Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states are expected to finance their “Muslim brothers” working for the “Khalifat”.
Iraq is planned to be the place for radicalization of hatred towards Western countries to become the capital of “Khalifat” after NATO troops withdrawal and to be the field of last fight between the “good” (West) and the “evil” (The Islamic civilization).
Overlooking this scenario one can understand that the Soviet Union positioned its troops in Afghanistan as a first step in this scenario. Nowadays the policy of the post-Soviet Russia is conducted within the frames of this scenario: the Western-style coverage of Islam as “global evil” is obvious in Russian mass media. The Muslim part of Russian population perceives these facts as the calumny that doesn`t lead to the Russian society unity especially in the situation of the world financial crisis, which broke out in 2008.
One of the options of the above mentioned multi-optional policy includes the possibility of breaking-up of Russia, adding Russian Muslim areas to “Khalifat”. In case this scenario fails, Russia is planned to become one of the first victims of the “Khalifat” aggression and the main field for the war between “civilized West” against the “Khalifat medieval barbarism”.
Traditional Islam Priesthood has fenced themselves with Koran and ritualism from God, from problems of people and society on the whole, with lives concentrated on the momentary self-interest and therefore doesn`t analyze the global-scale events. As a result it doesn`t perceive this scenario as practically set functional integrity; and in case someone notices this, the momentary self-interest is more important for him than unselfish efforts to prevent disasters, the potentials of which have been purposefully created by the others for several decades. That’s why the traditional Islam is not able to work out more efficient scenario of the global policy that could become an alternative to the one mentioned above, not to be involved into the anti-Islamic variant.
The leaders of other confessions represent the same ritualism addicts as the leadership of Muslims and that`s why everything said about the inability of the Muslim-traditionalist Priesthood to elaborate and implement the alternative to the existing scenario has reference to them as well. Moreover, being sure that they are “true” Christians, they work for the Biblical doctrine of the world buying-up on the basis of Jewish monopoly on usury, as long as they haven`t worked out their global political doctrine for 1600 years of Christianity existence after the Nikean Gathering, because of the fact that they can`t call racial and usurious laws of the Old Testament obvious Satanism [3].
The incapability of the states (both Muslim and Western), involved in this scenario implementation, leads to the fact, that it could be broken only through the initiative of people - individuals and public organizations.
The multi-optional policy aimed at breeding civilizations conflict doesn`t have the right party.
It is impossible to avoid the conflict thinking that “we can all live in peace, based on our traditional beliefs, not interfering into the cultures of each other” for two reasons:
O Norms of social organization and ethics, appropriate for the traditional cultures, don`t coincide in all the aspects, and in some points are objectively controversial;
O There are transnational political networks in the world, that reach their goals through creation of managed conflicts on the basis of artificial actualization of different contradictions, objectively appropriate for traditional cultures.
The committed basis to prevent the above mentioned multi-optional policy could be the acceptance, that the sociological core of all Revelations, that were the source for all so-called “Abrahamian” religions, is the Idea that people themselves should create and live in prosperity on the Earth of God under God’s guidance. In this world no one will be slave to another and all the people will live in freedom, developing their individual potentials on the basis of dialogue with God while living.
So far this idea:
O Is moved to the “uncertain future” - in Judaism;
O Is denied as heresy - in Christianity;
O Is considered to be not topical - in the historically set Islam;
O Is objectively impossible on the basis of atheistic convictions in Marxism [4].
Nevertheless the Idea of creation on Earth of Kingdom Of God through the efforts of people themselves under the God guidance - is the single Idea, the distribution of which in different cultural societies can ruin the potential of described above scenario of multi-optional policy, that leads to the conflict aimed at leaving Koran in the historical legacy of the Humankind.
The problems of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries and diasporas, the followers of the historically set Islam, can be creatively resolved only on the basis of initiatives of the people, directed at creating Kingdom of God on Earth. Beyond this global and political context these problems are unsolvable and all of these countries are fated to be “fuel” in the described above scenario.
February 12, 2010
Internal Predictor USSR
[1] The difference between the Koranic and historically set Islam is the same as the difference between the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the historically set Christianity. This statement is grounded in the books of Internal Predictor “Towards Humaneness”, ““Master and Margarita”: the anthem to demonism or the Gospel of whole-hearted faith”.
[2] To confirm this statement one can observe the last centuries of Muslim countries history, that fall behind the Western countries in science and technology development and that couldn`t elaborate more effective alternative to the Western mode of life.
[3] Deuteronomy, 15:6. Deuteronomy, 23:19, 20. Deuteronomy, 28:12 - 14. Isaiah, 60:10 - 12.
[4] This statement is grounded in the books of Internal Predictor “Towards Humanessness”, ““Master and Margarita”: the anthem to demonism? Or the the Gospel of whole-hearted faith”.