01670-25 The Islam Channel and Mohamed Ali Harrath v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. The Islam Channel, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Mohamed Ali Harrath, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Islam Channel facing Ofcom investigation over claims it incites extremism and breaches rules on impartiality”, published on 16 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported that the complainant “is facing an Ofcom investigation after it was accused of inciting extremism and breaching rules on impartiality”.

3. The article further stated: “The [complaint] was submitted to the regulator by the Director of the Oxford Institute for British Islam”. It also reported that the director” is seen as a leading thinker in the field of British Islam”.

4. The article went on to report that the founder of the channel – Mohamed Ali Harrath – “was granted refugee status by the UK in 2000 after fleeing Tunisia where he had led the Tunisian Islamic Front, which allegedly has ties to terrorism”. It also reported he “was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010 after being added to Interpol's Red Notice list but he was later released without charge.”

5. In the penultimate paragraph, the article included the following from “[a]n Ofcom spokesperson: ‘We are assessing the complaints against our rules, but are yet to decide whether or not to investigate’.” It also reported that the publication had “approached Islam Channel for comment”.

6. The complainant said that the headline of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that the channel was “fac[ing]” an “Ofcom investigation”. It said there had not been an Ofcom investigation into the Islam Channel, nor had it been made aware of any complaint made to Ofcom. It added that it had not received any correspondence that would suggest that the channel was under investigation. It said the publication should prove that a complaint was submitted to Ofcom.

7. The complainant also said the article was misleading to report that the channel was “facing claims they have glorified violent Islamist movements, encouraged hostility against the West and portrayed terrorist causes with sympathy”. It said this implied that the accusations were the subject of an official Ofcom investigation.

8. Further, the complainant said the article was misleading to describe the individual who had reportedly made the Ofcom complaints as a “leading thinker in the field of British Islam”. The complainant said the individual had described his beliefs as being “a minority view” in Britain.

9. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported that the founder of the Islam Channel “was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after being added to Interpol’s Red Notice list”. It said the article omitted to mention that the basis for Mr Ali Harrath’s arrest had been discredited: the red notice had been removed by Interpol, and he “received an apology from the state of Tunisia and Interpol [who] accepted that his listing was politically motivated”. It added that, during a 2017 libel case, the judge had observed that “there was simply no evidence to support the allegation of terrorism” and that “the sum awarded should be such as to leave interested onlookers in no doubt as to the baselessness of the Defendants’ charge against him.”

10. The complainant said, while the publication had contacted it for comment about the story, this contact was made on a Sunday morning – which was not a working day – and that the publication waited for less than 2 hours for a response before publishing the article. The complainant said the publication had not provided it with a reasonable timeframe to respond. The complainant provided the message sent by the publication, which read:

“i am writing from mailonline as we are planning to run an article on the back of a report in the telegraph which says islam channel is facing an ofcom investigation. […]

may i please request a comment regarding this?”

11. The complainant was also concerned that the publication allowed derogatory and discriminatory comments to be published on its website under the article. It considered some of these comments were inciting violence against Muslims, and discriminated against specific individuals. The complainant confirmed in its email on 15 April 2025 that it had not reported the comments to the publication. On 12 May 2025, it wrote to the publication stating:

“Your response […] is entirely unacceptable, nor have you dealt with the following additional matters, raised in our original complaint:

• The derogatory and discriminatory comments published on your website under the article, some of which incite violence again Muslims. Please note that if you do not delete these comments we will request that they are also included within the scope of Ipso’s investigation.”

12. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was “facing an Ofcom investigation”. It said it was common in journalism for the word “face” to be used in the context where there was a prospect of a difficult situation. It provided a number of articles where it used the word “face” in such a context.

13. The publication further said that, by including the statement from an Ofcom spokesperson, the article made clear that while a complaint had been submitted to Ofcom, it was “not accepted for investigation”.

14. While the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, on 29 April – six days after first being aware of the alleged inaccuracies – the publication offered to amend the article “to state that the Islam Channel could face an Ofcom investigation”.

15. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position – it said “this was not the message given in the headline nor in the first line of the article”, and that the publication’s analogy was not applicable to this case. It also provided several articles published by the publication reporting on Ofcom complaints – none which claimed that the relevant broadcaster was facing an Ofcom investigation. It said, where only 43 of 69,080 complaints resulted in investigations in 2024, it was significantly misleading to suggest the Islam Channel, which had received one complaint against it, was “facing an investigation”.

16. The publication said the number of complaints made against an organisation was “irrelevant” “when considering whether [it] is ‘facing investigation’”. It stood by its position that, at the time when the Ofcom complaint had been accepted, it was reasonable to say that an organisation was “facing an investigation”.

17. The publication also did not accept it was inaccurate to report Mr Ali Harrath had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism and that he had ties to Tunisian Islamic Front. It said that, given the article made clear he was released without charge, it clearly did not allege he had a criminal conviction for terrorism.

18. It further said the Tunisian Islamic Front has clear historical links to terrorism. It said, according to a US State department release issued in 1996, the group warned all foreigners in Tunisia to leave and claimed responsibility for the murders of four Tunisian policeman. It also said a 2005 US Department of Defence memo stated that a known terrorist who had known ties to the group was detained at Guatanamo Bay. The memo further said the “Tunisian Islamic Front […] is suspected to be the armed wing of En-Nahda.”

19. The complainant disputed the accuracy of the US State department release – it said “there [was] no truth to this report, which is based on unreliable, false information”. It also said no country including the US and Tunisia itself has ever designated the Tunisian Islamic Front as a terrorist organisation.

20. The publication did not accept insufficient time was allowed for the complainant to respond. It first reiterated that it did not consider there was any inaccuracies which would require comment. It said, while the complainant claimed that the individual who complained to Ofcom had not contacted them directly, the complainant had the opportunity to address their concerns. It further said the complainant had been contacted by another national newspaper on the previous day who ran a similar story, and the complainant “[had] still not provided a comment on the substantive issues”.

21. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position and said “[i]t [was] of no relevance whatsoever to this complaint whether or not [it] chose to reply to a different independent publication.”

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

22. The Committee first considered whether reporting that the channel was “facing an Ofcom investigation” was inaccurate or misleading. The publication appeared to accept that the channel had not been the subject of an Ofcom investigation. Given this, the Committee considered that the headline misled readers as to the current status of the complaint within Ofcom’s process. It considered this to be the case as the publication did not argue that a decision had been made that any complaint against the complainant merited an investigation.

23. The Committee, however, noted that the publication contacted the complainant to request a comment on this specific claim, and that the request for comment was made prior to the article’s publication. While the Committee noted the complainant said it was contacted less than two hours before the publication of the article on a non-working day, it noted the complainant was previously contacted by another publication for comment on similar issues. It considered the complainant was aware of the possibility of further contact from other newspapers. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that allowing two hours for a comment demonstrated sufficient care taken not to publish misleading information. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

24. The Committee turned next to whether the misleading information was significant and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It considered that, by reporting that the complainant was facing investigation – prominently in the article headline and opening paragraphs – the article was misleading as to the status and strength of the complaint against the complainant. The Committee considered this to represent significantly misleading information, given it appeared in the headline – which gave the information greater weight and prominence – and given the misleading information related to broadcast standards in the UK, a matter of public debate. Given this, the Committee considered the article to be significantly misleading on this point, and a correction was required under Clause 1 (ii).

25. The Committee noted the publication offered to amend the article “to state that the Islam Channel could face an Ofcom investigation”. However, while the Committee welcomed that the publication had taken some steps to address the complaint, as no correction had been offered or published, there was a. breach of Clause 1 (ii).

26. The Committee then turned to whether the article had inaccurately reported that the “channel has been accused of glorifying violent Islamist movements, inciting hostility against the West and portraying jihadist causes in a sympathetic light”. The Committee considered the article made clear that the accusations were the position of those who had made the complaint to Ofcom, and that it was clear Ofcom had not made any finding as to whether this accusation was correct. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The Committee next considered whether the article was misleading to report that the individual who had reportedly made the Ofcom complaint was “seen as a leading thinker in the field of British Islam”. While the complainant said the individual had described his beliefs as being “a minority view” in Britain, the Committee considered this was not inconsistent with the reporting in the article – one may hold a minority view and still be regarded as a leading thinker in the field. The Committee noted that the complainant did not dispute that the individual was “the Director of the Oxford Institute for British Islam”, which acted as a clear basis for this characterisation. In such circumstances, it did not consider the article’s reporting was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee then considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the channel’s founder “had led the Tunisian Islamic Front, which allegedly has ties to terrorism”. The Committee first noted that the article did not report, as fact, that the Tunisian Islamic Front had ties to terrorism – it reported it “allegedly has ties to terrorism” (emphasis added by IPSO).

29. The Committee then noted it was not in dispute that Mr Ali Harrath had led the Tunisian Islamic Front. While the complainant said the judge in in a 2017 libel case brought by Mr Ali Harrath found that “there simply was no evidence to support the allegation of terrorism” which had been made by the defendant in that action, the Committee did not consider this demonstrated the article was inaccurate on the point under consideration, as the article did not make any allegation of terrorism against Mr Ali Harrath.

30. Further, the publication was entitled to report on past allegations which had been made against the organisation, and allegations that it had links to terrorism – provided these were adequately distinguished as such. Given that the allegations were distinguished as such in the article, and where the publication had provided a basis for the organisation’s alleged links to terrorism, there was no breach of Clause 1.

31. The Committee turned to consider whether the article inaccurately reported that the channel’s founder “was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after the Tunisian authorities added him to Interpol’s Red Notice list.” The Committee noted that the selection and sourcing of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Given it was not in dispute that Mr Ali Harrath had been arrested, and where the article made clear he had been released without charge, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to omit further context about the arrest. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

32. Lastly, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns about the comments posted under the article. It noted that, when the complainant made a report to the publication, it did not specify which comments it wished to report. In any event, the Committee noted that complainants concerns related to discrimination against Muslims in general and to individuals who the complainant was not acting on behalf of.

33. The Committee noted that Clause 12 relates to discrimination against specific individuals, rather than groups or categories of people. As such, regardless of whether these comments fell within IPSO’s remit, the Committee considered that the comments either could not possibly breach the Code – as they did not relate to a specific individual - or that the complainant did not have the standing to make the complaint, as the comments allegedly discriminated against individuals who the complainant was not representing. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

Conclusions

34. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

35. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

36. The article reported, in a significantly misleading manner, that the complainant was “facing an Ofcom investigation” at the time of the article’s publication. This misleading information had appeared in the headline and the opening paragraph of the article.

37. While the misleading information was significant, the Committee noted that it did not appear to be in dispute that a complaint was submitted to Ofcom, which could result in an investigation. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it was inaccurate to report that the complainant was “facing an Ofcom investigation”. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that Ofcom had yet to make a decision to investigate at the time of the publication.

38. Given the inaccurate information appeared online, the Committee considered that the correction should also be published online. The Committee then considered the placement of the corrections.

39. As the inaccuracy appeared in the headline to the article, the correction should appear as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

40. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

41. The wording of the corrections should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 10/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/03/2026