143. The BBC submitted that the Claimant’s message in his KINGSTON UNIVERSITY SPEECH (2006) was clear and unequivocal, namely a call to his audience that: (i) in the context of jihad (as with the wearing of the hijab), there must be “no … compromise” and Muslims must be strong and not be influenced by calls from nonMuslims criticising talk of jihad; (ii) it is good for Muslims to defend themselves in such places as Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq by fighting; and even though their actions would or may be condemned in Britain as terrorism, they represent legitimate jihad and are courageous; (iii) jihad should be waged where it is practical to do so and this has been overlooked; (iv) the audience should, in particular, “make jihad” in the meaning set out in the final passage by taking money and going to Palestine to fight anyone who fights against the Muslims (described by the Claimant as “terrorists”) and any supporters of an Israeli state, namely Zionists. In stark contrast to the Claimant’s express distinction between “terrorists” and “Zionists”, he made no distinction between “Zionist” security forces and “Zionist” civilians. Claimant’s case 144. The Claimant said in his witness statement that he cannot remember exactly what he said at Kingston but he regarded the way in which his talk had been portrayed as ‘extremely unfair’ because the passages relied upon related to no more than 5-10 minutes of his talk and his ‘firm recollection’ was that his talk was directed at stopping people participating in terrorism but selective quotes gave a different impression. The Claimant admitted, however, speaking the words quoted but said in cross-examination that he was employing rhetorical devices and only referring to physical jihad in the sense of the Muslims being entitled to defend themselves against attack. The Claimant also stressed in his witness statement: “As an Imam, I have spent my entire career promoting peace, tolerance, unity and respect for human rights. I did not call the audience to “make jihad” in Israel as alleged by the Defendant.” Experts 145. There was a measure of agreement between the experts regarding the KINGSTON UNIVERSITY SPEECH (2006), namely that: (i) The Claimant is making a case for Muslims not to compromise their religion (deen) and to be strong and proper Muslims. (ii) The Claimant’s case for Muslims not to compromise their religion focuses on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf (hijab) and recognising armed jihad in defence of the territories listed - Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Kashmir. (iii) These two aspects of Muslim life, the wearing of the headscarf and the recognition of the conflicts in defence of the above-mentioned territories as armed jihads are given an equivalent religious weight in that the Claimant asserts Muslims should not compromise on them equally. (iv) The endorsement of armed jihad articulated by the Claimant in this passage involves the commitment, at least, to recognise conflicts going on in the world involving Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Kashmir as armed jihad in defence of Islam. (v) There is, however, no mention by the Claimant in the portion of the speech provided of how the armed jihad in defence of those places constitutes a legitimate armed jihad or how they do not or who is or should (or not) be fighting them. 32