Criticism of mosque finally revealed as MEN uncovers secret Manchester Arena bomb report

Trustees of Didsbury Mosque 'did not have a formal method of controlling' literature which contained 'possibly extremist messages'. They also 'did not submit' a report to the Charity Commission about alleged links to 'an act of terrorism' after it was reported that the Manchester Arena bomber prayed there.

That's according to documents obtained by the Manchester Evening News following a long freedom of information battle.

The mosque was also told to ensure anyone using its 'Sharia Council', which provides rulings and advice to Muslims, 'are aware no ruling which it makes is legally binding', while it was also criticised for failing to record the suspension and reinstatement of an imam photographed wearing army fatigues in Libya.

The revelations are in an 'action plan' drawn up for the mosque, a registered charity, by the Charity Commission some 16 months after the 2017 suicide bombing at Manchester Arena which claimed 22 innocent lives and left hundreds more seriously injured.

The Charity Commission initially refused to provide its 2018 action plan to the M.E.N. following an application made under freedom of information legislation in March 2023, arguing disclosure would have a 'prejudicial and chilling effect' on dialogue with mosque trustees and 'seriously undermine' confidence in correspondence it has with the mosque remaining private. Only the first two pages of the 11-page action plan were made public at the subsequent Arena inquiry.

We took our case to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) arguing it was strongly in the public interest to release the 2018 action plan particularly following criticism in the public inquiry into the atrocity that mosque leaders had demonstrated 'wilful blindness' to extremism. During the watchdog's investigation the Charity Commission changed its position and agreed to release a redacted version of the action plan, which the ICO ordered the Charity Commission to release.

Arena families have praised the M.E.N. for its 'persistence' in obtaining the action plan and questioned whether the mosque has changed at all as its chairman - who was heavily criticised in the public inquiry - remains in post.

A controversial history

Suicide bomber Salman Abedi and his jailed accomplice brother Hashem attended Didsbury Mosque while their older brother Ismail, who has fled the country, volunteered in the mosque's Arabic school. Their father Ramadan had performed the call to prayer while their mother Samia Tabbal taught there briefly. The family also attended other mosques.

The third and final report of the public inquiry into the 2017 bombing, published in early 2023, concluded Didsbury Mosque was not an ‘active factor or cause’ in the radicalisation of suicide bomber Salman Abedi or brother Hashem. But leaders of the Burton Road venue had demonstrated ‘wilful blindness’ to highly-charged political debate at the mosque about the conflict raging in Libya before the atrocity, inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders concluded.

He criticised the ‘unreliable’ evidence of Fawzi Haffar, the chair of trustees at Didsbury Mosque, who he said 'tended to downplay the strength of the links between the mosque and the Abedi family'. He remains chair despite the criticism. By contrast Sir John praised the ‘generally truthful and reliable’ evidence of a liberal imam at the mosque, Mohammed El-Saeiti, who said in his evidence he was ostracised at the mosque after speaking out against radical Islam.

The action plan was drawn up by the Charity Commission following a two-day inspection of Didsbury Mosque carried out on August 9 and 10, 2018, some 16 months after the bombing. The plan made a series of criticisms and gave the trustees six months to address them. The Charity Commission says the actions suggested were 'complied with' by 2019.

The action plan pointed out that by law a charity that works with children or vulnerable groups 'must safeguard them from harm'. Among the potential harms referenced in the action plan is extremism. One of the mosque's stated aims is to provide education for children studying the Koran.

The action plant noted: "The current safeguarding policy only covers basic elements of safeguarding children and should be reviewed and enhanced." The mosque was told to appoint a 'designated safeguarding lead'.

'Sharia Court is not legally binding'

The mosque operates a 'Sharia Council' which provides advice and rulings to Muslims. But the action plan said the mosque trustees must ensure anybody using it 'are doing so voluntarily and are aware no ruling which it makes is legally binding'.

"The trustees should ensure that all safeguarding policies are implemented in the Sharia Court as they are in the rest of the Charity’s operations," said the action plan.

Charity Commission inspectors reviewed the mosque's written policy documents, including documents covering safeguarding, complaints, whistleblowing and anti-corruption. They found that 'not all policies had a review date' and some were 'out of date'. Some referred to the mosque as a 'company' even though it is a charity, according to the action plan, which also noted 'policies were too simplistic and lacking detail' and that 'responsibilities (are) not clearly defined'.

Inspectors found that 'key' policies concerning financial controls, 'speakers, events and literature', a 'code of conduct' and 'power to exclude individuals' were 'missing'.

The action plan said: "The trustees should review current policies and ensure that all have a defined review date, clear version marking and responsible individuals defined. The trustees should ensure that policies are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. The trustees should also implement missing policies set out above, particularly financial controls policy."

Inspectors also noted that the mosque's 1986 'declaration of trust', a legal document which set up the charity, 'has not been updated for some time and is no longer fit for purpose'. The action plan said: "Recent disputes between trustees have exposed the shortcomings (of the declaration), particularly the lack of clarity regarding the appointment and removal of trustees."

The action plan referenced 'advice' the Charity Commission handed the trustees of the mosque in May 2018 which said they had 'not fully complied' with the mosque's declaration of trust and had 'enacted powers which were not specified'.

The action plan said it was 'counterproductive' for the mosque trustees to take on board views of a sub-group of its congregation, the General Activities Committee (GAC).

"Whilst it is right that the trustees are accountable to the beneficiaries of the Charity it is counterproductive to have a second ‘elected’ body operating within the Charity without any clear remit or recognised terms of reference," said the action plan.

The action plan went on: "Going forward the trustees should consider if such a group is necessary to act as a conduit for concerns or grievances to be brought to the trustees in a constructive way. If so, the trustees should clearly define its terms of reference and ensure that it is representative of all members and not a select few."

The Charity Commission inspectors also noted some mosque members had expressed 'confusion and concern' as the mosque owned 'several properties in addition to the main mosque which are held to generate income'. The action plan noted these properties were held in the names of individual trustees 'on trust' as the mosque, as a charity, 'cannot legally hold property in its own name'. The mosque has 'tangible assets' worth £2.6m, according to the latest available statement of its financial affairs from 2022.

The action plan suggested 'vesting the properties in the official custodian' until it progressed its plans to become an 'incorporated entity'. The trustees were told to inform the Charity Commission, in writing, of all the properties owned by the mosque and 'how ownership is reflected on with (sic) the land registry'.

The mosque was formally incorporated at Companies House under the name Manchester Community Centre Ltd as a 'charitable company' in July 2019, with Mr Haffar among the directors.

Charities must report serious incidents

Inspectors at the Charity Commission criticised the mosque for failing to record 'the suspension and reinstatement' of an imam at the mosque, Mustafa Graf, in 2017.

"The trustees must keep sufficient records to show their collective decision making, and retain these records for 6 years at a minimum," said the action plan.

Mr Graf, described to the M.E.N. in 2013 how he was captured and tortured in Libya by forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, who had been killed two years earlier during the Arab Spring uprisings, before managing to flee back to his home in Chorlton. He said he'd gone to Libya to visit family.

Pictures emerged after the Arena bombing of Graf in military fatigues in Libya but mosque leaders accepted his assertion it was to 'blend in' rather than fight.

Inspectors said charities were required to report 'serious incidents' including terrorism and extremism. They noted the mosque 'issued press statements and held a press conference stating the perpetrator had insignificant links with the charity' but that the trustees 'did not submit' a report of a serious incident to the Charity Commission 'regarding the alleged links between the Charity and an act of terrorism'.

The action plan states: "The trustees should read and understand the Commission's guidance in respect of reporting serious incidents and should, when necessary, report serious incidents to the Commission."

The inspectors noted that in the aftermath of the bombing 'it was alleged that leaflets with inappropriate and possibly extremist messages were distributed at the Charity’s premises at an open day', although they 'originated' from another organisation and weren't produced by the mosque.

"Whilst it is still unclear if the particular leaflet in question was ever distributed by the Charity it was clear that the trustees did not have a formal method of controlling literature available via the Charity and its library. The trustees identified this as a weakness," said the action plan, which recommended a new policy to check the distribution of material at the mosque.

Weeks after the bombing, an audience member on BBC Question Time waved an 'anti-western' leaflet he said he had been handed at the mosque during an open day. He read out an excerpt: "Living in a society in which people have accepted Western lifestyle as their way of life brings immorality to every step. Modesty, shame and honour have no place in Western civilisation."

'This should have been disclosed sooner - there are significant issues at stake'

Richard Scorer, a solicitor who represents the largest group of Arena families, said: "I commend the Manchester Evening News for its persistence in seeking disclosure of the Charity Commission action plan from 2018. Of course, this plan should have been disclosed much sooner – there are significant public interest issues at stake given the Arena bombing and a charity in effect gets a public subsidy through the tax system, so the public have a right to know what is going on and there should have been transparency from the outset.

"It is clear that serious problems were identified in the 2018 plan. However, although we are told that the issues identified in the action plan were addressed, because of the lack of transparency around this, we still don’t know exactly what action, if any, Didsbury mosque has taken since 2018 to tackle the issues raised. They should be open about this. We know that the chair of trustees at the mosque in 2018 remains as chair, despite the fact that he was heavily criticised in Sir John Saunders’ report. The fact that he remains in post despite these serious criticisms raises concerns that real change has not taken place.

"Proper and transparent regulation and oversight of charities is essential. We need to know a lot more about the current position before we can have confidence that this charity is operating as it should, and that the ‘wilful blindness’ towards extremism identified by Sir John has been addressed. I urge Didsbury Mosque to be transparent and tell us exactly what they’ve done and are doing now to tackle extremism so the community can be confident that all these issues are being properly addressed."

In a statement, the Islamic Centre Manchester, insisted 'no link has ever been established' between Salman Abedi's attack and the mosque although they accepted he was reported to have prayed there. The trustees insist there was nothing to report to the Charity Commission as his reported association with the mosque was 'already very much in the public domain'. The failure to record the suspension and reinstatement of Mustafa Graf was 'due to an oversight', according to the mosque. Moves to control leaflets 'from bad faith actors' had happened 'at many mosques', said the statement, which also criticised Mr Scorer as 'obsessed and hostile to Didsbury Mosque'.

On the front page it its website the mosque - a former Methodist church which is formally The Islamic Centre Manchester - maintains a link to a statement it made following the critical inquiry report which slams the 'misleading comments and smears' it alleges were made at the inquiry by a police counter terrorism boss and a barrister representing the largest group of families.

'Charities must learn from their mistakes and improve'

The Charity Commission confirmed it had recently 'concluded a compliance case into the charity' which it opened last year following the criticism in Sir John's report and that it 'made clear our criticisms of the charity's chair'.

A Charity Commission spokesperson said: “We have engaged extensively with The Islamic Centre (Manchester) to ensure the charity addresses shortcomings in its governance and management. We have made clear our concerns about the conduct of the charity’s Chair, finding that his statements and communications with the public inquiry exposed the charity’s reputation to undue damage and was evidence of misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity."

On the ICO's ruling, the spokeswoman added: "We regularly issue action plans to charities to ensure they take real action to learn from their mistakes and improve. These are not routinely disclosed.

"We issued an action plan to the trustees of The Islamic Centre (Manchester) in 2018 requiring them to improve their management and administration of the charity. We have had exchanges as we've monitored their compliance with it.

"We have now released additional information about that action plan, as doing so will not prejudice ongoing work. It is also relevant that we have previously disclosed relevant information to assist the inquiry into the Manchester Arena Bombing and that other information about the action we have taken is in the public domain. The ICO confirmed its agreement with this revised approach, and we’ve acted quickly to comply with its decision."

'We cannot know everyone who prays or if they have criminal intent'

The statement Didsbury Mosque sent to the Manchester Evening News said: "No link has ever been established between the mosque and Salman Abedi despite investigations by the Police, the security services, our independent internal investigations, the Charity Commission, and the Arena Inquiry. It is libellous to suggest otherwise. Abedi is reported to have come to pray at this mosque on a few occasions like thousands of other people every week who can say their prayers and leave, it is open to anyone to come and pray.

That is not evidence of a link. He had no link or role in our mosque. We cannot know everyone who prays or if they have criminal lifestyles or intent. Such simplistic assertions are not made about individuals just praying in other religious places of worship. We consider it Islamophobic to draw such a tenuous link to criminals who have simply prayed at a place of worship. We have seen with the recent riots what such loose/false assertions and linkages to a mosque in Southport can lead to.

"You have misunderstood the Serious Incident reporting requirement in this case. We were required to report the media reporting of the incident which was making all kinds of assertions and causing reputational damage to the mosque, to make the Commission aware of what was happening. There was no link of Salman Abedi to the mosque which we could have reported.

"We had already made a public statement stating he was reported to have prayed at the mosque a few times from the outset. Given huge media coverage with hundreds of media from all around the world and all kinds of investigations taking place, the Commission already knew about the incident, and we had issued a public statement, so we assumed we did not also need to make a formal report which seeks only basic information about an incident which were already very much in the public domain. We were told we still needed to do a formal incident report which we accept we did not do."

'Sharia marriages and divorces are not unusual'

On the advice suggested by the 2018 action plan regarding the mosque's Sharia Council, the statement went on: "The Charity Commission's Action Plan is from 2018 and is advice/guidance on legal requirements or advice on improvements, not evidence of wrongdoing. Where there is wrongdoing the Commission will normally investigate further and produce a report for the public.

"Most Charity Commission monitoring visits of charities lead to action plans for improvement, and it is one of the less serious forms of Commission interventions. We voluntarily provided the Action Plan to the Manchester Arena Inquiry at the outset, and it was available to the Chairman and his legal team who selected the relevant parts to the case and made it available to lawyers of the families, it was even referred to in the public proceedings, it is not secret or even new information.

"Our Sharia marriages and divorces provide religious legitimacy to marriages and do not replace legal civil marriages. It is known by most in the Muslim community that they are not legal marriages according to UK law. Usually, members of the community obtain Sharia marriages to fulfil religious conditions and then go on to have a civil marriage or divorce to comply with the law. Some mosques perform both at the same time. Administrators and Imams used to inform people of this verbally. The Commission's advice was not a finding of wrongdoing but a recommendation that we should put this in writing to those accessing this service, which was implemented. All other religious communities also perform religious marriages in their places of worship according to their tradition, it is not unusual."

'We are an open and transparent mosque'

On the failure to record the suspension and reinstatement of Mustafa Graf, the statement said: "The Police and Counter Terrorism cleared Mustafa Graf, and no action was taken i.e. he had not done anything wrong. The Mosque and Graf provided any information and assistance that was asked of them. MEN reported (sic) has previously also reported this. There was no wrongdoing, the reinstatement was made legally at a Board meeting but due to an oversight by the minute taker, the decision was not recorded in the written minutes."

On concerns in the 2018 action plan about the mosque's policy documents including its safeguarding policy, the statement said: "A Safeguarding policy was in place which was a legal requirement. We worked closely with the Manchester City Council safeguarding team. The matter relates to Madrasa children’s policy and not extremism or terrorism. The Commission recommended upgrading a policy which they do with many charities."

On the concern expressed about the GAC, the statement said: "This was not a political group, it was a user of services group to help improve services and plan activities, mainly consultative. The Commission pointed out that the group had no legal basis to make decisions."

On concerns expressed about the control of potentially extremist leaflets at the mosque, the statement said: "This is a recommendation of good practice from the Commission that they make to all mosques about the possibility of bad faith actors leaving leaflets not produced by mosques and to have some checks and controls in place. This has happened at many mosques."

The statement concluded: "The Action Plan and advice were completed a long time ago and we have given interviews on the media about improvements made since then. We do not think this warrants a news story as it is dated and nothing new, as you can see there is no evidence of anything to do with Salman Abedi or of extremism/terrorism. We are an open and transparent mosque that regularly invites the local community to open days and provides services such as food banks and aid to local people of all backgrounds and faiths.

"Sadly, some bad-faith actors take information out of context and use it for political propaganda for their purposes. We have been investigated and monitored since the tragic bombing (2017) by the Police, Counter Terrorism, and the Charity Commission, independent investigations we have been commissioned and interrogated by the Manchester Arena Inquiry. No evidence has been found of links to that incident or wrongdoing but only general improvements. Recommendations for improved management are not evidence of wrongdoing and can be found in all organisations."

The statement also criticised Richard Scorer.