The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[Malifice]

The sentence I have highlighted where you state that the central figure of Islam advocated defensive war, this is slightly inaccurate as the prophet of Islam advocated an aggressive war.

The prevailing view is that the Quran authorises defensive war only. The issue is that some interpret defensive war to mean different things.

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an Islamic scholar with a doctorate in Islamic theology, understands this and as you have stated, this is pretty good reason as to why Islamic reform is necessary.

I can point to you thousands of other peeps with the same qualifications or better who interpret the Quran differently.

Its a massive misrepresentation to preach 'there is only one interpretation of the Quran' just as it would be to preach that there is only one interpretation of the Bible or the Torah. Different sects/ denominations and different views within those sects/ denominations are evidence enough that there are different interpretations.

However as Total Power has mentioned, I'm not sure if reform of Islam is even a possibility. As much as we would like to believe that there is a vast majority of Muslims who don't take a literalist interpretation of the Quran, I think a pretty strong argument can be made for the opposite.

I totally disagree. The vast majority of Muslims reject Sallafist Wahabbism and literalist Islam (just as the vast majority of Christians reject hardline Christian fundamentalism, and take a more moderate interpretation of the Bible).

If you dont believe me, hop in a cab at random, or have a chat to the next Indonesian, Pakistani or Malaysian you meet. Ask the driver what he thinks of the Islamic State and their interpretation of the Quran.

Im prepared to bet they reject it.

That said, there certainly is a higher proportion of more literal interpretations of the Quran (due in part to how it's set up, and its propensity to encourage fundamental religious governments).

 

[Malifice]

Please enlighten me as to what are "the core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" not represented by IS?

Ask the Muslims that are getting butchered by ISIL daily yourself.

This kind of posting is absurd. You treat Islam as some kind of monolithic bloc that all think the same, and have a unified interpretation of the Quran and understanding of Islam. Thats like arguing Catholics, Latter day Saints and Anglicans are all doing it the same.

 

[Malifice]

But its a lot more complicated than that. Minority Christian sects were never as vulnerable as the Islamic ones.

You might want to have a look at what the Inquisition got up to during the Reformation. Non Catholics were declared heretics and thrown in the pyre.

The similarities to whats going on in Syria now are rather striking.

As more and more Muslims feel disconnected with the western society they will fall victim to Waahabist ideology.

I dont disagree. ISIL conduct terror attacks to incite hatred towards Islam. Theyre well aware that the resulting backlash and persecution against Muslims will simply give them more soldiers and drive a wedge even further between Islam and others.

Its a unique phenomena. The IRA didnt conduct terror attacks to make people hate the IRA, and incite the British to invade the Republic. Yet this is exactly what ISIL want. They're canny - they know that if they can get people hating all Muslims, and get people persecuting Muslims, then even some moderates (who believe in defensive war only) caught in the middle will start to rally to their cause, giving them even more legitimacy.

You are assuming that all of a sudden after 1,000 years the minority Islamic sects will gain respect, when all secular Islamic movements been crushed one way or the other.

How can one have a 'secular Islamic movement'. Its an oxymoron, like a 'secular christian movement'. Its either Christian/ Islamic or its secular - you cant have both.

You have to remember as bad as Christianity is, Jesus was a peaceful person compared to Mohammed who was pretty much a warlord. There is no comparing these 2 ideologies.A major consideration to the change in Christianity's approach, was when the church (all denominations) realized that Christss teachings regarding salvation and how to live thereafter, are all pacifist in nature.

The overiding tenant of the New Testament is peace and service to one another....especially the least among society. I remain highly skeptical reform can happen within Islam.

Yet you neglect the fact that Jesus (to Muslims) is also an Islamic prophet, and that much of the Quran is dedicated to discussions of peace. Much of it is also dedicated to warfare too (dont get me wrong, it - like the Old Testament - is not nice reading). But just as Christian and Jewish scholars can interpret the Old Testaments passages condoning slavery, selling your daughter, execution of homosexuals, burning and stoning people to death (Leviticus) to mean something else entirely, I'm pretty confident that Muslims can do the same.

Heck most already dont take the thing literally. To suggest that Muslims live thier lives according to a literalist interpretation of the Quran is absurd. You might have an argument that Islamic State do, but theyre an extreme minority.

You dont see too many Indonesians or Malaysians running around saying 'Slavery is OK because it says so in the Quran' like ISIL do, and we're talking about half a billion Muslims right here.

The only time i havee seen violence in Islamic countries controlled is through brutal regimes like in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Egypt -- the moment they are gone, violence returns.

Those regimes are Arab nationalist parties such as the Ba'ath party of Hussein who are trying to set up governments (nationalist governments mind you) that are not fundamentalist ones. The bloodshed (see Egypt in particular) is primarily due to friction between Islamic hardliners and Arab nationalists.

The fact that most of those Arab nationalists are also Muslim, yet they reject Islamic fundamentalism as set out in the Quran, also shows me that there is not one accepted interpetation of the Quran or Sharia, and further highlights that not all Muslims think such a thing should be followed literally.

Speaking of those regimes, it would also help if the West were not meddling in them. Arming one against the other while funelling arms to the other side secretly (Iran Contra scandal), supporting then invading the same country, overthrowing a democratically elected government to establish a dictator etc etc.

I mean, isnt it obvious that the West has intentionally been destabilising the area for decades and that this has directly contributed to the problem were now seeing?

One of the major pillars of Shia ideology for example remains "jihad". How can you actually reform that? The definition of Jihad as mentioned in the most popular hadiths mention "internal as well as external" warfare. To reform Islam you must reform the Hadiths too. Simply put this is going to be an uphill battle which i am not sure we will see it sorted in our lifetime

Jihad means 'struggle' and the vast majority of Muslims understand this to mean (in the context of warfare) defensive warfare.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."

The prevailing view of Quaranic interpretation is that when read as a whole, the Quaran only authorises defensive war against a foreign agressor. This includes offensive/ external operations of course. You can use all the tools at your disposal against a foreign agressor, but are expected to lay down arms when they do, and respect any peace terms.

The issue is that hardline minority view the cultural, economic and military incursions into the ME by 'the West' (I hate that term so much) to be just such a 'foreign agression' and thus it triggers an obligation by Muslims to fight back (including offensive operations).

People with that view are a minority, but they're a dangerous minority.

I just dont see how persecuting the moderates is the answer. If anything, it's what is contributing to the current problem and is exactly what ISIL want us to do.

 

[My name geoff]

The prevailing view is that the Quran authorises defensive war only. The issue is that some interpret defensive war to mean different things.



I can point to you thousands of other peeps with the same qualifications or better who interpret the Quran differently.

Its a massive misrepresentation to preach 'there is only one interpretation of the Quran' just as it would be to preach that there is only one interpretation of the Bible or the Torah. Different sects/ denominations and different views within those sects/ denominations are evidence enough that there are different interpretations.



I totally disagree. The vast majority of Muslims reject Sallafist Wahabbism and literalist Islam (just as the vast majority of Christians reject hardline Christian fundamentalism, and take a more moderate interpretation of the Bible).

If you dont believe me, hop in a cab at random, or have a chat to the next Indonesian, Pakistani or Malaysian you meet. Ask the driver what he thinks of the Islamic State and their interpretation of the Quran.

Im prepared to bet they reject it.

That said, there certainly is a higher proportion of more literal interpretations of the Quran (due in part to how it's set up, and its propensity to encourage fundamental religious governments).

I appreciate that there would definitely be a contingent of Muslims (taxi drivers etc) that would disagree with a violent interpretation of the Quran.

In an earlier post I referred to my experiences at various mosques in Australia. What I observed in these visits revealed that many Muslims take a different view on what constitutes true Islam, than what you would expect to hear in a taxi for example.

As for the question 'what is true Islam' and how do we know what the prevailing interpretation is amongst the followers?

In Islamic jurisprudence, the tasfirs are the accepted exegesis on how to interpret the Quran and Hadith. In other words, the tasfir is an acurate way to deduce 'what is true Islam' as most Islamic teachings throughout the world, are heavily influenced by these books.

In Sunni Islam the tasfir of ibn Kathir is the most widely used and accepted explanation of how to interpret the Quran and Hadith. Amongst other aggressive views, this tasfir has a clear view that the violent sura 9, or verse of the sword, abrogates any peace treaties that had previously been outlined within the Quran.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the interpretation of Ibn Kathir is the prevailing and accepted Islam.

 

[Malifice]

I appreciate that there would definitely be a contingent of Muslims (taxi drivers etc) that would disagree with a violent interpretation of the Quran.

Go to Indonesia or Malaysia and see if the people over there agree with a violent fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran. They have their minority hardliners of course, but the prevailing view and interpretation of the Quran is not the one advanced by Bagdhati, Salafists or ISIL.

Again, speak to a Muslim about it if you still dont believe me for some reason.

Note - I'm not suggesting hardliners do not exist (no-one to my knowledge makes this assertion) or that the Quran isnt riddled with problems (primarily the fact its central figure condoned warfare as an option, and encouraged fundamentalist governance as opposed to the Christian messiah who advocated turning the other cheek and peaceful pacifism).

In Sunni Islam the tasfir of ibn Kathir is the most widely used and accepted explanation of how to interpret the Quran and Hadith. Amongst other aggressive views, this tasfir has a clear view that the violent sura 9, or verse of the sword, abrogates any peace treaties that had previously been outlined within the Quran.

With respect to the remaining crusaders. Lets place it into context here (as most Muslims do).

Sunni Islam comprises between 75-90 percent of Muslims. It is further broken down int several different schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, Ẓāhirī and others) that share very different views on Islamic jurisprudence.

You're being a little disengeneous here to suggest that Sunni Muslims collectively believe a Muslims obligation for Jihad = an obligation to embark in an offensive war against a peaceful neighbor. If thats the case, why arent 90 percent of all Muslims attacking everyone?

 

[douglyzia]

Ask the Muslims that are getting butchered by ISIL daily yourself.

And where, pray tell, would I have access to these Muslims who are getting butchered by ISIL daily to solicit the response to my query?

No, you made the statement that "the core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" are not represented by IS. I ask again, what are these "core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" that you are referring to?

This kind of posting is absurd. You treat Islam as some kind of monolithic bloc that all think the same, and have a unified interpretation of the Quran and understanding of Islam. Thats like arguing Catholics, Latter day Saints and Anglicans are all doing it the same.

Strawman much? I asked you to clarify what you meant when you referred to "the core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" and you go on a rant with the assumption that I treat all denominations of Islam as the same. That, and not my post, is absurd.

 

[douglyzia]

If you dont believe me, hop in a cab at random, or have a chat to the next Indonesian, Pakistani or Malaysian you meet. Ask the driver what he thinks of the Islamic State and their interpretation of the Quran.

Yeah, and I bet the opinion of some random cab driver overrides the results of data collated by the Pew Research Centre, doesn't it?

 

[douglyzia]

The bigger issue is how to fix it. Without a central authority like the Catholics had, it makes it very hard. Arguably we may even need an Islamic State (replete with a Caliph)- just a much more moderate and progressive one.

Again; a moderate, progressive Islamic State (not this one we see right now) would arguably be a good thing for a reform of the religion.

You know what? I actually agree with this in theory. In reality though, the way the Middle East operates, some radical Islamic group will probably violently destroy any moderate, progressive Islamic State, or at the very least, cause unending chaos that will render them next to useless.

 

[Malifice]

And where, pray tell, would I have access to these Muslims who are getting butchered by ISIL daily to solicit the response to my query?

My point is if those Muslims share ISIL's beliefs (as you assert they do) why are they being butchered and running away from them?

No, you made the statement that "the core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" are not represented by IS. I ask again, what are these "core beliefs of the majority of Muslims" that you are referring to?

For starters ISIL beleive that Abu Bagdhati is the Caliph of an Islamic State, and that Salaffist Wahabbism is the one true way to interpret the Quran. They treat the Quran as literally true in every sense, and believe that the Madhi and the 'end times' are not only close, but that it is a Muslims obligation to bring it closer.

I dont know too many Muslims that share that particular belief, and its probably why they have so little support among Muslims. Even Al Queda rejects them. There are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, yet ISIL have around 30,000 supporters. You do the maths.

They espouse a very particular brand of fundamentalist Islam, and its one that is not followed or supported by the overwhelming number of Muslims.

I mean; if the majority of people in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia etc wanted to bring slavery back, and do all the other rubbish that IS are doing, they'd be doing it already.

Yeah, and I bet the opinion of some random cab driver overrides the results of data collated by the Pew Research Centre, doesn't it?

Youre funny. I remember you posting in a different thread that you wouldnt want a Mosque next door because of the 'sound it makes' and then you post this stuff (Muslims are bad, suggesting all Muslims support ISIL/ terrorism, PEW research papers purporting to show how bad Muslims are).

I suppose the 'parking issues' bother you as well.

 

[My name geoff]

Go to Indonesia or Malaysia and see if the people over there agree with a violent fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran. They have their minority hardliners of course, but the prevailing view and interpretation of the Quran is not the one advanced by Bagdhati, Salafists or ISIL.

Again, speak to a Muslim about it if you still dont believe me for some reason.

Note - I'm not suggesting hardliners do not exist (no-one to my knowledge makes this assertion) or that the Quran isnt riddled with problems (primarily the fact its central figure condoned warfare as an option, and encouraged fundamentalist governance as opposed to the Christian messiah who advocated turning the other cheek and peaceful pacifism).



With respect to the remaining crusaders. Lets place it into context here (as most Muslims do).

Sunni Islam comprises between 75-90 percent of Muslims. It is further broken down int several different schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, Ẓāhirī and others) that share very different views on Islamic jurisprudence.

You're being a little disengeneous here to suggest that Sunni Muslims collectively believe a Muslims obligation for Jihad = an obligation to embark in an offensive war against a peaceful neighbor. If thats the case, why arent 90 percent of all Muslims attacking everyone?

This last question was debated pretty heatidliy on the the other board lol.

I asserted that the reason why 90% of Muslims aren't attacking everyone is due to the fact that the instruction outlined in the Quran states that the Muslim population must reach a certain threshold in order to be granted victory in battle. A number which from memory is around 1.7 billion worldwide. It would actually go against the Quran to command a worldwide jihad at this time.

Just from my own observation, the larger the Muslim population grows within a community, the more hardlined, aggressive and fundamentalist the followers seem to become. Once again, I am only speaking from my own experience here, my circle of Muslim friends were basically westerners 20 years ago. As the Islamic community grew around them, so did their hardline aggressive views on what is acceptable and what is not. We are basically estranged now as their lives revolve around the mosque.

The mosques that I have been to have all shared this hardline view on islam's place on earth. Those views fit pretty well into what one would read in the tasfir I mentioned earlier.

That's not to say that what you are saying in regards to Malaysia or the different sects is incorrect, but as I said a pretty solid case could be made that a literallist view of the Quran could infact be the prevailing one.

 

[Malifice]

I asserted that the reason why 90% of Muslims aren't attacking everyone is due to the fact that the instruction outlined in the Quran states that the Muslim population must reach a certain threshold in order to be granted victory in battle. A number which from memory is around 1.7 billion worldwide.

I call bullshit.

Find me this passage from the Quran that directs Muslims to invade the world once they reach 1.7 billion adherents.

 

[My name geoff]

I call bullshit.

Find me this passage from the Quran that directs Muslims to invade the world once they reach 1.7 billion adherents.

It states what threshold of followers are required to win battle,

Now Allah has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allah. And Allah is with As- Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

 

[Malifice]

It states what threshold of followers are required to win battle,

Now Allah has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allah. And Allah is with As- Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

Even taken out of context (bear in mind this was written by a bloke who defeated an army of 1000 with 1/10 that number) Im not seeing that as a call to 'multiply and conquer once you hit 1.7 billion'.

That reads to me as 'dont give up in the face of overwhelming odds'.

 

[Number37]

This last question was debated pretty heatidliy on the the other board lol.

I asserted that the reason why 90% of Muslims aren't attacking everyone is due to the fact that the instruction outlined in the Quran states that the Muslim population must reach a certain threshold in order to be granted victory in battle. A number which from memory is around 1.7 billion worldwide. It would actually go against the Quran to command a worldwide jihad at this time.

Just from my own observation, the larger the Muslim population grows within a community, the more hardlined, aggressive and fundamentalist the followers seem to become. Once again, I am only speaking from my own experience here, my circle of Muslim friends were basically westerners 20 years ago. As the Islamic community grew around them, so did their hardline aggressive views on what is acceptable and what is not. We are basically estranged now as their lives revolve around the mosque.

The mosques that I have been to have all shared this hardline view on islam's place on earth. Those views fit pretty well into what one would read in the tasfir I mentioned earlier.

That's not to say that what you are saying in regards to Malaysia or the different sects is incorrect, but as I said a pretty solid case could be made that a literallist view of the Quran could infact be the prevailing one.

"Hardline" view is your interpretation.
What exactly does that mean?
I know plenty of muslims that grew up muslim in name only.
Just because those people later in their life become practising muslims doesn't mean that they are "hardline".
Not going to the pub or drinking and instead going to the mosque etc does not = "hardline".

 

[My name geoff]

Even taken out of context (bear in mind this was written by a bloke who defeated an army of 1000 with 1/10 that number) Im not seeing that as a call to 'multiply and conquer once you hit 1.7 billion'.

That reads to me as 'dont give up in the face of overwhelming odds'.

The claim I made is that if you were to take the Quran as the direct instruction of god, you would understand that god has made victory in battle attainable to the believers at a certain numerical threshold.

If you were to enter battle below that threshold, you would risk losing, taking the Quran as the literal instruction of god.

 

[My name geoff]

"Hardline" view is your interpretation.
What exactly does that mean?
I know plenty of muslims that grew up muslim in name only.
Just because those people later in their life become practising muslims doesn't mean that they are "hardline".
Not going to the pub or drinking and instead going to the mosque etc does not = "hardline".

hardline, meaning more uncompromising to non-Islamic views

 

[Malifice]

The claim I made is that if you were to take the Quran as the direct instruction of god, you would understand that god has made victory in battle attainable to the believers at a certain numerical threshold.

If you were to enter battle below that threshold, you would risk losing, taking the Quran as the literal instruction of god.

What? If that is the literal instruction from God, and you cant enter battle below those figures, then you cant enter them above those figures either.

Im pretty sure God wasnt being specific here, and Muslims dont do a head count before a battle and call it off if they're outnumbered more than 2 to 1.

A: 'Wheres Mohammed'?
B: 's**t, he's not here.'
A: 'Well that stuffs it up. No we're only 99 strong and they have 200. God was pretty specific on the ratio and all'
B: 'Wait, here comes Mohammed.
B: 'Who's that with him?'
A: 'Thats Afaq, his cousin'
B: 'Bugger off Afaq, youre throwing the numbers out!'
A: 'Right, thats 100. We have the quorum. Lets do this!'
B: 'Alluah Akhubar...! (they charge)'

 

[Number37]

hardline, meaning more uncompromising to non-Islamic views

By your own definition you, yourself are 'hardline' insofar as you are "uncompromising to Islamic views".

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

What? If that is the literal instruction from God, and you cant enter battle below those figures, then you cant enter them above those figures either.

Im pretty sure God wasnt being specific here, and Muslims dont do a head count before a battle and call it off if they're outnumbered more than 2 to 1.

A: 'Wheres Mohammed'?
B: 's**t, he's not here.'
A: 'Well that stuffs it up. No we're only 99 strong and they have 200. God was pretty specific on the ratio and all'
B: 'Wait, here comes Mohammed.
B: 'Who's that with him?'
A: 'Thats Afaq, his cousin'
B: 'Bugger off Afaq, youre throwing the numbers out!'
A: 'Right, thats 100. We have the quorum. Lets do this!'
B: 'Alluah Akhubar...! (they charge)'

I'd be interested to know what happens if their enemy has an odd number of fighters...

 

[My name geoff]

What? If that is the literal instruction from God, and you cant enter battle below those figures, then you cant enter them above those figures either.

Im pretty sure God wasnt being specific here, and Muslims dont do a head count before a battle and call it off if they're outnumbered more than 2 to 1.

A: 'Wheres Mohammed'?
B: 's**t, he's not here.'
A: 'Well that stuffs it up. No we're only 99 strong and they have 200. God was pretty specific on the ratio and all'
B: 'Wait, here comes Mohammed.
B: 'Who's that with him?'
A: 'Thats Afaq, his cousin'
B: 'Bugger off Afaq, youre throwing the numbers out!'
A: 'Right, thats 100. We have the quorum. Lets do this!'
B: 'Alluah Akhubar...! (they charge)'

This is the previous verse below. Allah goes to a bit of effort to outline the numbers required in battle if he didn't want the followers to take it on board,

O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are] steadfast, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand.

A lot of people try to speculate on how Muslims would or wouldn't interpret the verses in the Quran. I'm a reasonably clever guy, when I read the Quran, this is how I interpret it. I would be very surprised if I was an insignificant minority on this.

 

[My name geoff]

By your own definition you, yourself are 'hardline' insofar as you are "uncompromising to Islamic views".

I am uncompromising to uncompromising views?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Yeah, and I bet the opinion of some random cab driver overrides the results of data collated by the Pew Research Centre, doesn't it?

Looks like that noise really got to you in the last couple of days.

That turd who held a hate rally dressed up as an animal rights rally was also a gutless snake in the grass.

 

[Total Power]

Yeah, and I bet the opinion of some random cab driver overrides the results of data collated by the Pew Research Centre, doesn't it?

So Mal, are these values of the "moderate" Muslims compatible with what you and I believe in? can they be educated? considering that more than 60% Muslims want Sharia and 50% want death for adultery?

 

[Total Power]

Y

Jihad means 'struggle' and the vast majority of Muslims understand this to mean (in the context of warfare) defensive warfare.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."
.

This is where you and I disagree: Lets look at the hadiths: It easily be interpreted as violence.

1. "The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause," (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira).
2. "Allah's Apostle said, "A pious slave gets a double reward." Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave," (Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira).
3. "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out," (Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira).

 

[Number37]

I am uncompromising to uncompromising views?

You label their view as 'uncompromising' so therefore you views can't be labelled uncompromising?

Sounds a little convenient and a lot hypocritical.