Trustees of Didsbury Mosque have come under scrutiny for lacking formal control over literature that may have contained extremist messages and failing to report links to terrorism following the Manchester Arena bombing. Documents obtained by the Manchester Evening News (MEN) reveal shortcomings at the mosque, including a lack of formal procedures for addressing extremism.
These revelations came to light after MEN’s lengthy legal battle to obtain a report from the Charity Commission. The report, dated 2018, highlighted various issues at the mosque, including failures to record the suspension and reinstatement of an imam who had been photographed in military fatigues in Libya.
READ MORE: Islamist Militants Disguised as Women Kill Four in Pakistan, Including Three Policemen
The Charity Commission action plan was drawn up 16 months after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, which killed 22 people and left many others seriously injured. The Commission initially resisted disclosing the full report, citing concerns over confidentiality with mosque trustees. However, after MEN appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), a redacted version of the report was released.
Calls for Transparency
Families of the bombing victims praised the MEN for its determination in obtaining the action plan, but they questioned whether the mosque had made any meaningful changes. Despite criticism in the public inquiry into the attack, Fawzi Haffar, the mosque’s chairman, remains in his position, raising doubts about the mosque’s commitment to reform.
The public inquiry’s final report, published in 2023, cleared Didsbury Mosque of being an active contributor to the radicalization of bomber Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem. However, inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders criticized mosque leaders for exhibiting “wilful blindness” to discussions about the conflict in Libya, which took place at the mosque prior to the attack.
While the inquiry found no direct involvement of the mosque in the radicalization process, it did identify weaknesses in how the mosque handled certain sensitive issues, including its relationship with the Abedi family. Salman and Hashem Abedi attended the mosque, and their father had performed the call to prayer there. Their older brother Ismail had also volunteered at the mosque’s Arabic school.
Issues Raised by the Action Plan
The Charity Commission’s 2018 action plan outlined a series of criticisms and recommendations for the mosque to address. Among the issues highlighted was the lack of adequate safeguarding policies, particularly for children. The action plan recommended appointing a designated safeguarding lead and enhancing the mosque’s policies to protect vulnerable individuals from potential harm, including extremism.
Additionally, the mosque’s “Sharia Council,” which provides religious rulings, was criticized for failing to clarify that its rulings were not legally binding. The trustees were instructed to ensure that users of the council understood the voluntary nature of its decisions.
Other shortcomings included outdated policy documents and a lack of formal procedures for controlling literature distributed at the mosque. Following the bombing, there were reports of extremist leaflets being distributed at the mosque. The action plan recommended implementing stricter controls on the dissemination of materials to prevent such incidents in the future.
The Commission also criticized the mosque for not reporting the suspension and subsequent reinstatement of an imam, Mustafa Graf, who had been photographed in military gear in Libya. The trustees were reminded of their obligation to report serious incidents to the Charity Commission, including any links to extremism or terrorism.
Controversial Leadership
Despite being heavily criticized during the inquiry, Fawzi Haffar remains chairman of Didsbury Mosque. Sir John Saunders had questioned his reliability during the inquiry, accusing him of downplaying the mosque’s connections to the Abedi family. In contrast, a more liberal imam, Mohammed El-Saeiti, was praised for his truthful testimony, though he was reportedly ostracized after speaking out against radical Islam at the mosque.
The action plan also raised concerns about governance issues within the mosque, including disputes among trustees and confusion over property ownership. The mosque owns several properties that generate income, but these are held in the names of individual trustees rather than the mosque itself, raising legal and transparency concerns.
Ongoing Concerns
Richard Scorer, a solicitor representing the largest group of families affected by the bombing, commended MEN’s efforts to uncover the action plan but stressed that more transparency was needed. He urged the mosque to be open about what measures have been implemented since 2018 to address the identified issues, especially in light of ongoing concerns about extremism.
In a statement, Didsbury Mosque maintained that there was no direct link between Salman Abedi’s attack and the mosque, though it acknowledged that Abedi had prayed there. The mosque also attributed the failure to record the suspension of Mustafa Graf to an oversight and stated that efforts to control extremist leaflets had been a widespread issue for many mosques.
READ MORE: Blackburn Mosque Receives Approval for New Kitchen Despite Noise Concerns
The Charity Commission recently concluded a separate compliance case into Didsbury Mosque following criticism in Sir John Saunders’ report. A spokesperson for the Commission confirmed that it had “engaged extensively” with the mosque to address governance and management issues.
Conclusion
While the Charity Commission has indicated that Didsbury Mosque complied with the recommendations of the 2018 action plan by 2019, concerns remain about whether sufficient action has been taken to address the issues raised. Victims’ families and legal representatives are calling for greater transparency and continued scrutiny to ensure that the mosque is taking meaningful steps to combat extremism and safeguard its community.
