05618-24 The Muslim Association of Britain v The Jewish Chronicle

Summary of Complaint

1. The Muslim Association of Britain complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-charity boss leading a ‘Muslim army’”, published on 13 September 2024.

2. The article appeared on page 6, under the sub-headline: “[A named individual] insists his Hamas-style headband has ‘nothing to do’ with the Gaza terror group “. It opened by reporting:

“A man […] wore a Hamas-style Islamist headband at Gaza rallies and celebrated a ‘Muslim army’ of protesters.

But he claims it has nothing to do with Hamas.

A key organiser of Gaza rallies in Bradford, [a named individual] has worn Hamas-style garb at numerous demonstrations, and led chants of ‘Israel is a terror state’.

[The man]’s bandana – which he claims to have worn for decades – bears the same Islamist declaration to Allah and Muhammad as those worn by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

In one of [the man’s] posts on social media featuring an image of him wearing the infamous white and green slogan, he wrote about a ‘Muslim army’ taking to the streets of Britain.”

3. Further to this, the article reported that “the message on the headband translates as ‘There is no god except for Allah and Muhammad is the messenger’, and is the same phrase used on flags and sashes paraded by the terror group.” It went on to report on an interview between the publication and the named individual, in which he “insisted that the headband was unrelated to Hamas and said the message is a fundamental tenet of Islam. ‘Every Muslim believes in this message. Otherwise, you cannot call yourself a Muslim,’ he explained."

4. Toward its close, the article also reported that:

“The distinctive green headbands became globally infamous after Hamas terrorists wearing similar garb attacked Israel on October 7.

In June, Palestinian-born asylum-seeker [a different named individual], 25, was convicted under the Terrorism Act for wearing a similar headband during an anti-Israel rally in London in November 2023.

[The convicted man] claimed the headband was an Islamic expression of faith that Hamas had co-opted. Despite his defence, he was found guilty and received a three-month conditional discharge."

5. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same format. This version of the article was published on 12 September.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that the headband worn by the man “bears the same Islamist declaration to Allah and Muhammad as those worn by Hamas terrorists in Gaza”. The complainant said the headband bore the Shahada, which is not a “Islamist declaration” – rather, it said it is a “central and fundamental declaration of faith for Muslims worldwide”.

7. On 18 September, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code, which it confirmed it had received on 1 October. The delay in acknowledging the complaint was due to IT errors outside of the publication’s control.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It accepted that the term “Islamist” was incorrect, and acknowledged that the article was “clumsily phrased” - it said that “Islamic” would have been a more appropriate term. On 1 October, it removed the term “Islamist” from the online article.

9. However, it said this was not a significant inaccuracy in the context of the article when read as a whole. It said that the article was fair and balanced – it explained what the headband was, what it meant, and that it had taken on a different meaning following the attacks on 7 October. It also noted that the article made clear that the wearer of the headband did not consider it a symbol of Hamas, and reported his statement: “Every Muslim believes in this message”. It also noted that the article reported that a separate individual: “claimed the headband was an Islamic expression of faith that Hamas had co-opted”.

10. The publication also said that – while it was not suggesting the Shahada is always a symbol of Islamism - many Islamist groups do misuse the Shahada. It supplied images of members of Hamas wearing the Shahada during the 7 October attacks in support of its position. Nevertheless, it maintained that its article set out the difference between the Shahada and Hamas.

11. In response, the complainant said that the publication’s acceptance that the article was clumsily phrased was an admission that due care had not been taken over its accuracy. It said the inaccuracy could have been avoided via a simple search into the meaning of the Shahada, or by consulting experts.

12. It also disputed the publication’s position that the error was not significant. It maintained that the article has mispresented a core Islamic statement of faith – not only did this distort a fundamental element of Islam, but it risked reinforcing harmful stereotypes regarding Muslims. It considered that the inaccuracy warranted an apology.

13. In response to the publication’s evidence that Hamas do wear headbands bearing the Shahada, the complainant acknowledged that extremist groups do bear the symbol – however, it reiterated that this does not alter its core meaning to the Islamic faith.

14. On 12 November 2024 – 42 days after it had confirmed receipt of the complaint and was made aware of the complainant’s concerns - the publication offered to publish a correction in print, on its “For the Record” page, which it said was the standard position for clarifications and corrections. It also proposed to publish a footnote on the existing online article, which had already been amended to remove the information under dispute.

15. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, and in response to concerns raised by the complainant about the correction’s wording, several wordings were proposed for the correction. On 26 November, the publication made its final proposed offer, which read as follows:

A previous version of this article referred to the Shahada as an ‘Islamist declaration.’ This is incorrect. It should have read: The Shahada is an Islamic declaration. We apologise for this editing error.

16. The complainant declined the publication’s proposed wording. The complainant said that the correction should not associate the Shahada with Hamas, and should recognise its significance to Muslims worldwide.

17. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the publication also agreed to publish a letter from the complainant in both the print and online versions of the newspaper.

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

18. The complainant had contended that referring the Shahada as an “Islamist declaration” was inaccurate. The Committee, first, had regard for the meaning of the Shahada – the publication had not disputed the complainant’s contention that it is a core tenet of the Muslim faith, and that it states: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”. However, in determining whether the publication had taken due care, and whether this represented significantly inaccurate information, the Committee had regard for the context of the article as a whole.

19. It recognised, firstly, that the article primarily reported on an interview between an individual and the publication regarding his headband bearing the Shahada, in light of the use of similar headbands by members of Hamas. This included his position that the headband: “has nothing to do with Hamas”; that the text on it was a “fundamental tenet of Islam”; and that it bore a message that “Every Muslim believes in”. Further, the article made clear that the precise meaning of the Shahada: “There is no god except for Allah and Muhammad is the messenger”. The Committee therefore considered that the article made clear the nature of the phrase, and that its translated meaning made no reference to extremism.

20. Further, the Committee also considered that the article made clear the link between the Shahada and Islamist extremism. It made clear that it appeared on headbands worn by members of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and that the headband worn by the individual was similar in appearance to those worn by Hamas – as well as bearing the Shahada, it was green. In addition, it reported that a separate individual had been convicted for wearing a similar headband, despite his defence that it was an “Islamic expression of faith that Hamas had co-opted”.

21. In light of this, the Committee did not consider there to be a failure to take care on the part of the publication in reporting that the headband included “the same Islamist declaration to Allah and Muhammad as those worn by Hamas terrorists in Gaza” – it was not in dispute that the original text had appeared on “flags and sashes paraded by the terror group”, and therefore the basis for linking the phrase on the headband with Islamist ideology was made clear. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

22. Having established this, the Committee turned to Clause 1 (ii).

23. The publication had accepted that the specific reference to “Islamist” was incorrect. Notwithstanding this, the Committee considered that the article made clear a basis for referring to the Shahada in this manner – given it reported that it is a statement of the Islamic faith which has been worn by members of Hamas during the 7 October attacks, which the publication had also supplied supporting evidence to demonstrate.

24. In any event however, the Committee again considered the specific claim within the context of the article as a whole. It recognised that the article reported the precise meaning of the Shahada, and set out the opposing viewpoints on its interpretation following the actions of Hamas on 7 October. This included the position of the individual who wore the headband that the Shahada has “nothing to do” with Hamas, and represents a “fundamental tenet” of the Muslin faith.

25. Given this, the Committee did not consider the reference to be significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii), although the Committee welcomed that the publication had removed the reference, and had attempted to resolve the complaint via the publication of a letter setting out the complainant’s position.

Conclusions

26. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

27. N/A

Date complaint received: 16/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 26/02/2025