O you who believe! Stand firm for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just: that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is well acquainted with what you do.” [1]
In recent years, debates over the role of civil society in shaping equitable governance have intensified across policy, academic, and community settings. Amid this evolving landscape, the introduction of a Civil Society Covenant in the United Kingdom invites renewed scrutiny. [2]
This scrutiny is not only regarding the nature of state and voluntary sector relations, but also the position of faith-based organisations within this reconfiguration.
For Muslim organisations and charities in particular, this initiative may appear to signal both recognition and the possibility of recalibrated access to power. Yet closer examination reveals a complex, perhaps uncertain, terrain.
What is it being framed as?
The Covenant, as it has been described, seeks to formalise co-operation between public authorities and civil society actors, seemingly grounded in mutual respect, shared values, and the joint pursuit of social wellbeing.
Though still in its infancy, the framework draws conceptual inspiration from the Armed Forces Covenant, which articulated institutional commitments to those serving in or retired from the military. The military model works well when there’s a clear, widely agreed upon public good, but applying the same logic to civil society (which is much more diverse and often contentious) creates a number of ethical and political concerns.
Crucially, Muslim organisations and charities, long active in both domestic and international service delivery, are not entering this conversation as neutral actors. Their experiences have been shaped by a policy and regulatory climate marked by surveillance, securitisation, and selective trust.
This backdrop complicates any celebratory reading of the Covenant as straightforward progress.
What the Covenant might offer
Recognition and legitimacy at the policy level
It would be premature to categorically endorse or dismiss the Civil Society Covenant. Nonetheless, several potential openings warrant serious consideration.
First, the Covenant may represent an opportunity for formal recognition, a public and policy level affirmation of Muslim charities’ longstanding contributions to social cohesion, welfare provision, and crisis response. This symbolic gesture could translate, albeit unevenly, into greater legitimacy in the eyes of funders, local authorities, and regulatory bodies.
Some theorists of public religion have argued that such moments of recognition can recalibrate the relationship between state and faith-based actors, allowing the latter to contest marginalisation and reshape public discourse. From this perspective, the Covenant might function as a mechanism of civic legitimation, correcting irregularities in how different parts of civil society are valued and resourced.
Funding and procedural fairness
Equally important is the possibility of enhanced access to local governance processes.
Muslim charities have frequently found themselves peripheral to strategic conversations around community needs, youth services, housing, and crime, despite their substantive engagement on the ground.
Therefore, if realised with suitable procedural safeguards, the Covenant could compel public bodies to adopt more inclusive models of consultation and co-design, thus enabling a broader range of actors including Muslims, to advise and act out service delivery.
Safeguards against over-regulation and political bias
Some advocates suggest the Covenant might serve to address systemic imbalances in funding and commissioning.
Current procurement models often disadvantage smaller, community-rooted organisations, especially those lacking the administrative infrastructure of larger NGOs or whose religious identity complicates their fit within prevailing secular frameworks. A reformed approach, attentive to impartiality and diversity, might mitigate these exclusions.
Finally, insofar as the Covenant articulates principles of fair and proportionate regulation, it could function as a modest check on the discretionary power of oversight bodies.
For Muslim charities, the above point is not a trivial concern. Numerous studies and sector reports have highlighted disproportionate scrutiny, bank de-risking, and reputational harm within this segment of the charitable landscape. If the Covenant codifies commitments to procedural fairness, it may help resist arbitrary or politically motivated intrusions.
Constraints, conditions, critical questions
From experience, enthusiasm must be tempered by caution.
The integration of Muslim organisations and charities into formal policy frameworks is not inherently emancipatory. Inclusion can often be structured on conditional terms, reinforcing rather than disrupting hierarchies of recognition and legitimacy.
Inclusivity vs. assimilation
One recurrent risk in such processes is the erosion of religious individuality.
While advocates of the Covenant may invoke inclusivity, its operational logic may rely on liberal norms that privilege neutrality, depoliticisation, and technocratic service delivery. Muslim organisations that foreground theological commitments, take principled stances on contentious issues (such as Islamophobia or Palestinian self-determination), or resist state-aligned narratives, may find their participation limited.
This tension echoes broader debates which caution against equating visibility with voice. It has been argued and clearly demonstrated that liberal inclusion often comes at the cost of substantive difference. Muslim organisations and charities must therefore interrogate whether participation in the Covenant enables genuine influence or merely facilitates institutional assimilation.
Empowerment or containment?
A related concern involves the potential treating of Muslim organisations as a means to an end, rather than acknowledging their inherent value or agency.
Given the UK’s ongoing securitisation of Muslim civil society — evident in policies such as Prevent — there is a plausible risk that engagement with the Covenant may be leveraged to validate broader state agendas.
Organisations may be implicitly required to affirm particular narratives of Britishness, reject “controversial” associations, or police the discourse of their staff and trustees. In such cases, the Covenant ceases to be a platform for empowerment and becomes a mechanism of containment.
Influence, inequalities, mission drift
The distribution of influence within civil society remains profoundly uneven.
Larger, better resourced, and often secular or Christian-origin organisations may dominate policy engagement, leaving Muslim charities with symbolic rather than substantive representation. Without intentional design to ensure parity of voice, the Covenant could replicate existing inequalities under the guise of diversity.
There is also the question of mission drift. Where engagement with public authorities requires adherence to rigid metrics, performance indicators, or depoliticised language, there is a risk that Muslim charities will lose sight of their founding vision.
Donor trust, particularly within Muslim communities, often hinges on perceived independence, faithfulness to Islamic values, and responsiveness to grassroots concerns. Pursuing state legitimacy at the expense of community confidence could generate internal disaffection and external critique.
Strategic responses and our principles
Faced with these possibilities, Muslim organisations should not get involved without thinking carefully. Their involvement should be guided by shared reflection on their purpose, values, and responsibility to the community.
Several steps may assist in this process:
Establishing principled boundaries
Before entering into Covenant-related partnerships, organisations should articulate non-negotiables — be they theological, political, or organisational, and communicate them with clarity.
Developing policy literacy and negotiation skills
Effective engagement with government frameworks requires technical knowledge and the capacity to navigate complex institutional cultures. Investment in these areas is essential.
Building collective infrastructure
Rather than competing for access or recognition, Muslim organisations and charities may benefit from forming even more consortia or networks to co-ordinate engagement, share resources, and amplify shared concerns.
Foregrounding Islamic understanding of knowledge
Muslim organisations and charities should not feel compelled to translate their work solely into secular terms. Qur’ānic principles of justice (‘adl), compassion (rahma), and trust (amānah) offer a rich vocabulary for articulating civic ethics.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Civil Society Covenant must be read beyond a technical policy development. It is a clear site of contention over who defines the common good and on what terms.
For Muslim organisations and charities, it offers certain openings, greater visibility, access to power, and institutional legitimacy, but also poses significant risks.
Whether it becomes a tool of empowerment or an instrument of regulation will depend not only on its final form, but on the agency, co-ordination, and intellectual clarity of those engaging with it.
What emerges from this encounter may reshape not only the landscape of British Muslim civil society but the broader terms upon which faith, justice, and public life are negotiated in our time.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
[1] al-Qur’an, 5:8
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-society-covenant/civil-society-covenant
