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?

However, no less striking than this formula itself is the modern commentary on the verse that follows it: "In 9:38 it is about the campaign against the city of Tabuk in 630, which was located 500 km northwest of Medina, on the border with the Syrian province of the Byzantine Empire. Since the Byzantine Emperor had personally arrived at the border to inspect the military condition of his troops, and there were persistent rumours of a possible invasion of Arabia, Muhammad decided to anticipate this event and, gathering a large army, marched on Tabuk. On the way, he enlisted the support of several Christian and Jewish tribes, signing alliance treaties with them. The result of these measures was that Byzantium did not dare to go to war with Muslim Arabia."14 This comment is given by a Russian woman, Imam Valeria Porokhova.

It is easy to see that with this understanding, this verse permits preemptive strikes. Well, from the point of view of history, everything was a little different. Just now, in 629, the long-term exhausting war between Byzantium and Persia ended. So Byzantium had neither the strength nor the interest to send a military expedition to the Arabian desert. On the contrary, Emperor Heraclius, believing that in the absence of a threat from Persia from the Arabs there was no danger, stopped paying salaries to the Arab border sheikhs,15 which was the reason for the subsequent military success of the Muslim army. No, the Byzantine Empire did not plan to seize Arabia (oil was of little interest to anyone then, and sand is still not valuable).

And in the end, did the world of Islam spread to half the world in half a century? Could it be that Mohammed, who personally participated in 62 battles, and his successors waged precisely and only defensive wars?

"And when you meet the one that you have not verified, then - ydap with a sweep; And when a great beating is performed, then the yzy. A lot of mercy, a good way, because the war does not have its own. So! And those who are beaten in the world of Allaxa are never able to do anything from their deeds: He will lead them and keep their condition in order, and bring them into the paradise which He has made them know" (Surah 47:4-7).

The goal of this war is global. There may be truces in it. But there can be only one end to it: "Kill the unbelievers until there is no temptation [i.e. the possibility of the unbelievers falling away], as long as there is only this worship (or law - ad-din) of God" (Surah 8. Prey, 40). "Temptation" is a possible resistance of the infidels to the laws of Islam, a possible preaching of dissent among Muslims... And here there is no contradiction between "war to victory" and the principles of "there is no coercion in the matter of religion." After all, jihad is not waged in order to convert enemies into Muslims. It is being waged in order to subordinate them to the laws of Islam. And these laws state that the "People of the Book" (dhimmits: Christians and Jews) can safely follow their traditions in a Muslim state. But under certain restrictions (a ban on missionary work among Muslims, a ban on military service) and subject to the payment of a special tax.

This war ideally implies the absence of captives: "No prophet was allowed to take captives until there was a total slaughter on the ground" (8:68).

Let us take a closer look at the Quranic text that is often called "the testament of Mohammed" - the 9th surah.