What previously seemed to be only lofty words (I mean the refrain of the Church's sermon that without faith there will be no revival of Russia) has now become psychologically obvious. Because if you do not have faith in God's Providence, which will either preserve you, or through these sufferings will lead you into Heavenly glory, if you do not have such trust in God's Providence, if you do not have faith that nothing ends for your soul with the death of the body exploded, then you will be paralyzed and will sit in some cellar 101 kilometers from Moscow. Then you will become a victim of history, not its creator.

And one more thing - the believing hostages will not beg the authorities to fulfill any ultimatums of their executioners.

Of course, when I talk about the satanic intrigues that hold terrorists, I am not saying that Satanism is an evaluation of Islam. Very different people profess Islam and they experience and comprehend their faith in very different ways.

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."4 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 (scholars) 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 uses the Internet to introduce the idea that suicidal terrorist acts in Chechnya correspond to the canons of Islam, was until recently the dean of the Saudi Islamic University um al-Qura, located in Mecca.8

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.

Do terrorists have no religion? But they undoubtedly and firmly believe in the continuation of life after the explosion of their own body. They glorify a very specific God (and this is by no means the name of the great Vitzli-Putzli). And the names of their organizations speak of their readiness to fight for Islam, not for football.

They can be considered bad Muslims. But these are Muslims. As far as I remember, to become a Muslim, it is enough to pronounce the formula "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet." Could it be that this formula was denied by the terrorists in Beslan? Did they not consider the Qur'an to be a revelation of the Almighty?