Impactful Islamic Arts & Culture Engagement
This criterion assesses the organization's effectiveness in providing engaging and impactful Islamic arts and cultural activities that promote understanding, appreciation, and positive community building. It focuses on the quality, accessibility, and inclusivity of arts programs, evaluating how well they contribute to the organization's overall mission of community welfare and empowerment. The criterion emphasizes the concept of *Jamal* (beauty) as an act of *Iḥsān*, ensuring activities foster creativity, cross-cultural dialogue, and spiritual enrichment while adhering to Islamic ethical guidelines. Programs are governed by a formal Ethical Review SOP that operationalizes scholar consultation, respects legitimate juristic differences (*adab al-ikhtilaf*), and applies the principle of *La darar wa la dirar* (no harm) to prevent psychological or social harm. Further assessment considers how activities align with *Maqasid al-Shari'ah* (preservation of faith, intellect, life, lineage/dignity, and property), promote social cohesion, and ensure responsible representation. Examples include nasheed/performance arts, digital/interactive media, textiles/ceramics, heritage crafts, architectural heritage tours, photography/film, culinary heritage, and interfaith/cross-cultural co-creation.
- Does the organization have a formal Ethical Review SOP with defined roles, triage levels, and a scholar consultation process?
- Is there a Theory of Change logic model that maps arts activities to specific outcomes and Maqasid al-Shari'ah objectives?
- How does the organization implement its 'Accessibility Minimum Offer' for different event types (workshops, performances, digital)?
- Are partnerships managed using tiered MOUs that include safeguarding, EDI, IP, and data-sharing clauses?
- Does the organization use a defined 'Impact Measurement Protocol' to track the Islamic Arts & Culture Impact Index?
- Is there an 'Arts Safeguarding Addendum' in place covering specific risks like media consent, backstage areas, and online galleries?
- How does the organization ensure compliance with the Licensing Act, Copyright (including moral rights), and PRS/PPL via a decision tree?
- Are serious incident reporting triggers and crisis communications plans explicitly linked to arts events?
- Is there a published 'Artist & Facilitator Fees and Expenses Policy' to ensure fair pay?
- How are environmental metrics (carbon/waste) calculated and tracked against specific targets?
- Arts Strategy and Theory of Change (ToC) document.
- Ethical Review SOP, Decision Log, and Scholar Panel terms of reference.
- Tiered MOU templates and signed agreements.
- Impact Measurement Protocol and quarterly Impact Index reports.
- Arts Safeguarding Addendum and training logs.
- Licensing & IP Decision Tree and completed checklists per event.
- Accessibility Minimum Offer definition and 'Adjustments Delivered' logs.
- Serious Incident Decision Log and Crisis Comms Plan.
- Published Artist & Facilitator Fees Policy.
- Event Risk Assessments (including hate incident/Public Order checks).
- Data Protection DPIAs for media/surveys.
- Sustainability reports with defined calculation method (e.g., DEFRA).
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Sector-leading program with a published Impact Index, robust Ethical Review SOP, and Maqasid alignment. Sets benchmarks for inclusion and sustainability (e.g., carbon neutral events), and actively mentors other organizations. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Strong program with a Theory of Change, tiered MOUs, and an operational Impact Measurement Protocol. Accessibility Minimum Offer is consistently delivered, and ethical review is documented. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Defined program with a regular calendar, budget, and basic Theory of Change. Compliance is solid (Safeguarding Addendum, IP checks, Risk Assessments), and feedback is collected systematically. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Developing program with some planned activities but inconsistent quality or compliance. Lacks formal ethical review, specific arts safeguarding protocols, or structured impact measurement. |
| 1 | 1/5 | Ad-hoc or absent programming with no strategic alignment, safeguarding gaps, or lack of ethical/legal oversight. |
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.