ibn Hanbal and the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and the likes of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, the likes of Abdullah Azzam, may Allah have mercy on him, the likes of Sayyid Qutb, may Allah have mercy on him, and others speaking the truth. Why? They were recalling the legacy. The legacy that was given to us by the prophets and the Messengers of Allah, the Glorified and the Exalted. But our speech, our speech "Man does not utter any word except that with him is an observer prepared”. Allah the Glorified and the Exalted says that what we utter from our statements there are scribes, i.e. angels writing down the statements. So, if we don't say a word of truth, if we don't speak the truth and we don't aid the oppressed and we don't struggle against the oppressors then the angels are writing down these statements of us and these bad deeds of us. But rather, we should be saying the truth and speaking the truth and letting the angels write down that good speech, that right speech.” BBC submissions 321. The BBC submitted that the Claimant knew at the time that HM Prison Belmarsh was a ‘Category A’ prison, which housed some of the most high profile prisoners found guilty of terrorist-related offences. These included Abu Hamza (who was jailed in February 2006 for 7 years for inciting murder and race hate) and Muktar Ibrahim, Yasmin Omar Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman (the “21/7” attempted bombers convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder). The BBC submitted that in declaring his unqualified support for “our brothers behind bars in Belmarsh” the Claimant was deliberately encouraging his audience to support the Muslim Belmarsh prisoners, regardless of their specific crimes. As such, the Claimant chose not to distinguish between those men being held at Belmarsh who had been convicted of heinous crimes, and those who were on remand or were being held without charge pursuant to anti-terror legislation. In addition, the Claimant again praised “the likes of Abdullah Azzam” and “the likes of Sayyid Qutb”, both of whom were infamous for espousing extremist views and as founding fathers of modern-day jihadism (see above). As such, the Claimant was clearly espousing an extremist Islamic position, namely supporting jihad and was liable to promote and/or encourage violence in the name of Islam. Claimant’s submissions 322. The Claimant submitted that he was asked to speak outside HM Prison Belmarsh prison to show solidarity with Muslims who it was believed were being unfairly detained. There had also been a number of complaints concerning the mistreatment of Muslims in the prison. However, even in regard to Muslims who had been rightly convicted of any crime and therefore detained in the prison, the Claimant’s position is that they are still Muslims and that he ought to pray for them and to help them to continue their devotion to Islam. This did not constitute the condoning of crimes which they have committed. There was no question of the Claimant giving ‘unqualified support’ to those in custody. The Claimant submitted that he did not support jihad in the sense of it constituting a violent struggle. The only reference to jihad during the speech was in the following sense: “The best of Jihad, the best form 76