146. The experts disagreed on the import of the key sentence: "Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists if you want to do this". Professor Gleave suggested that it was most likely to be ‘sarcastic implied criticism’ of the course of action given the context of the statement, since the speaker immediately says before this that people who “scream about jihad” should not criticise those who do not go, who stay here and “do something else for the deen” here. Dr Wilkinson thought that in the light of the Claimant's use of the imperative tense "take" and "fight" without qualification and in the light of the rest of the speech in which the Claimant gives wearing the Islamic headscarf (hijab) and armed jihad a religious equivalence, the Claimant is most likely to be encouraging or at least condoning travel to Palestine to "fight the Zionists, fight the terrorists". 147. They agreed the Claimant was neither condemning that course of action nor making it an obligatory religious duty since he uses the phrase, "if you want to do this." They agreed that in order to provide a completely conclusive analysis of this speech, they would require access to the audio recording and, preferably, more of the speech. This is because some of the contextual meaning of the speech appears to be conveyed by the tone of the Claimant's voice and his turn of phrase. Analysis 148. It is important to have close regard to the precise words used in the passages of the speech set out above. There are, in my view, a number of particularly striking aspects of the language used by the Claimant in the speech. First, the singular emphasis on being “strong” as a Muslim as a necessary core virtue (the word “strong” is referred to six times). Second, the exact religious equivalency given to wearing the hijab and armed jihad (“…if you look at these issues you’ll find great wisdom in it”). Third, the blanket licence and approval given to the actions of Palestinian, Chechen, Kashmir and Iraqi Muslims defending themselves, their womenfolk, their land and their deen (belief) notwithstanding the violent and indiscriminate methods used and any impact on innocent civilians (“…this is not terrorism”). Fourth, the emphasis on death (“every soul will taste death”) as a route to eternal salvation (“you will meet Allah”). Fifth, the threat that those who do not demonstrate to the core virtue of strength ( i.e. the “weak” or “weak minded” and those who “weren’t steadfast”) would be at religious risk (“you will have to account to Allah for this”). Sixth, the exhortation to fight rather than just scream or shout about jihad (“You want to make jihad? Very good.”). Seventh, the equiperation of Zionists with terrorists (“fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists”), including even civilians. 149. For these reasons, the final sentence would, in my judgement, have been understood by most members of the audience as a call to arms, i.e. to go and join the armed Islamic jihad in Palestine (“Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists in Palestine if you want to do this”). This is what the Claimant really means when he refers to being “strong” and the “practicalities of the deen of Islam”.7 In essence, the Claimant is urging the audience to ‘walk the walk’ rather than merely ‘talk the talk’. Was the Claimant merely being sarcastic? 150. I reject Professor Gleave’s suggestion that the Claimant was merely being ‘sarcastic’ (this was a suggestion which came from him not the Claimant). 7 Note the reference to the “practicalities” of Islam is redolent of the language of Sayeed Qutb in “Milestones” (further below) 33