Question of the day: does Islamic teaching contain the preaching of peace?

Analysts draw extremely interesting and very pessimistic conclusions from the situation in France. Political scientist Boris Makarenko, reflecting on the French events, decided that the point is not in Islam itself, which, in his opinion, opposes violence, but in its fanatical interpretation, leading to crimes monstrous in its cruelty:

“If our law enforcement system is minimally consistent, then any statements about“ understanding the motives ”of those who committed the atrocities in France should be prosecuted as justifications for terrorism. Regardless of the confession to which the person who expresses this belongs. Because the hand of the killers is not driven by Islam - the great world religion, but the cave-like savagery and misunderstanding of the preaching of peace inherent in every world religion.

In the Quran, anyone can read anything they want. Ahl al-Kitab, for example. Christians and Jews in traditional Islamic societies fared better than religious minorities in Europe (if the ruler did not go crazy). The root of radicalism is not in Islam, but in the failure of modernization processes in many (not all) Islamic countries, not excluding, unfortunately, Muslim Russia..."

However, analyst Mikhail Krutikhin, who by his first education is a certified orientalist, resolutely refuted the thesis about the "peaceful nature of Islam", citing as an example the only place in the Koran from which the following conclusion can be supposedly made:

“Islam does not preach peace. There is a preaching of the global domination of the Muslim community.

Here is the text, that is, the only place in the Qur'an that everyone who tries to portray Islam as a religion of peace grabs at.

"257. (256). There is no compulsion in religion. The straight path from delusion has already clearly distinguished itself. He who does not believe in idolatry and believes in Allah has grasped at a reliable support for which there is no crushing. Indeed, Allah is Hearing, Knowing!

1. (257). Allah is the friend of those who believe: He brings them out of darkness into light.

2. And those who are unfaithful, their friends are idols; they lead them from light to darkness. These are the inhabitants of the fire, they abide in it forever!”And elsewhere: "Believers should not take unbelievers as friends” (3:28).

“O you who have believed! Do not take Jews and Christians as friends, they are friends only to each other ”(5:51).

“Believers! War with those of the unbelievers who are close to you, so that they may know your cruelty in you ... ”(9: 123).

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are violent against the unbelievers..." (48:29).

“And neither Jews nor Christians will ever be pleased with you until you follow their teachings. Say: "Verily, the path of Allah is the real path!" - and if you follow their passions after the true knowledge that has come to you, then you will not have any close or helper from Allah "(2: 120). The Muslims, of course, must prevail:

And Allah will never arrange a way for the unbelievers against the believers! (4: 141)..."

That is, Krutikhin concludes that the lot of non-Muslims is clearly marked:

Fight with those who do not believe in Allah and on the last day, do not prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not obey the true religion - from those to whom the scripture has been sent down, until they pay off with their own hand, being humiliated.

(9:29) Otkup - "jizya", that is, a special tax on non-Muslims in an Islamic state.

What is a non-Muslim in the eyes of a true follower of the prophet? The Worst Beasts:

Indeed, those of the possessors of the scripture and polytheists who did not believe - in the fire of Gehenna - abide there forever. They are the worst of creatures. (98: 6)

Indeed, the wicked of the animals in Allah are those who disbelieve and they disbelieve. (8:55)

We have created many jinn and people for Gehenna: they have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they cannot see, ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle, even more lost. (7: 179)..."

Preaching Peace. That's for sure, - the expert concludes ironically.

This point of view is completely shared by the orientalist and expert on Islam Andrei Chuprygin, in whose opinion the classical doctrine of the Muslim religion does not imply the idea of a secular state in general, which creates the basis for conflict in France:

“Islam is not about a secular state. It is about the theocratic state, about the religious state, about the ummah, about the caliphate. There is simply no such thing as “separation of religion and state” in Islamic doctrine”, - he emphasizes.

For this reason, according to Chuprygin, statements by individual politicians that the words of Macron (the President of France in his speech stated that radical Islam poses a danger to the whole of France, because it promotes its own rules and laws, leading to the emergence of a kind of parallel society, and also that "Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world, and not only in our country") can only provoke the radicalization of French Muslims, are not without reason.

“If the muftis proclaim the principles of separating religion from the state, for a part of the parishioners who are serious about the fundamental foundations of their religion, it will be a sign that they have “sold out”. And this, of course, will cause a tough response from their side”, - the expert emphasizes.

Based on these findings, network analyst Alexander Rozov makes the following conclusion:

1. French culture assumes that all religions are equal, and none of them can have the status of a legislator (the status of a legislator is reserved exclusively for the secular representative power).

2. Muslim culture assumes that Islam is the dominant religion, and has the status of a legislator (and the secular representative power can exercise legislative functions only if it does not contradict Islamic law).

3. It is logically obvious that a compromise between cultures (1) and (2) is impossible, they are in antagonism - absolute mutual negation.

4. Consequently: either France without Muslims or France without French..."