For example, on September 6, in the Moscow subway, a man approached me with a face by which it is customary to guess about the "Caucasian nationality". He said that he had found a baptismal cross on the street and did not know what to do with it now. He rejected my advice to take the cross to the temple with the following words: "I am a Muslim. I can't go into your churches. But my conscience does not allow me to throw away the cross. Take it for yourself!" A Satanist would not do that. He would rather trample on the cross or throw it into a heap of rubbish...

History presents unexpected surprises. Well, who would have thought that at the beginning of the 21st century, the fate of mankind would be in the hands of theologians? And this is indeed so, however, with the clarification that we are talking about Muslim theologians. The Islamic ummah (church) is organized differently from the Orthodox or Catholic churches. The Ummah is governed by scholars; Personal education means more than going through an initiation ceremony. The voice of Islam is the voice of ulema - experts in theology (from the Arabic alim - expert in religion). These people, who have devoted at least 12 years of their lives to the study of the Qur'an, receive the right to its public interpretation. And it depends on them today how the Qur'anic commandment of jihad will be interpreted. It depends on them whether they will apply the lofty name of "shahid" (martyr) to terrorists who blow themselves up along with the children of "infidels", or whether they will call terrorists terrorists, suicides and murderers of children...

Mullah Omar (and he was not the only one) supported the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York. Other Muslim authorities condemned the attack. Of course, it is uncomfortable to live in a world in which such discussions are being held about one's life, but it would be even worse if these discussions did not exist at all and the Islamic world retained the medieval monolithic nature of opinions. And so we can find a certain consolation in the contemplation of these discussions.

How, for example, to translate verse 5 of Surah 47 of the Qur'an: "God will not allow those who fight for His glory to fail"? Some researchers of the Qur'an suggest reading the passive form instead of the active active verb form: instead of katalu - read kutilya, that is, instead of "those who kill" - "those who were killed". Similarly, in Surah 22 (verse 40) it is proposed to replace the active form with a passive one: yukatalyukhum instead of yukalun; "Affirmation is given to those who are killed" instead of "Affirmation is given to those who kill." Until the twentieth century, most interpreters adhered to traditional, active reading; Jalal-ud-Din generally considered this verse to be the first passage of the Qur'an that permits jihad... [5]

But should we be just spectators of these discussions? Or can we take part in them? The state can do this in a very simple way: to create such conditions that the voices of those who give a peaceful interpretation of Islam can be heard in the Russian information space, and to restrict the preaching of those Muslims who are militant.

Once, wishing to reduce the number of my "anti-Islamic phobias", I took in my hands a brochure with a wonderful title - "On the Freedom of Scientific Research in the Koran". I was intrigued by the title of this book because it did not fit well with my understanding of Islam. The book turned out to be propaganda. Freedom of inquiry was recognized, but only within the framework of the study of the Qur'an. Freedom of discussion was proved there by the following example. In the decisive battle between the followers of Mohammed and the pagan Arabs, several dozen "infidels" were captured. At the military council, the question of what to do with them was decided. Some offered to execute the prisoners. Others are sold into slavery or demanded a ransom from their relatives. The point of view that they should be sold won. A couple of days later, one of Mohammed's companions (Omar) saw the Prophet Mohammed crying. When asked why he was crying, the Prophet replied: "Allah has revealed: "No prophet was fit to have captives until he slaughtered the infidels on earth" (Qur'an 8:67). So the prisoners had to be executed. Further, the author of the brochure comments on this episode: they say, since the Prophet Mohammed did not punish the general who made the wrong decision, then freedom of discussion is possible... [6] For some reason, this example convinced me rather of the opposite.

The Islamic leaders of Russia are politically correct in believing that terrorism in the name of Islam is first and foremost terrorism and therefore is essentially anti-Muslim activity. But there is another position: "Specifically, the use of women as 'suicide bombers' on Russian territory was permitted and even recommended by religious authorities – Wahhabi ulema (scientists) from Saudi Arabia, and in practice it was implemented by a Wahhabi emissary – the Saudi 'amir' Abu-al-Walid."[7] And the Wahhabi ulem Salman al-Oda, who introduces the idea of the compliance of suicidal terrorist acts in Chechnya with the canons of Islam, was until recently the dean of the Saudi Islamic University "um al-Qura", located in Mecca.

At least for this reason, teleinjections on the topic of "terrorism has no nationality and religion", which each time flare up with predictable obviousness after another terrorist attack, are simply stupid. It's not the aliens who blow up our planes and schools after all! One could agree with this "politically correct" thesis if believers of world religions took turns staging terrorist attacks. The Buddhists will seize the school and shoot the children in it... Then the Taoists will blow up the plane... Then the Christians will blow up the cinema... In this case, it would be possible to limit ourselves to repeating the banality that every nation has the right to have its own scoundrels... But everything is obviously not so.

Perhaps terrorism is a consequence of a distorted understanding of the Koran. But it is the Koran, not the books about Winnie the Pooh. And at the origins of this distortion are the most learned Islamic men (ulama), and not illiterate Arab skinheads. The Islamic world is related to the world of terror not by bad students, but by excellent and popular teachers! And if the Saudi Arabian authorities were forced to remove 1,710 clergy from office in May 2003 alone, it means that the problem is not with individuals. On such a scale, terrorist preaching is already a disease of the entire Islamic community. And for some reason, in Russia, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, terrorist training centers are found - for some reason, these centers are more often associated with mosques and madrasahs (Muslim seminaries) than with working dog clubs.

У террористов нет религии? Но они несомненно и крепко верят в продолжение жизни после взрыва собственного тела. Они прославляют вполне определенного Бога (и это отнюдь не имя великого Вицли-Пуцли). А названия их организаций говорят о готовности воевать за ислам, а не за футбол.

Их можно считать плохими мусульманами. Но это именно мусульмане. Насколько я помню, чтобы стать мусульманином, достаточно произнести формулу «Нет Бога кроме Аллаха и Магомет пророк Его». Неужели эту формулу отрицали террористы в Беслане? Неужели Коран они не считали откровением Всевышнего?

Знаете, когда в западном мире несколько лет назад шел сексуальный скандал, то католикам и в голову не приходило говорить, будто у них в семинариях преподают гомосексуалисты, «у которых нет национальности и религии», а не католики. Католическая церковь оказалась достаточно честна и мужественна, чтобы в этих грешниках признать своих людей, а, значит, в их грехе увидеть и свою вину. Увидеть – чтобы преодолеть.

Ни Будда, ни Христос, ни Конфуций не брали в руки меч. Их аргументы были далеки от мира военных технологий. Но с оружием в руках прорубали пути своим народам Моисей и Магомет. Может быть, поэтому до сих пор иудеи и мусульмане выясняют свои отношения на языке бомб. Сам основатель ислама соединил слово веры и меч. Поэтому среди его учеников идет спор между теми, кто предпочитает одно другому.

И сам Коран разноречив, если не сказать – противоречив. Напомню, что Коран в мусульманском представлении – это собрание откровений, посылавшихся пророку Магомету в разные годы его жизни. Сам Магомет не записывал свои видения, а пересказывал. Сведение воедино разрозненных записей и мемуаров началось уже после его кончины, и лет через 20 после нее одна из этих коллекций – составленная юношей Заидом – была халифом Усманом провозглашена единственно верной. Все остальные записи (в том числе и хранившиеся у вдов пророка) были объявлены ложными и сожжены[9]. Суры (книги) Корана расположены без логической связи друг с другом. Кроме того, они расположены не в хронологическом порядке. То есть нельзя считать, что события, рассказанные в суре, расположенной в начале Корана, предшествовали событиям, о которых идет речь в суре, следующей за ней. И нельзя считать, что первая из этих сур была дана Магомету раньше, чем вторая. Принцип последования сур в Коране был избран подчеркнуто формальный: от самой длинной к более коротким (сура 2-я - «Корова» - насчитывает 286 стихов (аятов), а заключающая Коран сура 114-я - «Люди» насчитывает всего 6 стихов). Таким путем составители Корана старались подчеркнуть одинаковую значимость любого слова, сказанного Магометом.