Hijab, who has 1.28 million YouTube subscribers, asserts that Murray’s article falsely accused him of inflaming racial tensions and that it led to damage to his reputation, emotional distress, and financial losses.
In his legal claim, Hijab’s lawyers argue that the article caused him to lose income, including a £3,500-a-month advertising deal with One Ummah Charity and a £30,000 payment for a Ramadan fundraising campaign. Murray and The Spectator’s legal team, led by Mark Lewis of Patron Law, have rejected these claims, contending that Hijab’s public persona and contentious nature already place his reputation under scrutiny, according to JC news reports.
Murray’s article referenced Hijab’s visit to Leicester during the unrest in 2022, when Hindu buildings were attacked and tensions escalated between the city’s Muslim and Hindu communities. In a speech to a largely masked crowd, Hijab reportedly warned Hindutva supporters, saying, “Don’t ever come out like that again,” and led chants of “Allahu Akbar.” Murray accused Hijab of inciting violence and tension in Leicester, and in his column, he criticized Hijab for allegedly claiming that Hindus should fear their reincarnation, stating that they were “pathetic, weak cowardly people.”
Hijab’s legal team disputes this characterization, clarifying that he was referring to Hindutva, an extremist ideology, not all Hindus. Murray’s defense maintains that the remarks were broader, targeting all Hindus in Leicester by mocking reincarnation and using inclusive language like “they” to generalize the community.
Murray’s defense also referenced Hijab’s controversial history, including a 2021 protest in Golders Green, where he stood with a billboard comparing the Holocaust to the Israel-Gaza conflict. This incident was condemned by the Community Security Trust (CST) as “a disgusting and seemingly deliberate act of incitement.”
Additionally, Murray’s team pointed to a 2021 protest outside the Israeli Embassy, where, after Hijab spoke, a masked protester called for “Jewish blood.” Hijab claimed he left before the comment was made.
Since the October 7 attacks, Hijab has been outspoken on social media, posting anti-Israel content and boasting about being labeled anti-Semitic by Zionists. He claims that Murray published false statements about him in Leicester, either knowingly or without concern for the truth. In his legal response, Hijab questioned why the alleged use of the term “Hindutva” to attack Hindus wasn’t reported at the time.
Mark Lewis, representing Murray, declined to comment further, except to say that Douglas Murray is defending the defamation claim. The case is ongoing.
0 Comments