The Mail on Sunday has not only replied to my letter of complaint, but also (quietly) removed the articles from its website. However, John Wellington’s (Managing Editor) reply does not address the central issue of the complaint – the misquote and resulting false allegation.

I have written to him once again urging him to issue a full apology in print. The text of his reply and my new letter are included below.

New letter in response to Mail on Sunday’s reply
——————————————-
By email: john.wellington@mailonsunday.co.uk

Dear Mr Wellington

Thank you for your speedy reply regarding the article about Azad Ali published in the Mail on Sunday (18/01/09).

With respect, you have not addressed my main [and only] complaint. My complaint was about your paper’s specific allegation that Azad Ali ‘suggested that killing British troops in Iraq is justified’.

The article claimed that: “He said there was ‘much truth’ in an interview with an Islamic militant who said: “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation”.

As I have already pointed out in my original complaint, Azad Ali did not say there was ‘much truth’ in the interview with Huthaifa Azzam. Immediately following that quote was a reported statement by Abdullah Azzam; it was to this statement that Azad Ali said there was ‘much truth’ (“Muslims cannot be defeated by others…we are defeated by our own selves”).

This is NOT a matter of opinion, but a fact. Instead of addressing my specific complaint about the false allegation and misquote, your only answer is ‘that having read the whole of Mr Ali’s blog, I can only come to the conclusion that his concept of ‘balance’ in jihad would justify the killing of British troops in Iraq’.

Your ‘personal opinion’ or the Mail on Sunday’s ‘conclusion’, based on his blogs, is completely irrelevant to my complaint. Your story claimed he actually ‘said’ there was ‘much truth’ in the quote of Huthaifa Azzam (who believed it was his religious duty to kill British troops in Iraq). This, as should now be obvious to you, is false and completely untrue.

I fully appreciate you would have legal considerations to limit your ability to readily acknowledge faults, however I have noticed that the offending articles (Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail) have been removed from your website – which you failed to mention in your reply. If the articles contained no inaccuracies or false statements, why is there a need to remove the articles? By this action, you have effectively acknowledged the articles were problematic: I now urge you issue a full and prominent apology in print.

Should that not be forthcoming, I will have no choice but to take this matter to the Press Complaints Commission. I should also state that my complaint does not limit Azad Ali’s right to pursue legal action for defamation/libel.

Yours sincerely

Muhammad Amin
Editor, Between the Lines
 

Reply to original complaint letter to Mail on Sunday
———————————————–
By Post and Email: editor@blog.islamicforumeurope.com

Private and Confidential

Dear Mr Amin,
 
Thank you very much for your e-mail of January 20th.
 
Our story was about the suspension of Azad Ali, which resulted from the comments he made in his blog, whether they were correctly interpreted by his superiors or not. We highlighted the statements in his blog which led to his suspension.
 
I must say, in addition, that having read the whole of Mr Ali’s blog, I can only come to the conclusion that his concept of ‘balance’ in jihad would justify the killing of British troops in Iraq, even if he does not believe it is justified elsewhere, nor endorse the extremism of Al Qaeda.
 
If you feel Mr Ali has been misunderstood, I would suggest you argue his case with those who ordered his suspension.
 
Yours sincerely

John Wellington
Managing Editor

————-

NB: Although he has written ‘Private and Confidential’ on the letter, I have not given him any indication that this correspondence is private or confidential. If the Mail on Sunday can make false public allegations, then it should be prepared for the aftermath to be in the public domain.