‘harb’. Jihad does not mean ‘fighting’ as some wrongly assume as the word for this is qital.” Aggressive jihad 233. It is clear that the Claimant is not talking about defensive jihad but offensive or aggressive jihad. The Claimant omits to mention any basic qualifications on qital, e.g. the inviolable Qur'anic principle that a Muslim may only fight "if they do fight you… " (Qur'an, 2:192). 234. As explained above, at the time of the revelations, Muhammad and his followers faced annihilation from Meccan and Qureishi polytheist and pagan tribes and their allies in violation of previous treaties. In these circumstances, namely, the struggle to defend one's life, religion and interests, defensive combat (qital) became necessary and obligatory in that sense. The Claimant also again inappropriately uses the word jihad in this speech whereas the correct Qur'anic word used in these verses is qital, which carries with it strict conditions as to the circumstances in which it is declared and the manner in which it is conducted (as explained above). Professor Gleave’s evidence 235. I found Professor Gleave’s evidence on the DEVIANT GROUPS (2009) speech was variable at best. 236. Professor Gleave sought in his report to suggest that the Claimant’s references to Sheikh bin Baz’s opinions were ‘merely’ by way of ‘argumentation’ in a manner common in Muslim study circle contexts, i.e. citing the opinion of other scholars. It is noteworthy that at no stage, however, did Professor Gleave grapple with, or even mention, the Claimant’s numerous endorsements and praise of Sheikh bin Baz and his teachings. Professor Gleave then shifted from his original position (of seeking to distance the Claimant from Sheikh bin Baz’s opinions) to the following position in the Joint Experts Report (paragraph 8.6): “On the issue of Dominion/Authority (hakimiyyah)… we agree that it is highly likely that the Claimant himself endorses a position articulated on p. 70, ll 5-16 that: “…Every State which does not rule in accordance with Allah’s Revelation is an obscene (fasiq) and unjust State which disbelieves in the Qur’anic verses…” and that “we should be hostile to it. It is an obligation (wajib) a duty to hate it.” This is because the Claimant adduces the highest Salafi scholarly support of quotations from two Grand Muftis of Saudi Arabia to substantiate this point of view and does not offer any alternative points of view. These citations come in the context of the Claimant demonstrating that it is permitted to talk about hakimiyyah, contra those who believe it is not permitted.” 237. Professor Gleave then sought in evidence to row back from this realistic admission by suggesting that the Claimant’s reference to “duty to hate” could be explained by the fact that the context of the speech was whether it was, or was not, permitted to discuss hakimiyyah (dominion/authority) and was directed only to errant Islamic states. He 53