And for the nightmare of New York.

The world of Islam is responsible for Islamic terrorism, if only by refusing to see its responsibility.

In the Italian newspaper La Stampa, it was not an Italian, but a Muslim, Ibrahim Refat, who wrote about this with bitterness: "The echo of the Beslan tragedy barely reaches the Arab world. He is almost inaudible. The news of the horrific number of victims left the front pages of newspapers and occupies only second place in the news after the traditional stories about ceremonies in the royal palaces. Contrary to what is happening in Europe, events like this massacre in Beslan do not really excite the consciousness of the masses. Of course, there have been some criticisms, such as those of Sheikh al-Azhar, a Sunni leader, who on Friday accused terrorists of using Islam as a cover. Yet Islamic scholars in recent days have been more preoccupied with issuing fatwas on the topic of whether or not Western hostages can be killed in Iraq. In the Arab and Islamic worlds, the majority still refuses to reflect and analyze what has happened. The only intellectual who broke the mutual cover-up was the director of the Al Arabiya channel, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed. In an article in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, he confessed: "Let's tell the bitter truth: all terrorists in the world are Muslims. We Muslims will not be able to whitewash our image if we do not recognize this shameful fact." However, such words go into the void, because Arab leaders will never recognize, any more than the Islamic clergy and intellectuals themselves will ever admit, that the evil lies in the fanaticism that corrodes Arab society. The elite, which still denies that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Arabs, cannot do so. And, therefore, the ordinary inhabitants of Middle Eastern cities, who have become accustomed to the manifestations of violence that leave an imprint on their daily life, do not recognize this either. The minds of these people are already saturated with the delusional speeches of imams, who call for the rejection of the "other", a non-Muslim, calling him simply an "infidel", a "kafir". And the Middle Eastern media, including state-owned, has in turn contributed to the expansion of this ethnocentrism by portraying the misadventures of Arabs and Muslims as the only form of injustice on this earth. In their opinion, the victims live only in Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, and Chechnya. And the executioners, incited by the 'Zionists,' live only in the West."[20]

Yes, today almost "all terrorists are Muslims" (today; 10 years ago this was not the case), but still not all Muslims are terrorists. And this should not be forgotten either. As well as the fact that there were many Muslims among the children who died in the Beslan school. That is why crosses and pillars coexist in the "school cemetery". From the point of view of the terrorists, the Beslan children were bad Muslims – non-Wahhabis (Wahhabism declares Muslims of other persuasions to be "infidels").

Wahhabis in Islam are the same as Baptists in Christian history. Baptism appeared 1600 years after the beginning of Christian preaching. Wahhabism is separated from the time of the Prophet's life by a distance of 1100 years. Both movements began their history with a very harsh, even insulting denunciation of the mass of their coreligionists: the Baptists criticized the Catholics and the Lutherans; Wahhabis – ordinary Sunnis and Shiites. The Baptists accused traditional Christians of idolatry (paganism). The Wahhabis applied the term that the Koran applies to pagans – shirk – applied to traditional Muslims (who had a cult of saints, dervishes, tombs of the righteous, holy springs, etc.). Both Baptists and Wahhabis entered the world with the slogan "to return to the Scriptures" and reject the later human traditions. In general, both are generally marginal, but both eventually subjugated the most influential states in their worlds: in the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia; in the Christian world, it is the United States. I emphasize: we are talking about the similarity of some features of their historical paths, but I am not saying that the ethics of the Baptists is identical with the ethics of the militant Wahhabis (although the American Baptists of the 18th and 19th centuries were tempted to declare war on the Indians as a religious one).

The spearhead of Wahhabism is directed primarily against Muslims. Look, all the countries where the Wahhabis arrange conflicts are inhabited mainly by Muslims.

In 1801, Wahhabi troops under the command of Sa'ud attacked Iraq. They captured the city of Carbella and killed all its inhabitants. Only a small number of them escaped. The Wahhabis destroyed the tomb of Hussein, the Prophet's grandson.

In 1802, a detachment of Wahhabis attacked the city of Taif, which is located near Mecca, at a distance of 70-80 km. Entering mosques, they killed even those who were caught praying. Babies were slaughtered on their mothers' breasts, and those who tried to escape were chased and killed. On the orders of the leader of this detachment, Uthman Muzayafi, the Wahhabis completely destroyed the tomb of the Prophet Ibn Abbas, a well-known companion in the Islamic world. To those who had taken refuge in the fortification, they promised not to touch them, on condition that they surrendered. But after they surrendered, the Wahhabis executed everyone, declaring that there could be no treaties with the polytheists (musrikins). In the fortress of Zawi Isa, 50 Muslims held the line. They were also insidiously deceived by promises not to touch them in the event of the surrender of the fortress. When they surrendered, they were taken to the gorge of Wazhong and, stripped naked, kept there for 13 days. Through hunger and torture, they were forced to accept Wahhabism.

In 1804, the Wahhabis surrounded Mecca. Within a year, they blocked all roads to the city. Famine broke out. And although the defenders of the city had to eat grass, cats and carrion, they were not going to surrender. In the following year, 1805, having increased their army to 30,000 people, the Wahhabis intensified the onslaught even more. Many people died of starvation. The corpses of children lay in the streets. Mecca surrendered.

In 1806, the Wahhabis captured Medina. In 1810, the Wahhabi army under the command of Saud's son Abdullah attacked Syria. Having captured the cities of Khavron, the Wahhabis exterminated many people, sparing neither children nor the elderly, took women prisoner, burned farms and villages[21].

200 years have passed. The attitude of the Wahhabis towards Muslims of other trends has not changed. "In the course of counter-terrorism measures at the end of May this year, several ulema were arrested - Ali al-Khudeir, Ahmad al-Khalidi, Nasir al-Fahd. In the Saudi media, they are called the "Takfiri trinity" (salus takfiri) because they declared their co-religionists to be "infidels" (called takfir) who in some way deviated from what this "trinity" considers true Islam. And against the 'infidels' (i.e., the Takfir Muslims, as well as all non-Muslims - Christians, Jews, etc.), they argued, armed jihad was mandatory. I note that these ulema waged this "jihad" on the territory of Saudi Arabia, blowing up houses with foreigners and regardless of the casualties among the Arab service personnel.

However, if there was a Wahhabi resident in the blown up house, this may not stop his co-religionists either: he will also be considered a shahid, although he did not expect his death that night. After all, "the number of shahids includes 8 categories of people: those who died of plague, abdominal diseases, pneumonia, childbirth, those who died in a fire, those who drowned, those buried under the ruins of collapsed buildings, those who died for the faith"[23].

Fanaticism and insensitivity to someone else's misfortune are a disease of the Islamic world. But this illness of his turns into pain for us, his neighbors on the planet (and already on the street). That is why we have to awaken a sense of belonging, guilt and responsibility in Muslims. Islam is not to blame for terrorism, but for not being fierce enough to defend its holy site, the Koran, from fanatical interpretations.

And another fault of the Islamic world is that it allows itself to be used. It is not enough to say that the ideology of al-Qaeda was forged in Islamic universities. The order for this "forging" came from a region from which the Middle East is very far away. Therefore, you can hit Afghan caves, Iraqi houses and Chechen forests with missiles as much as you want, but this will not affect the brain that controls Islamic terrorism in the slightest, for the reason that this brain is located outside the Islamic world. I am convinced that the strategic planning of terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam is carried out in the Western world.