As a ball of fire erupted from the World Trade Center, tumultuous cries of “Allah akhbar” echoed around the main hall of the Quaker meeting house in London’s Euston Road. Five hundred people sat watching an out-of-focus film of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, as children played among the seats and adults cheered when the Twin Towers crumbled. The irony of the Quaker meeting house – a citadel of peaceful reflection – having been rented out for the purpose of drawing together so many people filled with hatred and anger made the meeting – some six months to the day before the London bombings of 7 July 2005 – all the more significant. Presiding over the gathering was Omar Bakri Muhammad, former head of the Salafist group alMuhajiroun, which had been disbanded a short while beforehand. Among the other speakers was Abu Izzadeen, a convert to Islam who subsequently became the most extreme public voice of jihadist-Salafism in the UK as head of alGhuraaba, the group which replaced al-Muhajiroun. Although none of the 7 July bombers – nor the would-be bombers arrested after the attempted suicide bombing of London on 21 July 2005 – were known to have attended the January 2005 meeting, the radicalised environment in which they had moved was vividly on display at the Quaker hall. Three factors were made clear by the speakers which illustrate the key trends and patterns in the radicalisation process in the UK. These factors, which will be the central themes of this chapter, are as follows. First, it is evident that among the most vocal of those who are already radicalised, there is a clear intention to explain the apparently unstoppable conflict between Muslims and the kufr (non-Muslims) in the West – and specifically in the UK – as resulting from the decision by Western leaders to commit aggression, both against Muslims in the UK and abroad. This process of explanation has involved seeking both to define the identity of the “British Muslim”, and to make clear how this community relates to the plight of Muslims in other parts of the world. The strategy is given a historical veneer by explaining that a “Covenant of Security” which allegedly existed between Muslims and the kufr – whereby both sides would leave each other in peace – has been broken as a result of Western aggression, and that therefore Muslims have a right to launch a defensive jihad.