A mosque in London with charitable status is facing an investigation after it published sermons encouraging husbands to strike their wives and condoning the execution of gay people by “throwing them off a tall building”. The Mail has more.
Videos published on the Hackney Islamic Community Centre’s YouTube channel describe gay sex as “one of the most evil of acts” and urge men to “discipline” their wives if they disobey them – including if they refuse to have sex.
Another lecture from the same preacher sees him praise Saudi Arabia for continuing to execute people who are accused of “witchcraft”.
Elsewhere, a community elder at the East London mosque – also known as Masjid Daar Al-Hadeeth – describes it as an “unfortunate reality” that many women now feel empowered to call the police if they are struck by their husbands.
Campaign group the National Secular Society (NSS) has reported the centre to the Charity Commission, warning that the views it is sharing on social media are incompatible with charitable status.
As a registered charity, the Hackney Islamic Community Centre – which describes itself as helping “mankind” in its work to “advance the Islamic faith” – benefits from a considerable number of tax exemptions.
It paid no tax on £191,097 of income it received in the year to March 2025, according to its most recent published accounts. This included almost £155,000 of direct donations.
It re-registered as a charitable incorporated organisation in April this year, a change in status that separated trustees from its debt and allowed it to own property in a manner similar to a limited company, but governed entirely by charity law.
Megan Manson, NSS head of campaigns, described the charity’s renewal as “alarming” because it has hosted “lectures which promote violence against women, say women cannot refuse their husbands sex, and condone the death penalty for gay men and those accused of ‘witchcraft’.
“Hackney Islamic Community Centre is just one of many charities promoting misogyny, homophobia and other harmful ideologies through the charitable purpose of ‘the advancement of religion’,” she said.
“This charitable purpose must be urgently reviewed. It is evidently facilitating the advancement of ideas which, far from benefiting the public, could fuel discrimination, division and abuse.”
Many of the most extreme views are contained in a series of video lectures delivered from the centre by Yasin Munye, an ‘ustaadh‘ (teacher) who reads from Manthumatu al-Kaba’ir, a poem that collects what Islam recognises as ‘major sins’.
He defined one of them as: “Disobeying the husband, leaving the house without his permission, and disobeying the husband when it comes to calling her to bed, when it comes to calling her for intimacy, when she says ‘no’ without any excuse.”
He said: “Advise her, and boycott her in bed, don’t touch her in bed – and discipline them physically as well, by lightly hitting them to show them who is in charge.”
If she refuses, he says, husbands “don’t have to give her a house anymore”, adding: “If a person has multiple wives, then he doesn’t have to stay with her; he can abandon her and stay with the other wife until she becomes obedient again.”
In the same lecture, Munye called gay sex “one of the most evil acts” and “a crime” that sees both participants “executed in the Sharia”.
He continued: “Scholars, they differ on how the execution occurs. Some of them say he is executed through the sword, like every other normal execution.
“Others say that they are thrown off of a tall building and rocks are thrown after that on top of them.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Did they have tall buildings c AD 570-632? At least in the Arabian peninsula.
Not in Mecca. In fact there was no settlement there at the time – no archaeological evidence.
I guess absence of evidence is probably evidence of absence in some cases (more than others).
And if there were, was there anything in their scriptures about throwing lying, cheating, pissant politicians off high roofs?
No way! Mind. Blown.
“disobeying the husband when it comes to calling her to bed, when it comes to calling her for intimacy, when she says ‘no’ without any excuse.”
Can we just clarify please?
Would an acceptable excuse be “because you’re a fat, sweaty, hairy oaf with the manners of a warthog, no consideration for my feelings and I really don’t want you within about 100 yards of me, let alone on top?”
I’m sure this “teacher” will be getting a swift visit from Plod for incitement of violence and encouraging the breaking of British law.
Mayor Khan will insist on it.
The investigation will do nothing
1) At a similar Muslim training programme forced upon the police years ago, one police constable asked the Muslim imam an awkward question:
“Is it true that no Muslim man, woman or child is guaranteed entry to Paradise unless they have killed an infidel, or died trying to kill one?”
The Muslim imam was taken aback, but when pressed by several other officers, he sheepishly said, “Yes.”
2) Remember that ONLY THE VICTIMS of sodomite rape are considered “Guilty” by Islam, for “Tempting the Innocent Rapists”, and only the victims can be thrown off high buildings. Islam uses the same justification for raping women, children & goats. Islamic teachings say that if a Muslim rapes his goat, he is forbidden to eat the meat, but must kill the goat to punish it for “tempting him”, and sell the raped goat meat in another town.
Yup, hard to see how it is compatible with soft modern shite.
It’s Islam for me! I love living in the 6th century
The great thing about the 6th century was that right thinking men with large swords actively protected their nation and their culture, with whatever amount of prejudice was necessary.
We could do with some of that, starting in Westminster.
Yes, the West should remember Charles Martel.
Don’t worry you will be soon enough..
Oh I know! Let’s ask Peter Tatchell, and Gays for Palestine!
Hehe.
Any comment from female Labour ministers about dog whistle politics, prejudice, Islamophobia and racism? No? Why ever not?
If ANY non-moslem said ANY of those things, the full force of the justice system would crush them within days.
Yet apparently we do not have a two tier justice system, and Islam is entirely compatible with western society.
burnhams fan club.
What wonderful enrichment! What wonderful cultural superiority! What wonderful moral excellence!
These are the most wonderful people ever to have walked the Earth. And I thank our wonderful rulers for bringing such wonderful people to our country. And in such wonderful numbers!
Rather shows up pathetic milquetoast C of E preachers.
Good for him, saying the quiet part out loud.
Now go back to shitholistan ooops I forgot, keyword London – that’s all right then.
But god help you if you mutter christian prayers outside an abortion clinic.
Incidentally, what is the islamic position on abortion or euthanasia?
Genuine question.
And trangenderism..
It seems that Islam generally is pretty down on transgenderism. However, the Iranians have been quite keen on it in the recent past, not sure if this is still a thing, but male homosexuals would get the opportunity to not be thrown off a tall building if they became female (surgically, not just massive prosthetic breasts). This apparently ‘solved’ the country’s ‘gay problem’. Of course, such a thing couldn’t happen in the UK where we use gender reassignment mainly to reduce the number of lesbians.
“…like every other normal execution”.
This single phrase says so much.
It’s hard to beat a normal execution.
Nice to see that these folks are trying though
Why is this person still in this country?
Why shouldn’t he be?
If we believe in free speech – big if I know, because I do, but clearly many/most don’t – then we can’t just start throwing people out of the country the moment they say something objectionable.
I don’t like those things he’s said. But, if that’s what he believes, that’s what he believes.
A completely different thing would be if one could draw a direct line from what he’s said to someone actually throwing a gay person off a building. Then he’s an accessory to a crime and that’s a whole different thing. But if we start treating objectionable things that people say as a crime, that’s basically tyranny.
100%
Totally agree with you. I’m more than happy for this chap to carry on, especially if he’s dumb enough to put it on the internet for all to see.
Does it not make a difference that this man (and other imams) are not expressing private beliefs but teaching their congregations, with authority, what the sharia calls them to? Beating wives will be unlikely to be so easily detected as gays being thrown off buildings, but it is what many of them will suffer, in their enclosed lives, silently.
And gay targets have been hit over the years, in direct compliance with this teaching, But how could one ever draw a firm connection with a particular sermon? The perpetrators would, perhaps, go to jail (or get bail and a slap on the wrist) and the sermons will continue to prime the next attack.
And since many hearers will believe the lessons, but disobey for fear of the kaffirs’ civil law, the desire to overturn it in favour of sharia will only grow until there is sufficient power to achieve it.
In practical terms it surely does make a difference but from a legal standpoint I think he should be able to express those views. The mistake was deciding that our country and culture are capable of absorbing large numbers of people from different cultures in a short space of time without damage.
I totally understand your points and it’s hard to argue that what people say doesn’t have an effect on others and that effect can be a negative one.
The question is what to do about that. And there is no perfect solution.
If you believe in free speech, you trust that the process of everyone expressing themselves freely produces the best outcomes.
I you don’t believe in free speech because you don’t have faith in people with the better ideas winning out against those with the bad ones, then you have to put your faith in a select group of people deciding what can and can’t be said, and, I guess, believe that they will be benevolent and wise and not abuse that power in any way, or get it wrong.
Personally, I have zero faith in the notion of the wise, benevolent ruler. Which is why I always defend the imperfect but in my view far better system of free speech.
I agree – but the issue here is the fact that this organisation has charitable status. By all means let them preach their misogynistic medieval death cult – but not as a registered charity.
I think we have general agreement that he should be able to say this shit , my concern is whether the security services are on his case monitoring eveey word tracking all his contacts listening in to his phone email and social media generally…
My fear is they aren’t and that would be a gross dereliction of duty.
When somebody conrinues to tell you thay hate you and want to kill you and destroy your civilization I think you should listen and act on what they are telling you.
My objection is to the suggestion that he should be thrown out of the country for expressing his ideas.
I wouldn’t classify a centre for the promotion of Islam as a charity either. But I probably wouldn’t classify most official charities as charities either. I’m pretty sure most “charities” are actually social engineering projects.
An awful lot of businesses seem to want to be social engineering projects and treat their actual business as a sideline or a means to an end.
I think I would abolish charitable status.
How do you define incitement? Just asking.
I think incitement broadly describes someone encouraging someone else to do something bad. It’s a pretty vague concept which is why I haven’t used it and have described what I believe in my own way.
To me it’s not good enough that someone’s words can be construed as an encouragement to commit some crime. For me, first of all a crime has to be committed and secondly you have to be able to link someone’s words directly as a clear essential part of the crime. And for that we already have laws that cover actual participation in a crime, so no need for any speech laws.
Well it’s comforting to know Islamists are not actually beating and raping their wives or murdering gays, just talking about it.
Quite.
So it’s perfectly acceptable for a figure of authority to openly instruct people who consider him a leader to inflict direct violence and phyical harm upon women and also murder people?
Would you feel the same if he was instructing his followers to beat your wife or worse?
Would you leave him to it if he was also giving instructions on how to make suicide vests to kill people?
pgstokes is quite entitled to ask the question if as you say we believe in free speech.
Just as much as I’m entitled to say AIM HIGH VOTE LOWE MILLIONS MUST GO! Especially with an attitude like that.
In a sane world the Charities Commission would be very busy registering a host of political campaign groups, representatives of foreign billionaires and anti-British “charities”.