01669-25 The Islam Channel and Mohamed Ali Harrath v The Sunday Telegraph

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 The Sunday Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Most successful Muslim Channel in UK faces Ofcom investigation”, published on 16 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 8 of the newspaper - reported that the complainant “is now facing an investigation by the broadcasting regulator over claims it breaches rules on impartiality and incites extremism”. It then reported that a “complaint submitted to Ofcom accuses the channel of repeatedly broadcasting material praising the Oct 7 attacks and comparing Israel to the Nazis. It is also accused of giving airtime to extremists, failing to maintain impartiality in its political coverage and misleading viewers over key facts.” Further to this, the article reported that the channel had “been accused of glorifying violent Islamist movements, inciting hostility against the West and portraying jihadist causes in a sympathetic light.”

3. 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’.”

4. The article appeared on the same page as three other articles relating to Palestine, Gaza, and Hamas. An image which accompanied the article showed a screenshot of an online broadcast from the complainant, which was captioned: “UK Islamic Mission Live Appeal”. The broadcast showed a television host next to an image of a building which had been bombed. The image appeared alongside the caption: “The Islam Channel has been accused of presenting Hamas, Iran and Jihadi groups as legitimate resistance movements”.

5. The article also appeared online, under the headline “Muslim TV channel watched by millions facing Ofcom investigation”. This version of the article was published on 15 March. This version of the article also reported that the “channel was founded in 2004 by businessman Mohamed [Ali] Harrath” and went on to report that “Mr Harrath was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after the Tunisian authorities added him to Interpol’s Red Notice list. He was later released without charge and accused the Tunisians of using Interpol to harass him.”

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.

7. The complainant also said the article was misleading to report that the “channel has been accused of glorifying violent Islamist movements, inciting hostility against the West and portraying jihadist causes in a sympathetic light”. It said this implied that the accusations were the subject of an official Ofcom investigation.

8. The complainant also said that the online version of the article inaccurately reported that the founder of the Islam Channel - “was arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after the Tunisian authorities added him to Interpol’s Red Notice list. He was later released without charge.” The complainant said the article omitted to mention that the basis for Mr Harrath’s arrest had been discredited. 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.” 

9. The complainant also said that the image which appeared alongside the print version of the article breached Clause 1, as it considered the caption – “The Islam Channel has been accused of presenting Hamas, Iran and Jihadi groups as legitimate resistance movements” – suggested that the channel supported terrorism. In fact, it said, the broadcast shown in the image was a charity appeal.

10. The complainant also noted that the print version of the article was accompanied by other articles relating to Gaza and Palestine. It said it could be argued that this may have been designed in such a way to create the sense of some sort of connection between the articles, and to reinforce anti-Muslim sentiment. The complainant also expressed concern that the publication’s coverage of the Islam Channel was biased, as similar issues relating to other news channels had not been reported in the same manner.

11. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication said that the article’s claim that the channel was “facing an investigation” was premature. One day after it was first made aware of the complaint by IPSO, it told the complainant that the online article and headline had been amended to instead report that the Islam Channel “could face” an investigation.

12. The publication also proposed to publish three corrections online and in print to address this point: one as a footnote to the online article; one in its online Corrections & Clarifications column, and one in its print Corrections & Clarifications column.

13. It published the following correction in its print and online Corrections & Clarifications columns, on 13 May, two-and-a-half weeks after being made aware of the complaint:

“An article ‘Most successful Muslim Channel in UK faces Ofcom investigation’ was inaccurate in reporting that The Islam Channel is facing an investigation. As the statement from Ofcom included in the article makes clear, Ofcom is assessing a complaint but is yet to decide whether or not to investigate. We are happy to correct the record.”

14. It published the following correction as a footnote to the online version of the article on the same date:

“An earlier version of this article reported that The Islam Channel is facing an Ofcom investigation. This was inaccurate. As is clear from the Ofcom quote included in the article, Ofcom is assessing a complaint but is yet to decide whether or not to investigate. We are happy to correct the record.”

15. The complainant was satisfied that the corrections addressed their concerns regarding the article’s claim that it was “fac[ing]” and investigation. However, it said the corrections did not address the remainder of its concerns, did not include an apology, and did not “match” the prominence of the original article.

16. The publication did not consider it necessary for the corrections to include an apology, given that the Editors’ Code only requires an apology in appropriate cases. It said Ofcom had received a complaint; was looking into the complaint; and that the channel could face an investigation as a result of this. The publication said that in “common parlance” this action could be understood to be an ‘investigation’, however, it recognised that the phrase “Ofcom investigation” did have a particular regulatory meaning. Given this, it had amended the article and offered the proposed above corrections. In such circumstances, it did not consider this was a case which warranted an apology.

17. Regarding the prominence of the proposed corrections, it said it had an established Corrections and Clarifications column both in print and online, and that its readers were aware that this is where its corrections are published. It therefore considered this to be the most appropriate placement for the corrections.

18. The publication said it did not consider the article was inaccurate to report that the channel’s founders had been “arrested in South Africa on terrorism charges in 2010, after the Tunisian authorities added him to Interpol’s Red Notice list”. It considered it had accurately reported the circumstances of the arrest, which it said could be verified via contemporaneous news reports from the time and by reading legal judgments which related to the original arrest. It further added that the article had put Mr Harrath’s position on record with respect to the arrest, and also made clear that he was released without charge.

19. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the channel had “been accused of glorifying violent Islamist movements, inciting hostility against the West and portraying jihadist causes in a sympathetic light”. It said that the article reported that the channel was ‘facing’ an investigation, it did not report that an investigation had been completed, and that these accusations had been proven.

20. The publication did not accept that the remainder of the points raised by the complainant raised a breach of Clause 1.

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.

Findings of the Committee

21. The Committee first considered whether reporting that the channel “face[d an] Ofcom investigation was inaccurate or misleading". Both parties 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, while neither party disputed a complaint had been made, it did not appear that any decision had been made, that the complaint merited an investigation.

22. Where the publication was aware – at the time of the article’s publication – that Ofcom were yet to make a decision to investigate – which was clear from Ofcom’s comment which appeared within the article, the Committee considered that reporting that the complainant was “fac[ing]” an investigation was a failure to take care not to publish misleading information. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

23. 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. 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).

24. The Committee next considered whether the correction already published by the newspaper was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) - which requires that significantly misleading information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

25. The corrections were offered one day after the publication was first made aware of the complaint, and was published two-and-a-half weeks later. The Committee considered this to be sufficiently prompt, where the publication had shown its willingness to publish corrective wording one day after being made aware of the complaint.

26. The Committee turned next to the wording of the corrections published. Although the complainant had disagreed with the wording of the corrections, as they had not included an apology and addressed the additional points of complaint, the Committee considered the corrections to be sufficient to correct the significantly misleading claim. The corrections acknowledged that it was misleading to report that the channel was “facing” an investigation, and they put the correct position on record, namely that Ofcom was “assessing” a complaint made about the channel and that a decision had not yet been made regarding whether to investigate the complaint.

27. The Committee also considered whether an apology was necessary in this instance. Given that Ofcom had received a complaint about the channel, and it was possible that an investigation into the accusations could take place, the Committee did not consider an apology was appropriate in these circumstances. The Committee also noted that the effect of the misleading information was mitigated by the inclusion of Ofcom’s statement at the end of the article – albeit this was not sufficient to correct the misleading headline and article. It therefore considered the wording of the corrections to be sufficient under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

28. The Committee next considered the prominence of the corrections – the publication had published the corrections in its ‘Corrections and Clarifications’ section, both online and in print. It had also published a footnote correction to the online article.

29. The Committee considered the placement of the print correction to be sufficiently prominent: the Corrections and Clarifications section in the print edition would be where readers could expect to find corrections.

30. Turning to the online corrections, given that the misleading information had appeared in a headline, the Committee considered that the publication of a standalone correction, as well as a correction in the article itself, was warranted. Given a standalone correction had been published, and a footnote correction added to the online article, the Committee considered the online corrections had been published in a duly prominent position.

31. Taking all of the above factors into account, the Committee considered the corrections to be sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was no further breach of this sub-Clause.

32. 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.

33. The Committee turned to consider whether the article inaccurately reported that Mr Harrath “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 was a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached in doing so. Given it was not in dispute that Mr 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.

34. The Committee next considered whether the article was inaccurate to include an image of a charity appeal in the print version of the article alongside the caption “The Islam Channel has been accused of presenting Hamas, Iran and Jihadi groups as legitimate resistance movements”. The Committee was clear that the newspaper was entitled to include such images and captions in its reporting, provided its report was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It noted that, while the complainant strongly disputed the accusations which had been made against it, and which were referenced in the caption, it was not in dispute that such accusations had appeared in the complaint against it. In such circumstances, it was not inaccurate to reference these accusations in the image caption, or to publish the image – which simply showed a screenshot of a web-broadcast. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

35. The Committee also considered whether the fact that the article appeared – in print – next to article relating to Gaza and Palestine, breached Clause 1. The Committee noted the newspaper was entitled to present the story in the manner it wished, alongside other stories discussing similar topics. It did not consider doing so rendered the article inaccurate. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. Lastly, the Committee considered whether, as alleged by the complainant, the publication breached Clause 1 as its coverage was biased. The Committee noted that the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of bias – Clause 1 makes clear that publications can editorialise, and the Code does not prevent publication from expressing a view or being partisan. In such circumstances, the complainant’s concern that the article was biased did not engage the terms of Clause 1. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to this point.

Conclusions

37. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

38. The published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 10/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 07/11/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.