Chair

Community

Part Two: Mosques: Power, Accountability and the Path Forward

/

Part Two: Mosques: Power, Accountability and the Path Forward Part One highlighted the importance of mosques and the risks of weak governance, Part Two explores what happens when power becomes concentrated—and how mosques can restore balance. When Power Shifts Too Far In some cases, authority shifts away from trustees and towards the Imam. Here, the Imam may establish the mosque, appoint trustees, and oversee both religious and administrative affairs. The structure begins to resemble an owner-managed organisation. “When one individual holds both spiritual and operational control, accountability becomes blurred.” Leadership Without Infrastructure Running a mosque requires far more than delivering sermons. It demands expertise in finance, safeguarding, construction, planning permissions, fundraising, and stakeholder management. Most Imams are not trained in these disciplines. “I often see Imams making serious mistakes in planning permissions, fundraising, construction, and financial controls—without realising what good governance looks like.” This is not a failure of character, but of structure. Many Imams operate within environments where questioning leadership is culturally discouraged, and where formal governance frameworks are absent. The result is often informal decision-making, limited oversight, and delayed recognition of risk. When Problems Surface, They Escalate Without proper systems in place, issues that could be resolved early often grow into major disputes. “I have seen disagreements between Imams escalate into investigations, litigation, and tribunals—simply because basic HR processes were missing.” Fundraising practices can also expose underlying weaknesses. “Emotional appeals may raise money—but without transparency on how the money is spent, the same issues resurface years later, often with greater damage.” The Cost of Failure When governance breaks down, the impact extends beyond internal conflict. Community trust is eroded. Donor confidence declines. Negative media narratives take hold. At a time when anti-Muslim hostility is rising, mosques should provide stability and reassurance. “Weak governance undermines mosques at the very moment they are needed most.” Rebuilding Trust Through Structure The path forward is not complicated—but it requires discipline. 1. Regulation as Protection, Not Burden Mosques must operate as charities not only in registration, but in practice. Charity Commission guidance should be understood as a protective framework rather than a regulatory burden. It covers all Mosque operation scenarios and exists to safeguard funds, people, and purpose. 2. Strategy Before Activity A clear strategy provides direction. Even a simple, agreed plan enables trustees to identify risks, measure progress, and hold leadership accountable. Without it, decisions remain informal and concentrated in individuals. 3. Stay Close to the Congregation Direct connection to the congregation is equally important. Trustees who attend and engage understand the mosque’s true pulse. Those who do not often miss early warning signs. 4. Get the Finances Right—or Nothing Works Financial management must be treated as central, not secondary. Where proper bookkeeping and oversight are in place, accountability improves, and significant savings are often realised. 5. Clear Roles, Strong Governance Finally, clarity of roles is essential. Annual appraisals of both the Chair and the Imam reinforce accountability and prevent the blurring of responsibilities. “Governance begins to fail when roles become personal rather than accountable.” A Defining Moment for UK Mosques Mosques in the UK are more than buildings. They are anchors of faith, identity, and community life. But their future will not be secured by passion alone. It will depend on governance that is transparent, leadership that is accountable, and structures that are resilient. “Because when governance fails, the cost is not just financial—it is spiritual, social, and generational.” End – Author: Nasir Rafiq BA, FCA is the Managing Partner of Dua Governance Chartered Accountants, an ICAEW firm specialising in charity financial governance and accounts. Nasir works and deals with a large portfolio of Muslim charities and Mosques in UK advising them on accounts and governance issues. He has conducted high-profile governance reviews and investigations. Nasir is the former Finance & Corporate Services Director of Islamic Relief Worldwide and holds many senior positions within the Muslim community. Email: info@duagovernance.com  

Community

Mosques, Power and Accountability: A Two-Part Special Report

/

Mosques across the United Kingdom sit at the heart of Muslim life, shaping not only religious practice but also education, social cohesion, and community identity. Yet behind their visible role lies a more complex reality—one shaped by governance, leadership, and accountability. This two-part article explores that reality. Part One examines the vital role mosques play in British society and the common governance challenges that can undermine them. Part Two looks deeper at power structures within mosques, the consequences when governance breaks down, and the practical steps needed to safeguard their future. Part One: The Backbone of British Muslim Life — and the Risks Within   More Than a Place of Worship Across the United Kingdom, mosques play a central and irreplaceable role in the lives of Muslim communities. With more than 2,000 mosques nationwide—including an estimated 300 to 400 in London alone—these institutions are far more than places of worship. They are hubs of education, social cohesion, and community life. Five daily prayers bring congregations together. Mosques host children’s education through madrasah, facilitate nikah and janaza ceremonies, and provide a space for reflection and support. In areas with larger mosques, entire local economies often develop—halal butchers, grocery stores, and restaurants flourish around them. A Weekly Surge of Belonging Every Friday, these spaces transform. Hundreds of thousands of worshippers—many of them young—fill mosques across the country, creating a powerful sense of unity and belonging. Yet demand continues to outstrip supply. Space constraints are a common issue, leading to constant expansion projects and the opening of new mosques. “It is no exaggeration to say that mosques are central to the preservation and growth of Islam in the UK.” The absence of mosques during the Covid-19 lockdowns made that reality even more apparent. When Governance Fails, Everyone Pays Most UK mosques operate as registered charities, bringing both protection and responsibility. Charity registration often becomes essential due to the scale of funds handled and the involvement of children, placing safeguarding at the forefront. But when governance fails, the consequences ripple far beyond the boardroom. “I often get involved when governance goes wrong—trustees fall out, the Charity Commission intervenes, or financial mismanagement emerges. Each time, the mosque suffers.” “Funds are lost to litigation, reputations are damaged, and opportunities to serve the community are missed.” These failures are rarely isolated. They often stem from recurring issues—commonly referred to as mosque politics. The Chair: Steward or Stronghold? At the centre of many governance challenges is the role of the Chair. Far from ceremonial, the Chair leads meetings, sets agendas, and represents the mosque to external stakeholders including councils, police, schools, and the NHS. While trustees collectively hold responsibility, the Chair often becomes the public face of that accountability. Problems arise when this role becomes entrenched. Many long-serving Chairs have made extraordinary sacrifices—giving their time, money, and effort to establish or expand mosques. These contributions are often foundational. But over time, sacrifice can evolve into attachment—and attachment into control. “I have seen individuals who gave everything to build a mosque become unwilling to let go—as if the Chair position were a God-given right.” When trustees don’t question, governance weakens. Mistakes are overlooked, concerns are suppressed, and accountability fades—until issues surface publicly. A strong Chair responds to scrutiny with openness. A defensive one can unintentionally deepen the crisis. A Charity, Not a Personal Legacy This reflects a deeper misunderstanding. A mosque is not an owner-managed business. In a private company, an owner carries both the risks and rewards of their decisions. In a charity, the consequences are borne by the community—through donor funds, reputation, and lost opportunity. “When governance is treated like ownership, the very purpose of the mosque is put at risk.” The Imam: At the Heart, Yet Often Undervalued If governance is one pillar of a mosque, the Imam is its heart. Responsible for leading prayer, delivering sermons, and guiding the community, the Imam’s role is central to a mosque’s impact. Yet in practice, that role is often undervalued. “I was once called urgently to a mosque committee meeting. When I arrived, the issue was whether the main senior Imam could afford to take leave to visit Pakistan.” “He sat with his head down, waiting to hear if he could go.” “When I asked his salary, it was around £700 a month. I flipped.” “I told the committee they had insulted the Imam and wasted my time. I advised him to leave—and he did. Today, he is thriving in a large mosque.” This example exposes a broader contradiction. While families invest heavily in academic education, religious leadership is often treated as a cost to minimise. Without capable and respected Imams, mosques risk becoming impressive structures with limited impact. “Grand chandeliers may impress—but they do not educate, guide, or uplift a community.” Part Two looks deeper at power structures within mosques, the consequences when governance breaks down, and the practical steps needed to safeguard their future. Click here to read Part Two: Mosques: Power, Accountability and the Path Forward.  Author: Nasir Rafiq BA, FCA is the Managing Partner of Dua Governance Chartered Accountants, an ICAEW firm specialising in charity financial governance and accounts. Nasir works and deals with a large portfolio of Muslim charities and Mosques in UK advising them on accounts and governance issues. He has conducted high-profile governance reviews and investigations. Nasir is the former Finance & Corporate Services Director of Islamic Relief Worldwide and holds many senior positions within the Muslim community. Email: info@duagovernance.com

Governance

The question of control

/

Trustees often battle with this question with different answers and approaches. Often conflicts between trustees and management are underpinned by this predicament. Charities are set up by humans and run by humans. The mistake is made when the human factor is ignored. The answer to the question of control lies in how humans normally behave and respond. When a child is born and throughout the toddler years, parents feed, clothe, hold their hands and constantly check on them. When the same child grows up, becomes an adult and starts university the approach of the parents changes. There is no need to directly feed, clothe or hold hands. The parents approach changes to now ensuring enough money is in the bank account, direction is set, good university is secured with appropriate accommodation. The constant physical checks turn into keeping an eye on academic results, who the friends are and quality of work experience and references. Same child, same parents, same love but the whole approach changes. If the approach does not change and the parents remain like they were when the child was a baby or teenager then relationships between parent and child risk becoming sour, challenged and damaged. Charities are the same. When they are set up, they need full attention and involvement of the Trustees, however when they grow large, the whole approach must change. When it does not, this results in relationship between trustees and management to suffer and eventually breakdown. Like the parents learning from other parents before them, trustees must also learn and apply successful experiences of other trustees and charities. Below are some techniques that have always worked. Reconciling bank statements to information held by the charity This should never be underestimated. Tidying up book keeping, preparing good quality year end accounts and picking up fraud, all depends on it. This applies to Charites of all sizes and complexities. Banks are third party organisations and they hold information in a certain way reflecting the instructions from the charity trustees and / or management. When the bank information is reconciled against information held by the charity which reflects how the charity is run, this has an effect of a third party check over charity finances. This is why a charity with good financial control will always have an effective bank reconciliation process. Trustees should concern themselves about it as it aids control. Checks and balances on the CEO A charity with a paid CEO / Manager suggests the charity has grown and requires a different approach. Hand holding by trustees and constant checks should no longer be the case. If this is the case then there is something wrong with either the trustees and / or the CEO. The following are five key checks and balances that have proven to work in larger charities: 1. A robust strategic plan and budget that sets out the framework for the CEO to operate within. Without it, a blind ends up leading a blind, creating issues of trust when difficult decisions need to be taken. 2. A CEO reporting and feedback protocol against the agreed strategy and budgets. The reporting skill of a CEO should be assessed at recruitment stage. 3. A competent legal and audit firm that regularly meets trustees and comments on Management decisions and plans. Trustees should make time for such professionals and should take their advice seriously no matter how difficult it may be to accept. 4. Fair and clear HR policies that dictate how human resource is managed with no trustee or management override. HR issues are often bubbling in the background, if not sorted with good policies and their application, then these bubble burst with ugly consequences. 5. An Audit Committee supported by a professional Internal Audit function. Its not enough to have independent members of the Audit Committee if it is not supported by an competent Internal Audit function. The key message is that Trustees can remain the same in a charity but the approach must change as the charity grows and enters new challenges.   Author: Nasir Rafiq is a widely experienced Chartered Accountant and a Financial Governance Expert. He has directed large finance, HR, facilities and IT functions in charities. He is the founder and director of Dua Governance, a charity finance specialist accountancy and business advisory firm.  

Governance

Charity Leaders: Why personal conduct matters

/

The charity sector represents public benefit. Leaders of charity offices often preside over limited resources in the context of the job required of them. They also take decisions on donor funds and their decisions can have a far-reaching impact on the people that work in charities and / or the beneficiaries. Staff may be asked to sacrifice for the greater good, for beneficiaries sometimes this can be a matter of life and death or economic survival. Charity leaders must be able to lead an effective team; their success depends on it. Charity leaders must be able to lead an effective team; their success depends on it. In doing so leaders often have to take difficult decisions to bring the best out of them. The team must be able to trust and respect the leader. Leaders can train future leaders only when their followers can see them as role models and mentors. In this context the personal conduct of a leader especially in the charity matters. It becomes the difference between success and failure. A leader may move mountains, people and followers will forget that – however the conduct on how those mountains were moved is what becomes the legacy of that leader. It’s the personal conduct that touches people and followers and becomes part of the human memory and emotional history of the leader. Below are some common leadership characteristics and conducts that I have experienced in the charity sector that are proven to make a difference: Trust requires building People and followers must be able to trust their leader. It is only through the trusting, it becomes easier for the people, followers and teams to sacrifice and backdown at their personal cost. Trust is created by being able to follow through on promises without compromise. Trust must be earned and does not automatically come with positions – The leader can build it or break it. Trust must be earned and does not automatically come with positions – The leader can build it or break it. Trust is built by being transparent in public and private communications. Consultations promote trust especially when the followers / team members know that they will be consulted – this builds trust within the team. Trust grows in humility by accepting mistakes when they are made, and all leaders make them. All this requires consistency and patience by the leader. Fairness come what may Leaders enjoy powers entrusted to them over those that follow them. How they use these powers for the greater good of the office they represent identifies their conduct. Those leaders that don’t compromise on fairness tend to be more powerful and effective than those that compromise to benefit family, friends, or personal business interests – A leader may have favorites on a personal level – this must not skew the balance of fairness in the organisation. Nepotism eats personal conduct like termites eating wood Nepotism eats personal conduct like termites eating wood. One the face of it the wood has structure, the termites eat it from within. The wood sound then becomes hollow when tapped, just like the leaders that constantly compromise on principles over nepotism. When these leaders are tested, their teams abandon them over their hollow rhetoric. Being fair and more importantly the perception of being fair (as important) is a crucial conduct that effective leaders often display. This requires the leader to stick to policy and process and become a role model in doing so. Justice is not for the weak Humans are not angels – they make mistakes or do wrong. Teams and followers are not immune from it. An effective leader when confronted with wrong, deals with it. As not dealing with it promotes it, grows it, spreads it – there is always a limit on how much dust can be swept under the carpet. Whenever (and it will) the carpet is removed, all is laid bare, and it is then reflected on the conduct of the leader. Justice has its value when it can be felt and seen. This sets the standards and creates an environment where mistakes and wrongs are less made and discouraged. It becomes the moral compass for leaders and their followers / teams – with this compass they cannot go astray. Being just becomes the moral compass for leaders and their followers / teams – with this compass they cannot go astray. The good practice that is practiced Leaders that tend to take personal conduct seriously, often lead organisations with: effective HR and operational policy and processes that are followed, good and consistent performance management processes, effective organisational structures that achieve good quality consultation and accountability, fair and effective recruitment policy and processes – the right person the right job, a skillful rotating board that appoints the leader on merit and holds the leader accountable.   End – Author: Nasir Rafiq is former Interim Finance & Corporate Services Director of Islamic Relief Worldwide (2016-2019). He has held many senior finance positions within the UK charity sector and continues to advise many charities on governance and leadership matters. Nasir is the Managing Partner of Dua Governance Chartered Accountants and Business Advisors. A firm specialising in the charity sector. He is a widely experienced Fellow Chartered Accountant (ICAEW) and a Charity Financial Governance Expert. Email: info@duagovernance.com

Governance

Who Controls?

/

I work with Boards and the CEOs of many large charities and NGOs and I often come across this dilemma between Trustees and CEOs. I was once asked in Board meeting of a large NGO by a Trustee that sometimes, the Board is too controlling and sometimes it is the CEO – how can we find a balance? I feel this is a wrong question and therefore any answer to this question will be a wrong one. At Board and Executive level, the issue of “Control” should be third in line and should be discussed in the context of two greater issues. Objectives and Risks. Charities are charities and Trustees become trustees because of the stated “Objectives” of the charity / NGO they belong to – the CEO is appointed to help the Trustees achieve these corporate objectives. The utmost priority has to be to achieve the “Objectives” – any activity that harms this, should be considered a “Risk” to the charity. Once the “Objectives” and the “Risks” are clear, it should THEN be about “Control” – for example how are the risks controlled. If the “Controls” requires CEO to take the lead, then be it and if it requires the Trustees to take a lead then be it. As long as the “Controls” reduce the “risks” and helps to achieve the “Objectives”. Outside the above context, the issue of “Control” between Trustees and CEOs becomes an issue of mistrust or ego and therefore will never result in a compromise and positive outcome. So how do we find the balance? In the above battle and contrary to what many think, I often find the CEOs on the wrong side. The Trustees were involved in setting up many of the large charities and work voluntarily, having made many sacrifices. Naturally they have “control”. The CEOs often complain that Trustees do not give them control – The question that is often ignored by the CEOs is “What will the CEO give in return to the Trustees for that control?” The solution to all issues in my experience hides in how “effective, compelling and professional” the answer is.   By Nasir Rafiq BA ACA – Governance Expert

Governance

Leadership – a fashionable term often a misunderstood concept

/

In recent times, I had a taste of leadership where I led and directed large teams in challenging circumstances. Before this and in my professional capacity, I always critically analysed others on their leadership and this time having to implement what I had preached was a surreal experience. This experience not only confirmed many of my perceptions, but it also gave me new insights on real life challenges often ignored by external consultants. Leadership is a misunderstood concept and there is no size or style that fits all. Circumstances, underlying issues and the character of those that are being led, all together dictate the style of leadership required. My view has always been that leadership is all and only about achieving organisational objectives and strategy. If this does not happen then there is no leadership, it is just mere representation and title. A good leader will have an idea, end goal, strategy. This can only come with relevant knowledge and experience. Leadership is about making those that are led, believe in this idea and vision. They all then work together towards that goal. Performance, priority, and consultation is based on this. Firm and difficult decisions are made in this context. Patience and consistency are required from the leader despite the odds and resistance. Another effective attribute of a leader is identifying own weaknesses and limitations. This again should be in the context of the end goal and vision. Once the weakness is recognised, only then the leader can do something about it. Leaders that fail to recognise their own weakness and its potential in holding back the end goal are not strong leaders no matter how much they pretend they are. Those that profess that they lead but lack a vision and idea of their own, just enjoy the limelight and respect of the title. Defending their own image becomes a big issue and when they lose the title, it is devastating to them. They are not leaders; they just represent those they lead and merely ride on their success until they can. Success and downfall of organisations can depend on who leads them. You can have the best team and resources; a bad leader will make a mess out if it. On the other hand, a good leader can make success out of weak teams with little resource. This is why, for those charged with governance, the biggest test of their ability is on how they choose their leader. When organisations choose leaders based on who best can represent them because of culture, friendship or nepotism rather than who is the best for achieving the end goal, vision and strategy then don’t blame the leader when it all goes to pot. In such organisations, it is often found that issues are not resolved, difficult decision are not taken, risk is not managed, the organisation does not become stronger, goals and strategy are not clear or achieved, staff are not developed and a vacuum is left when the chosen one leaves.

Scroll to Top
Type & Search
Close