The Charity Commission has warned two Muslim charities over the use of “inflammatory and divisive” language.
Yesterday, the regulator said it had issued official warnings against the Central Oxford Mosque Society and the Mosque and Islamic Centre of Brent on 13 June and 7 May, respectively.
It found that both mosques had “failed to prevent their platforms being misused to communicate inappropriate material”, and concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement.
Meanwhile, the regulator reported opening over 300 regulatory cases involving charities supporting different sides of the Middle East conflict over the last 18 months.
It has issued formal statutory guidance to charities in around 100 of these cases and made over 70 referrals to the police over potential criminal offences.
Central Oxford Mosque Society
The commission opened a case into the Central Oxford Mosque Society following concerns about posts on the charity’s social media platform in October and November 2023.
The posts related to the recent escalation of conflict in the Middle East, with one providing information on what to do if arrested at a protest and advertising the services of a private solicitor’s firm.
Another post featured a graphic cartoon that criticised media reporting of the conflict, while another included a different cartoon suggesting that the media misrepresents the situation in Palestine.
The charity shared both cartoons three days after the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.
The commission considered that the sharing of these cartoons “could create community tensions in the context of the conflict in the Middle East”.
The charity’s trustees were unable to explain to the regulator how the posts furthered their organisation’s purposes for the public benefit.
The regulator found that at the time of the posts’ publication, the charity had no social media policy in place and only one trustee had access to the social media account.
It said the trustees’ responses “failed to acknowledge or recognise all of the concerns about the posts in question”, concluding that the posts, including two that were “divisive and inflammatory”, were outside the charity’s purposes.
It ordered the charity to take action to address the wrongdoing. This included creating, implementing and adhering to robust policies and ensuring that all of the charity’s activities are in furtherance of its purposes.
Mosque and Islamic Centre of Brent
Regarding the Mosque and Islamic Centre of Brent, the Commission opened a case into the charity after concerns were raised in the media about speeches held at its premises.
The commission discovered that sermons were promoted on the speaker’s social media channel.
It said that of the five speeches given at the charity’s premises in November and December 2023, four included inflammatory and divisive content and two contained content that could be interpreted as encouraging support of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.
The last speech “could be reasonably interpreted as discouraging worshippers from engaging with democratic processes”, the commission said.
The commission added that the time of the speeches, the charity did not have effective policies in place to manage risks related to its speakers.
“In response to the regulator’s concerns, the charity’s trustees didn’t demonstrate that they fully understood the risk of reputational harm being caused by the sermon and were unable to offer adequate assurance that they would take action to prevent a similar failure in the future,” it said.
‘Charities are expected to bring people together’
Stephen Roake, assistant director for investigations and compliance at the commission, said: “We recognise that recent events in the Middle East are emotive and distressing.
“But it’s precisely in times of conflict that charities are expected to bring people together, not to stoke further division.
“Trustees of charities have a legal duty and responsibility to ensure everything their charity does is capable of furthering its purposes, and must also take steps to protect the charity’s assets, including its reputation.
“Sadly, in the case of these two charities, the trustees failed to have appropriate processes in place, and allowed their charity’s names and reputations to be exposed to serious harm through inflammatory and divisive language, and in one case, seemed to associate the charity with a proscribed organisation.
“We expect the trustees to continue to take swift action to address the respective concerns.”
Civil Society has contacted the charities for comment.
Related articles
