Mohammad Hijab denies targeting Jews in Golders Green during Douglas Murray libel trial

In his column, Murray accused Hijab – whose name is also sometimes spelled Hegab – of “cropping up in Leicester to whip up his followers.

“Hijab claimed that the Hindus must live in fear because they have been reincarnated as such ‘pathetic, weak cowardly people’. ‘I’d rather be an animal,’ he went on,” Murray wrote in his September 2022 article.

Hijab’s lawyers argued that Murray’s comments were defamatory, and Hijab was referring specifically to Hindutva, not all Hindus. They also alleged that Hijab lost income as a direct result of the article.

Murray and The Spectator now accept that Hijab used the term Hindutva and not Hindu.

Hijab’s barrister, Mark Henderson, said the YouTuber’s tone in the Leicester speech was “lively and engaging” and there was “no video evidence” of him engaging in violence.

The defence described Hijab as like the dual figure of Jekyll and Hyde, but where Jekyll felt remorse for Hyde’s actions, the barrister suggested Hijab showed no guilt.

The Spectator was represented by RPC solicitors and Greg Callus and Murray was represented by Patron Law and William Bennett KC.

When he took to the witness box, Hijab told the court that during the unrest in Leicester, where violence had broken out between Muslims and Hindus, he was “trying to give people an outlet but at the same time allow them not to cross the line”.

The court heard how on 18 September 2022, Hijab travelled to Leicester with fellow YouTuber Ali Dawah and posted a video titled “Muslim patrol in Leicester”. A clip of the video was played to the court and showed Hijab and others shouting in the street.

Asked by the defence if he was encouraging sectarianism, Hijab said: “No, not necessarily. This is a perfect example of freedom of speech in this country.

"These people have an outlet, which is legal, which is lawful, to march the streets,” he went on.

Hijab denied endorsing vigilante behaviour or promoting violence.

Another video – the same referred to by Murray – also played in court and showed Hijab addressing a crowd, many of whom were masked men, declaring: “Deep down, they know we got the truth.” In the clip, he referenced reincarnation, suggesting rioters would be punished in the next life. Defence lawyers noted that reincarnation is “a central tenet of Hindu belief”.

Hijab told the court he had “used reincarnation as an analogy in the same way I have used hellfire to talk about Isis” – but admitted he would not use it again because it “distorts things”.

Asked how he distinguished Hindutva activists from Hindus, Hijab said he knew the flags and chants used by the sect.

He told the court: “I am deeply entrenched in the Muslim community,” and explained that he had tracked events in Leicester before travelling to the city.

Under cross-examination, Bennett questioned Hijab about a separate incident in Golders Green.

On 22 May 2021, he and Dawah visited the north London neighbourhood and questioned passers-by about the Israeli government’s actions.

“I was told that a lot of Zionists are in Golders Green… that if you want to find Zionists, you should go to this area,” Hijab told the court.

A video of the stunt, shared online on Dawah’s channel, was titled "Muslims confront radical Israelis”. The defence suggested this conflated Jewish residents with Israeli policy. Hijab said he had never asked Dawah to change the title.

Footage played to the court showed Hijab asking passers-by to condemn the killing of Palestinian children. Next to him, the defence explained that a van displayed images of dead Palestinian children alongside a photograph of the Holocaust.

Hijab said he had not known about the Holocaust image at the time and was not responsible for the van. He said the images were arranged by “a panel of people, many who were rabbis and pro-Palestinian Jews,” and added, “It wasn’t my place” to intervene.

Asked by the defence whether “turning up on a Jewish Sabbath with those images was very confrontational”, Hijab replied: “Yes.”

Hijab claimed some people – who he said were “Zionists” – laughed at the images of dead Palestinians.

He denied questioning people “because they were Jewish” and said he “took offence” at the suggestion from the defence lawyers. “It was nothing to do with their Jewishness,” he said, adding that the aim of the video had been to confront “Zionists” and “people who support Israel.”

Referring to his home in St John’s Wood, he claimed, “I wouldn’t want to offend my Jewish neighbours.”

He rejected the suggestion that he had been “haranguing” passersby, but acknowledged there was a “possibility” that his physical presence could have been intimidating owing to his size.

He told the court he regretted the stunt: “I wouldn’t go back to Golders Green and do the same thing again.”

He said he could “see why it is distasteful” and “it wasn’t the right thing to do,” but added, “I didn’t acknowledge it was antisemitism.”

The court also viewed footage from a protest near the Israeli embassy on May 23, 2021. Hijab said he had joined a counter-demonstration of around 100 people on the same day as a pro-Israel rally.

While eggs and bottles were thrown, Hijab denied any role and told the court: “I didn’t throw any eggs” and “I didn’t know any violence had taken place.” Asked if he had been at the “heart” of the tension, he said “you could argue that,” as he was “more visible” due to his online presence.

In one video played in court, the defence suggested Hijab had demonstrated punching techniques to a crowd. Hijab denied this and said he did not know what he was doing with his arms in the clip. 

“You can’t teach someone how to throw a punch in one minute, you’d have to drill it over many months,” he told the court.

Asked why many in the crowd near the embassy were masked, Hijab said it was “potentially” because they intended to commit crimes.

During the protest and quoted back in court by the defence, Hijab told the crowd: “We are with the brothers and sisters of Palestine and we will get our vengeance in this dunya or the akhira. We will get our vengeance, and believe you me we believe in a god that is just and we will get our justice either in this world or in the hereafter.”

He told the court this quote did not mean physical violence and claimed the remark had been misconstrued. The defence accused him of “intellectual jousting after the event”.

It was during the exchange about the protest near the embassy that Hijab was asked about the dog. In a clip played to the court, a demonstrator’s dog was seen walking away from him. Asked if he feared being attacked, he told the court: “I don’t know about that, the guy had a dog.”

He grinned and added: “The dog was a threat, I tell you.”

Another video shown to the court captured Hijab telling police: “If those dogs come close to us again, we will see it as an act of aggression and we will kill those dogs, we’ll put them down.”

The court also heard from witness Zeshan Hussain, the operations manager of Salem, a charity which Hijab’s legal team claim he lost out on a contract with due to the article in The Spectator.

Hussain, who started working for Salem in January 2025, said he had known Hijab for “almost a decade”.

He said, “I very much respected Hijab and his professional process,” and claimed that he read the article in The Spectator “when it came out.”

The column, he told the court, altered his perception of Hijab. But Hussain later claimed in court that he had suggested Hijab do some work with the charity to help with fundraising when he joined earlier this year. He said that it was the Salem trustees who told him that the charity did not work with the influencer following the article.

He said the “initial decision” for the charity not to work with Hijab “was made before I was employed.”
Hussain said Salem carried out a “proactive risk assessment” and decided to “dissociate” from Hijab. But the court heard how this assessment cited “other contentions” beyond the article – including a video on a channel called Behind Veils, in which a woman named Aisha claimed to be Hijab’s ex-wife and accused him of blackmail. But Hussain told the court this allegation was “not contentious” in his view and was not the main reason for the charity severing ties with the influencer.

Hussain, who said he was director of “maybe three” different companies, was also asked about Salem’s finances. He initially told the court the charity’s accounts were “due soon,” before the defence noted the accounts were late.

The case continues.