A UK judge delivered a decisive blow to a defamation lawsuit filed by radical Islamist Mohamad Nabil Hegab (known publicly as Mohammed Hijab) against conservative commentator Douglas Murray. The court ruled that Hijab’s testimony was “worthless,” stating explicitly that the claimant “lied on significant issues,” leaving the entire case without merit.
Murray had authored a September 2022 Spectator column alleging Hijab had stirred unrest between Muslims and Hindus, disparaged Hindus publicly, and incited followers in protest settings. Hijab sought damages for reputational harm, citing cancelled contracts and lost earnings. The judge found several of those purported contracts—from roles as brand ambassador, supplement promoter, and Ramadan fundraiser—appeared contrived to court the claim.
The judge further criticized Hijab’s courtroom behavior, describing him as combative and evasive. The court concluded that his versions of key events—including protests at Golders Green, involvement with Sapience Institute events, language used in speeches, claims of Hindu vigilantism, and financial losses—were unreliable or outright fabricated.
The Spectator highlighted that Hijab attempted to leverage Britain’s legal system to intimidate Murray and tarnish his reputation. Instead, the lawsuit backfired. The court’s ruling not only dismissed all claims but underscored the credibility gap between credible journalism and false accusations.
This legal outcome serves as a landmark for conservative journalists facing strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing criticism. The ruling affirms the protections of free speech when reporting on public figures tied to radical movements, and reinforces judicial scrutiny applied when plaintiffs fabricate evidence.
