290. I reject Mr Bennett’s somewhat brave submission that, because Noah, Moses and Jesus were included in the Claimant’s list, i.e. figures who were unlikely to have approved of the taking back of all the lands that used to belong to the Muslims including Israel, the Claimant could not, therefore, be taken to have endorsed the extremist views of Abdullah Azzam and Sayyid Qutb. In my judgement, it is clear that the Claimant was using the references of Noah, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, in effect, to sanitise, scent and imbue with virtue and respectability, the extreme, violent Islamist ideologues that he later mentions, namely, “the likes of…” Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab, Hassan al-Banna, Sayedd Qutb and Abdullah Azzam. Dr Wilkinson’s evidence 291. Dr Wilkinson’s expressed the opinion that the “legacy” of ‘authentic’ Islam cited by the Claimant includes figures who are exclusively known in Muslim circles for their participation in armed jihad and warlike activity, namely Nurudeen Zengi, and Salahudeen Ayyubi (exclusively known for fighting the Crusaders in the 12 th Century), Abdullah Azzam (almost exclusively known for fighting in the Afghan conflict and advocating armed jihad) and Sayyid Qutb (most often associated with violent Islamist ideologies). 292. Dr Wilkinson further elucidated his views during cross-examination by Mr Bennett. In response to one question, Dr Wilkinson gave an answer of remarkable lucidity lasting some 20 minutes in which he deconstructed the Claimant’s CAGE PRISONERS SPEECH (2010) and gave a historical tour d’horizon of the figures referred to by the Claimant, explaining his conclusions on the Claimant’s speech. His exegesis in the witness box may be briefly summarised as follows: (i) Given the serious crimes of what the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay have been accused, it was strange for the Claimant to open the speech with the incantation “…it is inspiring to be amongst some of our brothers who made Hijrah in the path of Allah…”. (ii) It was unusual then to refer to “legacy of eman and ‘amal”, i.e. a legacy of belief (eman) and right behaviour (‘amal is short for amal salih). (iii) It was unusual then to link these concepts with “great battles” since eman (belief) and ‘amal (right behaviour) are not normally associated with battles, but more traditionally refer to passive acts such as saying one’s prayers, doing acts of charity, speaking kindly to one’s parents etc. (iv) It was strange then to refer to the four canonical Sunni imams (who represent the absolute canonical heart of Islam) but then to leap directly to figures such as Nuruddin Zangi, Salahuddin Al Ayyubi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab, Hassan al-Banna, Sayedd Qutb, Abdullah Azzam et al (who are well known for fighting, violence and a divisive world view but not for legacy of eman or ‘amal). (v) For these reasons, Dr Wilkinson explained, he came to the conclusion that the Claimant had “in a strong and explicit way foregrounded armed combat and violence as part of the true legacy of Islam”. Historical analysis 293. I agree with Dr Wilkinson’s above analysis of the Claimant’s CAGE PRISONERS SPEECH (2010). In order to make it good, however, it is necessary to examine the historical timeline and core teachings of each of these figures in order to understand whether the ‘extremist’ label attached to them is justified, and whether, for instance, the Claimant’s assertion that Sayyid Qutb was executed ‘long before the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism’ is valid. Much of what follows represents my distillation of Dr Wilkinson’s helpful historical analysis (in Chapter 13 of his report) which has not 66