You cannot stop the scorpion being a scorpion.
A mosque has been referred to the charity watchdog after it’s imam made misogynistic comments about women.
Mustafa Abu Rayyan was holding a panel discussion in Birmingham when he argued that a woman’s ‘number one’ responsibility was to ‘follow, obey and respect her husband’.
Adding that they have an ‘obligation’ to have sex with their husbands and should not strive to become ‘career women’.
Well, yeah? He’s an imam, what do you expect? He is merely citing his cultural and religious beliefs. Why would we expect any different? Islam is deeply misogynistic and rooted in 7th Century mores. While the rest of the world moved on during the intervening times, Islam has remained firmly back in medieval times and is as nasty, violent, intolerant, bigoted and misogynistic as the cunt that founded it. So, when an imam comes out with this stuff, he is merely being true to form.
The event took place at Green Lane Masjid, a mosque and community centre, registered as a charity to help advance ‘the Islamic faith for the public benefit’.
Anyone who believes that Islam is a public benefit is deluding themselves. That it is a charity and therefore likely taking our money is an outrage.
Following on from the highly controversial comments the National Secular Society referred the mosque to the Charity Commission, arguing: ‘If charities can spout misogyny under the banner of advancing religion, charity law is in dire need of reform.’
I’d agree with that latter point, certainly. However, the reform should be simple – no charity gets taxpayer money. End of. Expecting an Islamic preacher to follow progressive ideology is naïve in the extreme. The scorpion will always sting, because that is in its nature.
“– no charity gets taxpayer money. End of.” Yes but there are actual charities that do some good, often with volunteers. The government uses them to fulfill a function on the cheap. No taxpayer funding means government has to take on the role.
Or that function can be either not fulfilled or some other organisation can do it. The government already does far too much and all of it badly.
Either way, there is a clear delineation. If the government is going to do it, let’s be upfront about it and not hide behind a charity. If not enough people want to support the charity and the government doesn’t do it, then maybe it doesn’t need to be done?
Oxfam is an example of a so called charity that needs to stop receiving taxpayer money.
If the government provides money to an organisation, it can not be called a charity. It can, however, be called an NGO, the purpose of which is to dictate, or promote, policy changes to government. Oxfam and Greenpeace are two examples, and there are many more.
The RNLI is a charity which provides a free water-taxi service for illegal immigrants. If we don’t like that, we don’t give them any more money and they would eventually get the message and stop doing it.
But we don’t have that direct power to stop governments handing our money to ‘charity’ grifters of all shades, especially the dusky shades of rag-heads, the very ones being sea-chauffeured here by the RNLI – it’s all connected.
Hmm, yes, stop funding these grifters. However the guy stated his opinion which has landed him in hot water – I support his freedom to say these things even though I totally disagree with him.
I want them to speak out. Maybe then people will realise that progressivism and Islam are completely incompatible.
Exactly this – free speech and the social (not legislative) consequences are all that are required to oust and ostracise those who hold views objectionable to main stream society.
It’s like free markets for saying things!