National Secular Society warns religious charities are spreading online misogyny

[ArabellaScott]

More conflicts of rights. Religion promoting misogynist views:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2025/05/nss-warns-religious-charities-spreading-online-misogyny

'The NSS said it had found a "worrying" number of cases where charities registered under the charitable purpose of "the advancement of religion" have promoted or condoned misogyny through their websites or social media accounts, including YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.
Registered charities are entitled to tax relief, which the NSS said essentially amounts to state subsidisation of the promotion of misogyny, sexism and violence against women and girls.
Recent examples include Birmingham-based charity An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre. In September, the charity shared a sermon on YouTube by Mahamed AbdurRazaq (pictured) which said men can hit their wives if they refuse to have sex.
The NSS said that unlike typical 'influencers' and other figures in the 'manosphere', faith leaders are often "highly respected" in their communities and by parents as well as young people. It said the status of being a registered charity can also make an organisation "more trustworthy".
It said this "veneer of respectability" makes their misogynist messages "even more dangerous".'

'It highlighted how the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) refused to penalise Moray Coast Baptist Church or Rosyth Baptist Church after the NSS reported them for misogyny. Both charities said wives should obey their husbands and promoted sexist stereotypes in sermons shared online.
OSCR said it could not intervene because these views were "likely to be held by virtue of a manifestation of a religious belief".'

All I can say is "typical". But I think it's the place of women within those religions to challenge it, not me.
(I am not trying to duck any responsibility - I don't think my input would be welcome.)

a sermon on YouTube by Mahamed AbdurRazaq (pictured) which said men can hit their wives if they refuse to have sex.

Wow that is shocking.

All the women in this country who should be benefitting from the protected of the laws of this country but are not because we mustn't criticize anyone else's culture.
I'm glad at least one organisation is trying to shine a light on the problem.

It does rather make you wonder why Lucy Connolly is in jail ?

Perhaps because Lucy Connolly's incitement may have put men at risk, who are of course actual human beings, whereas the people inciting violence towards women seem to just get away with it. See also Sarah Jane Baker.

Another bloghttps://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2025/04/why-arent-we-taking-religious-misogyny-seriously
Around the country, youths are regularly listening to charismatic and articulate lecturers explain why men have authority over women.
These lecturers are telling them that women should stay at home and do the cooking and cleaning, that women should submit to their husband's commands, that women shouldn't meet anyone without their husband's permission. Impressionable boys and young men are being told that women and girls must dress a certain way so they don't inflame sexual desire in men, and that giving women equal rights has corrupted society.
Worst of all, these youths are being told husbands have a right to sex on demand, and that it's acceptable to beat a woman who refuses.
I'm not talking about videos by Andrew Tate and other misogynistic influencers on TikTok. I'm talking about lectures given by religious leaders in places of worship.

Why aren’t we taking religious misogyny seriously?

Because they've put that magic word before it, the cunning devils.

I'm not talking about videos by Andrew Tate and other misogynistic influencers on TikTok. I'm talking about lectures given by religious leaders in places of worship.

This issue needs to be faced, investigated, and dealt with.

I wonder if the WESC investigation will be brave enough to include it?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/4964335/us-pastor-tells-moray-church-womens-role-in-the-home/

'In the sermon, dated October last year, Pastor Clough said "it's not fitting or proper for a woman to exercise authority over men" because the Bible says man was created first and women were created "to be a helper for man".
He said: "As a woman, your role in the home is to submit to the authority and leadership of your husband, and to bring up godly children.
"And in the church your role is to submit to your pastor and the leadership of the men in the church".
He also said women "tend to be a little more easily deceived than men" in spiritual matters but that they save themselves "by focusing on the role that God has given to them".
He said the "primary function" of a woman is "to be married, to have children, and to tend to household affairs – the cooking, the cleaning, the washing up, the preparing of meals".
He added that today women "have a very different focus than what God intended", because many are "very career-minded".
He said: "Society would be a lot better if women would submit to their husbands and tend to their children and take care of their home.'

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/02/nss-raises-concerns-with-charity-watchdog-over-misogynistic-sermon

'Rosyth Baptist Church's pastor claimed "a husband is the head of his wife" and a wife "that submits to her husband's leadership and respects him is easier to love".
The sermon, titled 'Submit and love', was delivered last month by reverend Chris Demetriou.
Demetriou says a marriage with a wife at the head "will not reach its full potential" because that "is not in God's purpose".
He explains a wife "should submit to her husband's leadership" because "that's the Lord's pattern for us". She submits to him "out of obedience to Christ".
He says that if a wife thinks her husband is making a mistake, she "is to express why, because she's looking out for him" and "look to persuade him". But while a husband "should listen to his wife", it is "his responsibility to lead".
He ends the sermon by praying "that we will let our husbands lead"'

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/09/nss-islamic-charities-sermons-putting-women-in-danger

'Lecturer Mahamed AbdurRazaq (pictured, left) said in his sermon at An-Noor Masjid that "hitting" wives who repeatedly refuse sex is acceptable.
He said that if a woman refuses to have sex, the husband can give her "advice" and "admonition" and refuse to sleep in the same bed as her.
But if "that doesn't help", the husband is "allowed to hit her" and "shake her" as long as this does not "bruise" or "break bones", he said.
The sermon, entitled "Detailed Rulings on Marriage" and uploaded last week, was based on the Islamic legal text Umdat ul-Fiq.
AbdurRazaq said the "minimum right" of the husband is that his wife "has to listen to him when he commands her" and "specifically even more so when it comes to intercourse".
He said "if he asks for it at any time, it's his right for her to accept and obey him" and this is a "highly stressed right of the husband".
The wife should agree to have sex "straight away", "without delaying" and without showing "dislike" or that they are "being forced to do it", he said.
He said a wife who refuses sex has "no right" to nafaqa (financial support) from her husband.
AbdurRazaq added that a person who is "serious about marriage" should not "give any attention" to "the doubts of the feminists and the kuffar [non-Muslims]".'

In general I agree but this is specifically about challenging their charitable status

Some of these charities are also getting tax payer support.

The wider issue of whether we can challenge religions is one that needs examined. Of course we bloody can - we don't allow FGM on religious grounds, or human sacrifice, or any of a number of things that are/were/would be sanctioned by religion but are actually illegal.

I saw one video in which an Imam describes the approved way to stone a woman to death. Apparently she must be buried to the waist to preserve her modesty before hurling rocks at her. He did add that the UK didn't follow Sharia.

Fuck that
Sexism is a moral absolute. Religion or culture should never be an excuse.

Life of Brian: "Are there any women here .... ?"

Great, obnoxious, antediluvian Pastors and psycho, domestic violence advocating Preachers, ain't religion grand. 🤬

I'm a bit scunnered that God actually intended the main focus of my life to be the washing up, tbh.

I don't remember that bit of the bible.

I wonder more why this guy isn't.

Years ago I taught English abroad. One girl in my class was very good, and wrote an excellent essay in which she said that in a marriage the husband was the leader and the wife the follower, as there couldn't be two captains of a ship. She was a JW and wanted to learn English to spread the word!

I had to give her top marks though as I couldn't very well mark her down for her lack of feminism...

The whole thing is horrifying, but unfortunately, less surprising than it should be.

I really admire your capacity for wit in the face of such extreme provocation, @ArabellaScott. You're a better woman than I am. Every syllable of the report made me shout FUCK OFF in my head, also JESUS. Luckily there's no one nearby to overhear if I accidentally make a noise.

I don't mind the Baptists (much) and women in the Baptist community can challenge this if they want - and probably do. However, an imam telling Muslim men they can force their wives to have sex by hitting them if they will not is inciting rape in marriage, and rape in marriage is a crime. The charity should lose its charitable status and the imam at least brought in for questioning - he may himself be committing the crime of rape in marriage.

Yeah, if you've got imams (or, in principle, other religious leaders) advocating stuff that's illegal, those are clear grounds for investigation. Easier said than done with lots of these storefront mosques, but that's no reason not to try.

I'll admit to being a bit jaundiced about the NSS, whose brand of atheism doesn't draw any real distinction between a radical mosque and your local Catholic parish, and who have quite the record of vexatious busybodying. They ran a campaign for years against Woking council allowing churchgoers free parking on Sunday mornings, as if there's anything else to do in Woking on a Sunday morning. So if they turn up at a charity regulator and say "we'd like to dob in some religious communities with reactionary doctrines", it's possible the regulator would roll their eyes and think "it's these guys again".

But yeah, ignoring obvious red flags in the name of community cohesion, we've seen that before.

This is also very concerning in light of what they think of unmarried women or women who don't have / can't have children. If that's the whole "meaning of life" for a woman, it either means the others are superfluous or must be pressured into a role.
Apart from the tax breaks, couldn't they be investigated from the point of the equality act or another law?

Railing against free parking does seem phenomenally petty.