03844-25 Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission v The Sunday Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission (AIM) complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Summer camp ‘exposes children to anti-Israel propaganda’”, published on 13 July 2025.

2. The article, published on page 6, reported on a children’s summer camp ran by the complainant. It reported on some of the activities the children were engaged in, including “making kites - in a possible reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7 to attack southern Israel”.

3. The article included criticism of the complainant and the camp. It said it had been “accused of backing Iran”. The article included a quotes from a legal lobby group who: criticised the camp activities as “symbolically connecting very young children with nationalist resistance”; said that some of the charity’s social media posts “glorify and encourage martyrdom and justify Hamas’s Oct 7 2023 atrocities”; and said that the complainant “openly promotes the revolutionary Islamist ideology of Iran’s supreme leader”. It reported that there were “calls for Camp Wilayah to be banned over ‘urgent safeguarding and counter-extremism concerns’ for the children attending”.

4. The article also reported on social media posts published by the complainant and individuals it described as being associated with the complainant. It reported that a video published by the complainant featured a person “describing Jews as the ‘harshest’, ‘squatters’, ‘settlers’ and ‘violent’, while accusing Israel, the so-called ‘squatter state’, of having a policy of murdering children. It also calls moderate Muslims who may be tolerant of Israel ‘filth’”. It also reported on a YouTube interview of a cleric “associated” with the complainant, who said “the persecution of Jews by Germany and European countries had been ‘justified at the time’”.

5. The article was also published online, under the headline “UK Islamic summer camp ‘risks radicalising children’”, on 12 July. It was substantively the same as the print article, however it described the kite making as an “apparent”, rather than “possible” reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7. The online article included an embedded video of children making kites, including one decorated with a Palestinian flag.

6. Prior to the article’s publication, on 11 July, a journalist acting on behalf of the publication contacted the complainant.

7. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that there was no connection between the children making kites at the camp and the paragliders used by Hamas, and that this was simply an innocent arts and craft activity. It said that the article reported the newspaper’s speculation as to links between the activity and the attacks as fact.

8. The complainant also said it was inaccurate to include the criticism from the lobby group aimed at it and the camp. It said that it was inaccurate to report concerns it was radicalising children and that there was no evidence it had ties to Iran’s regime. The complainant said that the “symbolism” referenced in the article was cultural expression and should not be conflated with extremism. It said that the criticism of its social media – including that it glorified and encouraged martyrdom, justified October 7, and promoted Iran’s supreme leader – should not have been published as it gave the impression this was its official stance on the respective matters. The complainant also said these points were irrelevant in the context of the article as they did not form part of the camp’s curriculum. It said that reporting on the calls for a ban of the camp gave the impression that there was an official finding that the camp should have been banned, when this was not the case.

9. Similarly, the complainant said that the reference to posts made on its social media were misleading as they were not taught or referenced at the camp. It also stated that the cleric referenced in the article had not made the claims in the YouTube video at the camp. The complainant also said omitting reference to its decade-long record of safe camps, DBS-checked staff and positive safeguarding record was misleading, and that a right of reply should have been included.

10. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 12 as it believed it: stigmatised Muslims as sinister; imputed violent intent to Muslim children; dismissed Islamophobia and positioned Muslims as outsiders.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. With reference to the kite-making activity, it said that kites had a history as a symbol of Palestinian freedom and resistance in the fight against the occupation by Israel. It added that kites had been used by Palestinian fighters as weapons against Israel both in the October 7 attacks and on other occasions, and noted that paragliders were used in the October 7 attacks. It said the connection between kites as a symbol and these modes of attack was formed by the “shared concept of airborne movement”.

12. The publication said that, in 2024, a Palestinian themed kite-making workshop in the UK was cancelled after complaints that the activity was reminiscent of the incendiary kites and the paraglider attacks, and that three people had been arrested for having paraglider stickers at a protest. It said that, in any case, it considered the reference to be an inference by the article’s writer, rather than a statement of fact, based on the context of the article and the other symbols of resistance that were used at the camp, such as watermelons and Palestinian flags. It said that this was made clear in the print article by describing it as a “possible” reference, and in the online article as an “apparent” reference.

13. The publication said that the article made clear that the complainant was “accused” of backing Iran, and that this was distinguished as a claim. It said that the complainant had repeatedly been accused of backing Iran, including having links to and support for Iran's religious and political leaders. It supplied webpages from an Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre, a non-profit and a think tank in which such accusations were made against the complainant. It added that the complainant’s website and social media accounts listed materials authored by Ayatollah Khamanei – Iran’s supreme leader - which discussed topics such as martyrdom and promoted strict adherence to Shia Islam.

14. The publication also said that it was entitled to publish the criticism of the complainant and the camp, and that it was not a breach of Clause 1 to report on information the complainant or the cleric had published on social media. It said it had taken care prior to the publication of the article by contacting AIM for comment.

15. The publication said that as the complainant’s concern was that the article discriminated against Muslim people and children in general - rather than individuals - its complaint was not engaged under Clause 12.

16. The complainant said the publication had not provided any evidence that the kite-making activity was linked to Hamas or the October 7 attacks, and that there was no such link.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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.

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

17.  The article reported that children at the camp had made kites in an “apparent” or “possible” reference to the October 7 attacks. The publication had said, to support its position, that kites were often used as symbolism for Palestine. It also said that the statement was clearly distinguished as the writer’s inference of the activity’s meaning.

18. The Committee turned to the question of whether the disputed reference this was clearly distinguished as the writer’s inference, in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv) – which requires that fact is distinguished from comment and conjecture. It considered that the use of the terms “apparent” and “possible” were sufficient to demonstrate that this was the reporter’s own inference about the activity, and there was no breach of this sub-Clause.

19. However, the basis for this inference was not included in the article. Furthermore, the complainant denied that the activity had been linked to the October 7 attacks, and this allegation had not been put to it in advance of publication so that its position on the claim could be reported – though it had been contacted, this specific claim had not been put to it. Where it did not appear that the newspaper had taken steps to seek or publish the complainant’s comment, or to set out its basis for the inference within the article, the Committee found the publication had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

20. As the claim amounted to a serious allegation about the complainant organising activities that referenced a deadly terrorist attack, the Committee considered this to be significantly misleading information requiring correction. As no such correction was offered, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

21. The article had described the complainant as “accused of backing Iran”. Whilst the complainant disputed the accusations, the publication had not reported this as fact – rather making clear that accusations had been made against them, and that these accusations were the opinions of those making them. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication was able to demonstrate that such accusations had been made and providing the basis for this within the article. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1.

22. With regards to publishing criticism of the complainant and the camp, the Committee firstly noted that this was clearly set out as the lobby group’s opinion of the complainant, and was clearly attributed to it, rather than set out as a statement of fact. There was no breach of Clause 1.

23. The complainant did not dispute that it had posted the materials on social media that were referenced in the article, nor did it deny that the cleric had made the comments and that he had a previous connection with the complainant. The Committee noted that the article did not report that the material had been shown at the camp and that the choice to reference it in an article about the complainant was a matter of editorial selection the publication was entitled to make. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

24. Where the article reported on criticism directed at the complainant and the camp, it was not misleading to omit that the previous camps had been safe; that staff were DBS-checked; and that there was positive safeguarding. This was not material to the point being conveyed by the article, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

25. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concerns that the article breached Clause 12 and that the article was critical of the complainant. However, it noted the terms of Clause 12 relate solely to discrimination against individuals, rather than groups or categories of people. As the complainant had not alleged that the article contained discriminatory references to a specific individual, , there was no breach of this Clause.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

27. Having upheld part of 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.

28. The Committee considered that describing kite making as an “apparent” or “possible” “reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7 to attack southern Israel” was significantly misleading. However, this reference formed a small part of the article, which focused on the wider context around concerns about the complainant and the camp. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the claim made in the article was the publication’s inference and put on record that the complainant had denied that the kite making was a reference to Hamas attacks.

29. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The correction should be published in the publication’s print Corrections and Clarifications column. With regard to the online article, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

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

Date complaint received: 29/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/03/2026