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?

You know, when there was a sex scandal in the Western world a few years ago, it did not occur to Catholics to say that homosexuals "who have no nationality and religion" teach in their seminaries, and not Catholics. The Catholic Church turned out to be honest and courageous enough to recognize its people in these sinners, and, therefore, to see its own guilt in their sin. To see is to overcome.

Neither Buddha, nor Christ, nor Confucius took up a sword. Their arguments were far from the world of military technology. But with weapons in their hands, Moses and Mohammed cut the way for their peoples. Maybe that's why Jews and Muslims still sort things out in the language of bombs. The founder of Islam himself combined the word of faith and the sword. Therefore, among his students there is a dispute between those who prefer one to the other.

And the Qur'an itself is contradictory, if not contradictory. Let me remind you that the Koran in the Muslim view is a collection of revelations sent to the Prophet Muhammad in different years of his life. Mohammed himself did not write down his visions, but retold them. The bringing together of disparate records and memoirs began after his death, and about 20 years after it, one of these collections - compiled by the young man Zaid - was proclaimed by Caliph Uthman to be the only true one. All other records (including those kept by the widows of the prophet) were declared false and burned.9 The surahs (books) of the Qur'an are arranged without logical connection with each other. In addition, they are not in chronological order. That is, it cannot be considered that the events narrated in the surah located at the beginning of the Qur'an preceded the events referred to in the surah that follows it. And it cannot be assumed that the first of these surahs was given to Mohammed earlier than the second. The principle of the sequence of surahs in the Koran was chosen to be emphatically formal: from the longest to the shortest (Surah 2 - "The Cow" - has 286 verses (ayats), and the concluding Surah 114 - "People" - has only 6 verses). In this way, the compilers of the Qur'an tried to emphasize the equal importance of any word spoken by Mohammed.

However, the Qur'an usually distinguishes two rows of surahs: Meccan and Medina. The Meccan surahs were received by Muhammad in Mecca, which was still beyond his control, during the period of his own wanderings and persecutions. Medinsky – after he had become an autocratic master in Medina (and then, of course, again in the already conquered Mecca).

So, all those texts that the apologists of Islam cite to confirm their tolerance and alienation from terrorists belong to the Meccan, early period of Mohammed's life. This is, for example, the 29th surah: "And do not dispute with the owners of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians), except with something better than those of them who are unjust, and say: "We have believed in what has been revealed to us and sent down to you. Both our God and your God are one, and we surrender ourselves to Him" (29:45). While Mohammed was only a preacher, he said that "in matters of religion there is no compulsion." When the army was under his rule, completely different notes were heard.

Here are some of the "texts of the sword": "And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress - indeed, Allah does not love those who transgress. And kill them wherever you find them, and cast them out from whence they drove you out: for temptation is worse than murder! And don't fight them at the forbidden mosque until they fight you there. But if they fight with you, then kill them: such is the recompense of the unbelievers" (2:186-187).

Politically correct Muslims usually emphasize that this is a commandment about defensive war. However, the circumstances of the granting of this commandment make it doubtful: "Ibn Abbas said that this verse was revealed in connection with the fact that the Prophet went to Mecca accompanied by 1400 of his companions. In Hadaybiyah (a place not far from Mecca), the pagans blocked their way. After long negotiations, the pagans agreed with the prophet that the following year they would leave the Holy City for three days and allow the Muslims to enter it to make a circumambulation around the Kaaba. A year later, the Muslims again went to Mecca, but feared that the pagans would not keep their promise and would not allow them to enter the Holy City again. At that moment, the verse was revealed, which allows Muslims to defend themselves with weapons in their hands in case the enemy attacks them first."10