03511-25 Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission (AIM) complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'Pro-Iran' children's camp axed amid extremism fears”, published on 14 August 2026.

2. The article reported on the cancellation of a summer camp ran by the complainant. It reported that children at the camp had made “kites – in an apparent reference to the paragliders used by Hamas on October 7 to attack southern Israel”. The article also reported that the complainant had been “accused of backing Iran” and “refused to condemn the terror group Hamas”. It stated that the complainant announced the camp was cancelled “after what it claimed was ‘Islamophobic’ hostility and far-Right threats”.

3. The article was also published online on 13 August under the headline “‘Pro-Iranian’ children’s camp axed amid extremism fears”. It was substantially similar to the print version of the article, with some additional information. It also reported that the decision to cancel the camp had been “welcomed amid concerns over youngsters being indoctrinated”. It further included a quote from a former government adviser on extremism, who was reported as having said: “there was a clear risk of kids being indoctrinated”; and that “No one should be taken in by the Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission’s victim narrative, they are a world apart from the vast majority of moderate Muslims in Britain”. It also reported that on “Wednesday, AIM said it had cancelled the camp because of fears of threats to families and children taking part” and included a quote from the complainant.

4. 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.

5. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to describe it as “’pro-Iranian’” and to report that the camp may “indoctrinate” or radicalise children. It also said that the quotes from the former government advisor – which appeared in the online version of the article – should not have been included, as they had been presented without challenge. The complainant added that it did not consider that there was evidence for what the advisor had said. It also said that it was misleading to report that it had refused to condemn Hamas, as this was irrelevant to stories about the camp.

6. The complainant also said that the article misleadingly attributed the decision to cancel the camp to fears of extremism and alleged wrongdoing on the part of the complainant. It said that the cancellation of the camp was solely due to external security threats from hostile groups. The complainant also said that 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.

7. 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. It also considered the advisor’s quote to be discriminatory.

8. 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”.

9. 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 article by describing it as an “apparent” reference.

10. With regard to the article’s description of the camp as “’pro-Iranian’” the publication said 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.

11. The publication said that the claim that the camp may “indoctrinate” children was the opinion of the former government advisor on extremism. The publication considered it had clearly attributed the quote to him and therefore distinguished it as his opinion, which it was entitled to publish.

12. The publication also said it was not inaccurate to report that the complainant had refused to condemn Hamas, as no statement of condemnation had been released by the complainant. It said the article was not only reporting on the camp but also the complainant who organised and ran the camp, and it therefore was not inaccurate to include this – regardless of whether the information directly related to the camp’s activities.

13. The publication said the article did not report that the camp had been cancelled due to fears of extremism. It said that the cancellation of the camp was described as occurring “amid” and “after” such fears, not because of them. It also noted that the complainant’s position on the cancellation of the camp had been included in both versions of the article, and that the online version of the article included a quote from the complainant.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. The article reported that children at the camp had made kites “in an apparent 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.

17. 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 term “apparent” was sufficient to demonstrate that this was the reporter’s own inference about the activity, and there was no breach of this sub-Clause.

18. 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. 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).

19. 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).

20. The article had described the complainant as “’pro-Iranian’”, and had said it had been “accused of backing Iran”. Whilst the complainant disputed the accusations, the publication had not reported this as fact – rather, the article made 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. The article was therefore not inaccurate in the manner alleged by the complainant, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

21. With regard to claims that children were “indoctrinated” and the inclusion of the quote from the former advisor, the Committee was satisfied that this was clearly distinguished as the opinion of the former government advisor, and clearly attributed to him. There was no breach of the Code on this point.

22. Where the complainant accepted it had not issued a statement condemning Hamas, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “refused to condemn Hamas”. It also did not consider that referencing it rendered the article inaccurate, given the selection of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion provided the Code is not otherwise breached. There was no breach of Clause 1.

23. The Committee considered that describing the camp as being cancelled “amid” and “after” fears of extremism was not inaccurate. It was not in dispute that fears and concerns had been raised about extremism, and the article did not say that such fears were the cause of the cancellation. The Committee also noted that the complainant’s announcement on the cancellation of the camp – that it was cancelled after “Islamophobic” hostility and far-Right threats – was included in the article, therefore making clear its position as to why the camp had been cancelled. There was no breach of Clause 1.

24. Where the article reported on the cancellation of the camp and criticism directed at the complainant, 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, which was this camp had been cancelled. 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 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 regards 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