Second section 211. The experts agree that, in the second section, it is clear that the Claimant himself endorses the position and takes the view that to follow man-made laws constitutes an act of religious idolatry (shirk) and an act of disbelief (kufr). Third section 212. The third section is particularly important because the Claimant cites, without qualification, Sheik bin Baz’s teaching that jihad in the sense of qital (fighting in the path of Allah) was the “one of the greatest acts of obedience”. This echoes to a significant extent the WCO. Fourth section 213. The Claimant’s reference in the fourth section to a “defeatist mentality” is significant (“…we have the defeatist mentality and don’t want to support….those who are really struggling and striving and fighting in the path of Allah ”). Fifth section 214. The sentence in the fifth section ("We’re not doing it ourselves, so, you know, we are weak, but at least we can support and make supplication for those who are doing and struggling in the path of Allah the Exalted where there is legitimate jihad such as Palestine, such as Chechnya…”) is particularly significant because the Claimant is here clearly scornful of those who are not doing jihad themselves, whom he describes as “weak”, but says “at least” we can support those who are fighting (and who, by definition, are not “weak” and will therefore be closest to Allah). Sixth section 215. In the sixth section, the Claimant is stating quite clearly that jihad (in the sense of the armed struggle or fighting) is a religious duty (“it is prescribed for you…” ). That is to say, it is a religious duty prescribed for all Muslims as an individual religious duty. This is heterodox to mainstream Islam (see above). Eighth section 216. It is difficult to read the last sentence of the eighth section, as sensibly confined to mere ‘defensive’ jihad since it refers generally to “legitimate struggles…”. (“…the likes of Sheikh bin Baz…have always supported legitimate struggles and they make legitimate jihad in the lands of the Muslims”). Contrary to the assertions in his witness statement, nowhere in this or other passages in the speech does the Claimant ever mention about defensive jihad, or make it clear the religious duty to “fight[] in the path of Allah” has to be triggered first by an attack on Muslims. Tenth section 49