Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK

The Charity Commission allows funding to flow to illegal Israeli settlements, while cracking down on Muslim organisations with divergent political views

Police stand near the Houses of Parliament in central London in March 2017 (Daniel Leal/AFP)

Police stand near the Houses of Parliament in central London in March 2017 (Daniel Leal/AFP)

On

Two UK-based charities, the Kasner Charitable Trust and UK Toremet, collectively donated around £5.7 million ($7.7m) between 2017 and 2021 to a religious school in Susya, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, the Guardian recently revealed.

The settlement is considered illegal under international law and the UK’s own foreign policy stance. The funding significantly contributed to the expansion of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva high school, increasing student enrolment and establishing it as a core institution in the Susya settlement.

This case has drawn considerable criticism from political figures and human rights campaigners, who argue that charitable status should not extend to organisations funnelling money into settlements that might undermine international law.

Even more shocking is that this entire controversial process was overseen by the UK charity regulator. The Charity Commission authorised these donations on the grounds that a donation to a school located in the occupied territories would, in principle, qualify as a grant for the advancement of education and therefore be considered a “legitimate” charitable activity.

The regulator clarified that a charity operating within the occupied Palestinian territories does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence or a breach of charity law.

These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK government officially recognises them as such. Yet the charity regulator approved the donations, justifying them on educational grounds - something a legal review could appropriately address.

In the meantime, this episode reifies concerns and accusations frequently levelled at the regulator’s impartiality, particularly in relation to Muslim charities.

Stricter oversight

The charity regulator’s treatment of the two aforementioned charities stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Islamic Centre of England (Icel), a Shia Muslim centre in West London. The centre is religiously and culturally aligned with the Iranian diaspora living in the Maida Vale district, and attended by Shia from various national backgrounds.

The Charity Commission issued a warning to Icel in 2020, after a group of protesters held a vigil for Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been killed in a US drone strike. Soleimani was on the UK’s designated sanctions list.

In November 2022, the charity regulator launched a formal statutory inquiry into the centre, citing major governance concerns over issues such as the vigil, the charity’s online content and trustees’ alleged conflicts of interest. The inquiry was formally concluded in May 2025, with the regulator requiring Icel trustees to implement stricter oversight of speakers, religious services, events and online content.

There is a general impression among those who followed Icel’s activities that it was targeted because of its critical stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While the charity regulator did not explicitly acknowledge this, the right-wing media frequently portrays Icel as the Iranian government’s “nerve centre”, largely due to its connection with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations

A forthcoming academic report titled “The Islamic Centre of England: Understanding its Role within Muslim Communities across Britain” finds that Icel is financially independent, with no ties to Iranian funding, and plays a positive role in supporting local Muslim communities. The report acknowledges the connection between the resident imam of Icel and Khamenei, but not as a political agent - instead, as a spiritual guide for local Shia communities.

The report, by professors Oliver Scharbrodt (Lund University) and Alison Scott-Baumann (Soas), highlights how strict restrictions from the UK charity regulator “may inadvertently limit the rights of Muslims to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly”.

Even if one accepts the Charity Commission’s rationale for warning Icel over its commemoration of Soleimani, a key question remains: why is it deemed legitimate to fund projects in illegal settlements - condemned by both the UN and the UK - that ultimately expand and entrench those settlements, an act which the UK government itself opposes and condemns?

This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission’s apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations.

Muslim organisations have long alleged that the charity regulator holds a structural bias against them. While pro-Israel charities’ funding activities in illegal settlements are approved, Muslim charities are routinely subjected to exceptional levels of scrutiny, often based on vague or politicised concerns.

Silencing solidarity

Human Aid UK, a British Muslim charity, was the subject of a two-year investigation by the Charity Commission after police detained its staff in 2019 and seized funds. Although the funds were returned months later and no wrongdoing was found, the regulator continued its inquiry, prompting Human Aid UK to accuse it of bias against Muslim charities and of acting as an “extension of police and security services’ harassment policy”.

Between April 2012 and November 2014, more than a quarter of the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiries - 20 out of 76 - focused on Muslim charities, according to the Guardian, whose analysis included all investigations that remained open at the end of the given timeframe. Many of these probes involved organisations operating mosques, providing humanitarian aid, or working in Syria.

A 2017 academic article in the ReOrient journal asserted that the Charity Commission’s evolving structure and practices disproportionately affect Muslim charities. The article noted that while Muslim organisations make up only 1.21 percent of the sector, they accounted for 38 percent of all disclosed statutory investigations between January 2013 and April 2014, raising serious concerns about institutionalised bias.

Amid pressure from the Charity Commission, Icel administrators often asked organisers to avoid discussing Israel’s war on Gaza or openly showing solidarity with Palestinians, fearing that such acts could jeopardise the charity’s legal status.

The normalising of Islamophobia in UK public life is fuelling hate and violence

Similar concerns have been raised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the country’s largest Muslim umbrella body, which alleges that the charity regulator takes a harsh line on Muslim charities that support Palestine. This has fuelled accusations that the Charity Commission is increasingly becoming a tool to silence Muslim charities and prevent them from expressing solidarity with the victims of Israel’s war crimes.

The charity regulator is meant to be independent and “free from the influence of others”. But its actions, based on the aforementioned examples, appear to be influenced by government foreign policy. The differential treatment of charities linked to Iran or other Muslim countries, and those connected to Israel, reflects the UK government’s geopolitical stance - hostile to one, favourable to the other.

This apparent political influence undermines public trust and risks complicity. The Charity Commission cannot claim to uphold charitable integrity while selectively applying its principles, particularly where Muslim charities are involved.

In response to questions from Middle East Eye, the Charity Commission stated: “The Commission rejects any allegation of bias. All concerns are assessed fairly and consistently against the legal framework,” and reiterated that “we are independent of Government”. The Charity Commission did not address why Muslim charities were disproportionately subjected to its statutory investigations, as highlighted in the ReOrient study.

The commission added that it does not “fetter the freedom of expression...Charities may express views publicly about matters of conscience or religion, including in relation to the conflict in the Middle East, so long as these views advance the charity’s purposes and are demonstrably in the charity’s best interests.” It noted that speeches, sermons or other communications should not be inflammatory or divisive.

With regards to the two charities linked to Israeli settlements, the commission said: “There is a possibility that, in remitting funds to such organisations, UK Toremet is at risk of committing a criminal offence in England and Wales by breaching the Geneva Convention Act 1957. We issued the charity’s trustees with statutory guidance and an action plan, which included specific reference to the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.”

But if the Charity Commission is to rebuild trust with British Muslim communities and demonstrate that it upholds fairness for all, it must urgently commission an independent review of its practices to ensure genuine equality and impartiality across all faith-based charities.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

UK Politics

Opinion

Post Date Override

0

Update Date

Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29

Update Date Override

0

inflammatory

‘Remove this fifth column’: Israel’s Arabic account sparks outrage over anti-Muslim tweet

‘Remove this fifth column’: Israel’s Arabic account sparks outrage over anti-Muslim tweet

US gov’t ditches Musk’s AI over ‘anti-Semitism’ – media

US gov’t ditches Musk’s AI over ‘anti-Semitism’ – media

Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1bn

Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1bn

Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK

Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK