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.

"Rejoice then those who do not believe with painful punishment, except those polytheists with whom you have made a covenant, and then they have not broken it in any way before you, and have helped no one against you! So complete the covenant before their term, for Allah loves the righteous. And when the forbidden months are over, then slay the polytheists wherever you find them, seize them, besiege them, lay ambush against them in every hidden place! If they converted and prayed and gave purification, then clear the way for them, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (9,3-5).

It seems that the text is quite peaceful: only traitors are allowed to be beaten. But the reason for that war was that Mohammed began to impose his own rules on the Arab tribes! If, under the pressure of force, a certain tribe entered into an alliance with Mohammed and his group, and then decided to return to an independent policy, then they should be "pleased with painful punishment." Well, since in politics past promises and agreements are constantly being revised (let us recall the words of one of the British prime ministers: "England has no permanent allies or permanent enemies; England has permanent interests"), then ...

Here is what can be the reason for the "joy of jihad": "And if they have broken their oaths after the treaty and have blasphemed your religion, then fight the Imams of disbelief, for there are no oaths for them, and perhaps they will hold out!" (9:12), That is, the sword is considered a normal response not to the sword, but simply to criticism!

Let's read the "testament of Mohammed" further. The talk about the rebellious infidels is long gone. Many poems are not mentioned about them anymore. And, therefore, we are talking simply about "infidels". "O you who believe! For polytheists are unclean. May they not approach the holy mosque after this year! Fight against those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not obey the religion of truth, until they pay their own money and are humiliated" (9:28-29).

It is worth considering that not only pagans are considered "polytheists" in the Koran: "And the Jews said: 'Uzair is the son of Allah.' And the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." These words in their mouths are like the words of those who did not believe before. May Allah smite them! How disgusted they are! They took their scribes and monks for their masters, besides Allah, and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were commanded to worship only one God, besides whom there is no deity. Praise be to Him, He is higher than what they give Him as partners! They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their lips, but Allah does not allow anything else but to complete His light, even though the polytheists hate it" (9:30-32). This means that the norms regarding the treatment of polytheists apply to both Christians16 and Jews.

So the effort is not needed to look for reasons in the Qur'an for wanting to fight. Considerable interpretive effort must be made in order to draw the opposite, peaceful conclusion from the reading of the Qur'an. And this effort is clearly lacking in the world of Islam today.

Instead, there are routine excuses. Speaking at a round table meeting in the State Duma devoted to the improvement of anti-terrorist legislation, Muhammad Biji-ulu, deputy chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the European part of Russia, accused journalists of "ignorantly" imposing on society the opinion that terrorists speak on behalf of Islam. "There can be no religious terrorism, because no one calls Chikatilo an Orthodox cannibal."17 Yes, if Muslims are led by people with such an intellectual and moral level, then you can only express your sympathy for them... Did Chikatilo, when killing people, exclaim "Christ is Risen"? Did any Christian theologians express their encouragement of his crimes? Did he himself justify his actions with quotations from the Bible? No. Do not confuse crime and terror. Do not confuse war and terror. If the leaders of Islam do not even see the problem of Islamic terrorism, if they do not want to recognize even such a term, then they will certainly not be able to solve the problem whose existence they deny.