He says Muslim women should obey their husbands. He even suggests a wife should make herself available and “not withhold this right from her husband without a valid excuse.”

Further to his dictates on wives’ sexual obligations to their husbands, he argues that some scholars agree that if a woman “refuses without a valid reason, then she has committed a major sin.”

He even insists that women must seek permission from their husbands whenever they want to leave the house because the man is the “main decision-maker of the home.”

These are not edicts issued by Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, or by jihadis from ISIS or al-Qaida. The source is right here in Canada.

Musleh Khan is the new Muslim chaplain hired by the Toronto Police to bridge gaps between law enforcement and the Muslim community and to provide religious and moral support to Muslim officers. The police union is justifiably concerned about his comments, made in a 2013 webinar entitled “The Heart of the Home: The Rights and Responsibilities of a Wife.”

Of course, people offended by these comments understand the importance of a relationship that requires both parties to respect each other’s wishes. They are enlightened enough to see that Khan’s comments promote a kind of sexual tyranny.

Khan is not alone. Some segments of the Canadian Muslim community espouse similar opinions on women’s rights and responsibilities. They encourage the sort of master-slave relationship between a husband and his wife — or wives — that is constantly advocated in conservative and fundamentalist circles across the country.

When the police union raised concerns about Khan’s views, he played the context card: He conceded that his words may have been inappropriate, and that when “taken out of context,” such terminology can create a misleading impression.

“Upon deliberating on the definition of obedience as being ‘to yield to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure,’ I agree that the term was inappropriate if used out of context,” Khan reportedly said in statements provided to media.

Yet if the problem were just a semantic one, he would have reworded his opinions in a way that clears up the misunderstanding. He did claim that what he meant by obedience was actually devotion, loyalty and love.

Yet this just means that the wife is the one required to show these qualities by kowtowing to her husband’s directives, which is not what defines a loving relationship.

This context card is played by fundamentalist apologists on any subject, from the subjugation of women to jihadi violence. But the context itself is flawed.

The issue is never the manner of expression, but rather the outrageous substance of the opinions themselves, which have no place in Canada in 2016.

Although he has insisted that he will be “more mindful of women’s equality,” it is hard to see how Khan will perform his obligations appropriately.

It is astounding that the stringent vetting process that police departments use to hire their staff can yield no one more suitable than Musleh Khan. Even more troubling is that he received letters of recommendation from members of his community, an indication that few in the community understand the toxic substance behind his comments.

Mike McCormack, head of the Toronto Police Association, is rightly troubled by the appointment.

It would help if Khan said something meaningful enough to convince the public he had changed not his words but his mind.