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

Muslims were then only one of many sects in the Arab world. They tried to pass through a strange city (Hadaybiyya) in which people did not share their beliefs. They tried to enter another and also not their city (Mecca), in which the indigenous population worshipped the stone of the Kaaba long before the advent of Islam. And the purpose of this campaign is to perform your rituals at someone else's shrine. So the hadith (hadith is a legend told by the companion of Mohammed, in this case Ibn Abbas) gives this Qur'anic text such an interpretation in which the "wrong" side will always be to blame: if Muslims invade a FOREIGN land and a foreign city to fulfill what they consider their religious duty, but the first shot is fired by the natives, then the local population will still be considered the aggressor.

Suppose one Russian president promised NATO that in a year he would allow NATO troops to pass through Russia to, for example, Iran. A year has passed. This year, the president has changed in Russia. And he withdrew the previous agreement and said that he would not allow foreign troops to pass through his territory. Nevertheless, NATO, in a hurry to carry out its "humanitarian mission" in Iran, paved the way they needed, walking with fire and sword on Russian soil. Who will be considered the aggressor?

Modern interpreters of the Koran (in this case, Iranian) immediately explain for what "humanitarian purposes" it is permissible to fight: "Islamic wars are waged in the name of Allah, who commands to spread the truth, monotheism, fight lawlessness, moral decay and heresy. Islam condemns wars that are waged for revenge, conquest and war booty."11 As we can see, the Islamic side reserves the right to determine the reason for the war: if it considers that "heresy" or "moral decay" or simply "lawlessness" reigns in a neighboring country, then it can come with an uninvited sermon. And with a sword. "Moral corrupters" are sent an offer to convert to Islam. If they refuse, then they are given to understand that in the eyes of Muslims the entire planet is divided into only two sections: "the land of Islam" and the "land of war"... True, Muslims are allowed not to insist on their own and retreat: in the event that the armed power of the enemy exceeds their own by more than two times...

This is the main problem of coexistence with the world of Islam. Namely, the asymmetry of Islam's response to what seems unfair to them. In response to "injustice", war is allowed.

And even in today's Russia, the slightest attempt to enter into discussions with Muslims immediately triggers warnings that sword and RDX are in the hands of mosque worshippers. Too many Muslim leaders choose the path of open blackmail: they say, if you don't give us this or don't refuse it, we don't guarantee you the peace of mind of our parishioners... For example, on the program "Freedom of Speech" (NTV, 14.12.2002): Sheikh Nafigulla Ashirov, chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Asian part of Russia, threatened a "second Chechnya" if lessons on the "basics of Orthodox culture" appeared in Russian schools.12

If a Muslim decides that he has grounds for war, then further restrictions are already quite weak: "As-Sa'b bin Jassma is reported to have said: The Prophet was once asked whether it was permissible to attack sleeping polytheists, as a result of which their women and children could suffer, to which he replied: They belong to their number."13

Here is the formula for total war: "Fight all the polytheists, as they all fight you" (9:36). But are "all polytheists" fighting against Islam?