactivists. There is absolutely no hope that things will improve under the current government.
The underlying problem is that religion is a ‘protected characteristic’, along with race, age, and so on. But religion isn’t innate; it’s a belief, like political affiliation and football fandom. And the precautionary principle indicates that far from being ‘protected’, beliefs should be vigorously questioned, challenged, criticised, and have no protection from the law. If the quran was published as a political pamphlet, substituting believers and unbelievers with party members and others, it would be banned.
It appears that it is not a question of “religious” organizations doing this sort of thing. At least there’s no mention of say Buddhist monks advocation of domestic violence, nor of any other religion: Just Islam.
Risk averse = cowardice.
Let’s try again, more gently. The English translation of Qur’an 4:34 as quoted in the article adds words which simply aren’t there in the original Arabic, in an attempt to soften slightly what it says, for the benefit of Western ears. Many modern English Qur’anic translations do this in many places. The original Arabic comes across even more harshly than the English translation shown.
I must take issue with the translation of Qur’an 4:34 used in this article. It’s the Hilaali-Khan translation and the translators have deliberately fiddled with the text to make it more acceptable (or less unacceptable) to liberal-minded Anglophones. The Arabic text does NOT say “[first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them”. A closer literal translation would be “admonish them and refuse them in bed and beat them”. There is no suggestion in the Arabic that the beating should somehow be a last resort.
Let’s try again, more gently. The English translation of 4:34 as quoted in the article adds words which simply aren’t there in the original Arablc, in an attempt to soften slightly what it says, for the benefit of Western ears. Many modern English translations do this in many places. The original Arablc comes across even more harshly than the English translation shown.
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that sex within marriage is seen as intrinsic to Islam. There is no ambiguity about this as there is in the western tradition. Both partners are expected to satisfy the other partner in the relationship, and while temporary refusal is accepted, a permanent refusal is not. My understanding is that this goes both ways.
Refusing sex within marriage is not seen as reasonable within Islam as it (kind of) is in the western tradition. In part this is perhaps because Islam does not share the general antipathy towards sex which is found in the Christian tradition.
This of course presents a problem. What do people do if their husband or wife refuses to have sex with them, is adamant about it, and can give no reason which the partner can address (such as cleanliness, technique etc). Adultery is clearly not an option within Islam.
I’m obviously not supporting violence or coercion in this context, but just recognising that this does put Moslems in a bind. What advice are they supposed to give? Therapy? Divorce?
Divorce before violence. Obvious to a civilised person, no?
Good point. If we look at our own norms, do we still respect an obligation of fidelity in marriage, i.e. not having sex with anyone else? If so, how does that square with the complete freedom of both parties to stop having sex for any reason or none?
I would not enter in an exclusivity deal with a restaurant if it meant that I had to eat all my meals there and only there – but they had no obligation to feed me.
Yes – marriage is a contract with very vague terms. And the terms have been changed recently without consultation.
I believe that in Islam it is explicitly contractual. In fact there is a very funny story (going from memory here) that a rich powerful Muslim woman in history was able to write her marriage contracts such that she got total freedom while her husbands (sequential I think) were bound to remain completely faithful.
Thanks – and for recognising that I’m trying to give food for thought rather than just come straight down on one side.
One could go further and play devils advocate: from an Islamic point of view, with our high levels of divorce, family breakdown, single motherhood etc they might argue we are not in a good position to lecture anyone about marriage.
The preacher only repeated what the Quran says. Muslims only take it seriously as any believer should do. It needs to be seen in a broader context of the Muslim community. The laws and practices are devised to preserve the community so a slap on a wrist could be fine ( for them, I’m not condoning this practice in my faithless community). My point is that calling it misogyny is a misunderstanding , it has nothing to do with the “hatred of women” ( whatever that means)
Misogyny is just the latest buzz word that feminists throw around to denigrate men.
It’s lost all meaning. Often it’s used to describe disagreeing with a woman. Different points of view are not misogyny.
But discrimination against and violence toward women is.
So are you suggesting that it is OK for some British citizens to beat their British citizen spouses? Because of their religion? Call it subjugation of women then if you do not think it is misogyny – I think you will find it is not compatible with modern Britain – or most countries in the developed world.
Your comment is precisely why it’s wrong of Unherd to censor perfectly reasonable comments, which would pull the rug from under your argument before you’d even begun to make it.