From Protection to Trust: A New Approach to Mosque Security

The safety and security of British Muslims has become one of the most pressing public policy challenges facing the country. Across Britain, mosques and Muslim community organisations continue to experience vandalism, harassment, intimidation, and attacks that leave communities feeling vulnerable and exposed. Yet physical protection is only one part of a much wider challenge. The real policy question is how Britain protects Muslim citizens in an environment where anti-Muslim hostility has become increasingly visible in public discourse, online spaces, and everyday life. 

Mosques are often the most visible targets, but the consequences extend far beyond the buildings themselves. When a mosque is attacked, parents worry about their children, women reconsider their travel patterns, older people become more isolated, and communities become more hesitant about participating in public life. Security is therefore not simply about protecting bricks and mortar. It is about protecting confidence, belonging, and the ability of British Muslims to live, worship and contribute freely to society.  

The cost of inaction is measurable: Equi research has shown how British Muslims are 50% more likely than other Britons to consider leaving the country they call home, to whose economy they contribute at least £70 billion a year. This rises to 65% more likely among higher earners. British Muslims are three times more likely than the average Briton to cite religious discrimination as a reason to consider relocating. The 2024 summer riots, which were targeted against Muslims, people of colour and refugees, led to an estimated cost of £243 million.

Research from the European-Commission funded PROTONE project also demonstrates that threats to places of worship are real and consequential. The strongest driver of insecurity is not abstract concern about terrorism but direct experiences of violence, vandalism, and damage to religious buildings. Fear spreads quickly. An attack on one mosque is often experienced by Muslims elsewhere as an attack on all Muslims. Communities many miles away feel the effects, reinforcing a sense of vulnerability that extends beyond any single incident.  

This creates a dual challenge for policymakers. British Muslims face the reality of anti-Muslim hostility while also navigating policy frameworks that have often approached Muslim institutions primarily through the lens of security and counter-extremism. For many mosque leaders, this has created a trust deficit. While protection is clearly needed, engagement with government initiatives can sometimes feel complicated by concerns about surveillance, securitisation, and unequal treatment. 

This is particularly troubling because the overwhelming majority of Britain’s more than 2,000 mosques have no connection whatsoever to extremism or violence. Yet exceptional and highly unrepresentative cases too often shape public perceptions. The result is a policy environment in which Muslim institutions can feel scrutinised rather than supported. 

The evidence also challenges common assumptions about security. Communities that invest heavily in visible security measures do not necessarily feel safer. Fences, shutters, and barriers may be necessary in some circumstances, but they can also serve as constant reminders of threat. A mosque that resembles a fortress risks becoming less welcoming to worshippers, neighbours, and visitors. It also fails to realise their full potential as community anchors, running food banks, youth provision and mental health support that reach tens of thousands of people of all faiths and none each year. Visiting Cambridge Central Mosque in July, the King recognised this, praising Europe’s only eco mosque for providing community services which contribute “not only to the Muslim community, but to Cambridge itself”. 

Local networks make a difference. The most resilient communities are often those with the strongest local relationships. Research consistently shows that mosques embedded within their neighbourhoods recover more quickly when incidents occur and receive greater public support. Strong links with local police, councils, schools, churches, community groups, and local media create networks of solidarity that no security system can replicate. When attacks occur, those relationships often lead to faster responses and stronger community backing. 

Security policy must therefore move beyond an infrastructure-only approach. Cameras and alarms matter, but social capital matters too. The critical question is not simply whether a mosque is physically secure, but whether the wider community would stand alongside it if an incident occurred tomorrow. 

At the same time, policymakers must recognise that attacks on mosques are only one manifestation of a broader problem. Many British Muslims encounter hostility not at places of worship but in schools, workplaces, public transport, shopping centres, and online. Visibly Muslim women, like women wearing hijab, remain particularly vulnerable to abuse and intimidation, while many young Muslims report concerns about identity, belonging, and public perceptions. 

An effective security strategy must therefore extend beyond protecting religious buildings to protecting the people who use them. That means improving hate crime reporting, strengthening support for victims, building confidence in public institutions, and challenging anti-Muslim prejudice wherever it occurs. The objective should be to protect citizens as well as communities. 

Government has recognised some of these threats through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme, which provides funding for measures like CCTV, alarms, security lighting, fencing, and access controls. The scheme serves an important purpose and reflects an acknowledgement that Muslim communities face genuine risks. 

However, physical security measures alone cannot address the broader challenges facing British Muslims. Cameras may protect buildings, but they cannot tackle fear, exclusion, hate crime, or declining trust in public institutions. Security funding should therefore form part of a wider strategy that protects both places and people. 

Many mosque leaders report that accessing security funding is slow, bureaucratic, and difficult, particularly for smaller mosques run by volunteers. Complex applications, procurement requirements, and lengthy approval processes can delay support reaching communities that need it most. 

Security threats do not emerge according to government funding cycles. When tensions rise or incidents occur, communities need support quickly. A system that is overly bureaucratic risks leaving vulnerable institutions exposed precisely when assistance is most urgently required. 

There is therefore a strong case for reforming how protective security funding is administered. Government should continue to provide funding and maintain robust oversight, but urgent consideration should be given to delivering support through a trusted, independent Muslim organisation with strong governance and accountability arrangements, as is the case for other faith communities. 

Such an organisation would have a deeper understanding of mosque governance, local community structures, and the practical realities faced by volunteers. It could help smaller institutions navigate the application process, distribute resources more efficiently, and ensure that support reaches the communities facing the greatest need. 

Just as importantly, a community-led delivery model could help address the trust deficit that continues to affect relationships between Muslim communities and government-led security initiatives. Administering protective grants through a trusted Muslim institution would send an important signal that mosque security is about protecting citizens from hatred and violence, not treating communities as objects of suspicion. 

This is not an argument against accountability. Public money must always be subject to rigorous scrutiny and transparent reporting. Rather, it is an argument for designing systems that prioritise effectiveness, responsiveness, accessibility, and trust. 

Recent events have reinforced these concerns. The reported evacuation of tens of thousands of Muslims at the Ipswich ‘Ijtima’ gathering due to a threat again highlighted the potential vulnerabilities facing large-scale Muslim events. The incident demonstrated the importance of proactive planning, partnership working, and intelligence-led responses which on this occasion averted what could have been a tragic attack on Muslims. Yet many Muslims also noted the relative absence of sustained political attention compared with responses to other security incidents affecting other faith communities. There was no COBRA meeting, no 24-hour news reporting and no clamour from politicians across all parties to express their horror. Such perceptions reinforce the belief, whether justified or not, that Muslim safety remains a secondary concern within broader national conversations about security and cohesion. 

Addressing this challenge requires more than statements of solidarity. It requires visible action, equitable policy responses and sustained investment in both community protection and community confidence. It also requires Muslim voices to be involved in shaping solutions and informing policy. 

Britain’s Muslims, now approaching four million people, make an enormous contribution to national life. They contribute economically, socially, culturally, educationally and civically. Mosques are not merely places of worship; they are community institutions. Protecting these institutions is therefore not simply a question of security. It is a question of citizenship, equality, and social trust. British Muslims need confidence that their concerns are being heard and that their safety matters as much as that of any other community. 

Prof. Tahir Abbas is Professor of Criminology and Global Justice at Aston University, specialising in social exclusion and radicalisation, with nearly 30 years of academic experience.

The views expressed in Equi Comments pieces reflect the author’s perspective and do not necessarily represent the views of Equi. We provide this platform to encourage dialogue on broad themes related to our work, from diverse perspectives.