The Open Letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Please stop the reprisal of the researcher of Chri

The Open Letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Please stop the reprisal of the researcher of Christ's teaching



Your Majesty,
 
The independent researcher of Christ’s teaching Ravil Fatkhutdinov is addressing to you.
 
Lord called upon me to restore the authentic meaning of the commandment of love to neighbour. I have received a revelation and have made a theological discovery which restores the meaning of the commandment.
 
Pursuant to the authentic meaning, the Christ’s main commandment rejects principles of capitalism - division and competition. My discovery proves that Jesus Christ was against capitalism and private property.
Thus my theological discovery undermines the ideological foundation of the secular power.
 
Circumstances coerced me to leave Russia and ask for an asylum in the UK. The UK Border Agency has refused to grant me an asylum and intends to remove me to Russia. By doing so, the UK Border Agency intends to subject me to a deadly risk.
 
The UK Border Agency’s decision is politically motivated.
The UK Border Agency may make a mistake that will damage the moral reputation of the United Kingdom.
 
I am appealing to You with the request to prevent my removal to Russia.
I am asking the Church of England to grant me an asylum.


Respectfully yours,

Ravil Fatkhutdinov
Home Office Ref: F1112280



The essence of the discovery


Christ’s main commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” is ambiguous. It has two meanings.

The ambiguity of the commandment is caused by the ambiguity of the particle “as” which may have 1) the meaning of a comparative conjunction or 2) the meaning “in the quality of ”.

For example, in the sentence “London keeps silent as a mute fish”, the particle “as” is a comparative conjunction.
In the sentence “London is famous as an international financial centre”, the particle “as” has the meaning “in the quality of ”.

Can the same sentence have two different meanings?
It can. Let us consider two real life situations.

The first situation is as follows.
The woman raises her child alone. When her child reaches a conscious age, the woman marries. Hence, in the house the new man turns up. This man is foreign/strange to the child both biologically and psychologically. The child says to himself: “I have to love this man as my father.” In this sentence the particle “as” is a comparative conjunction.

The second situation is as follows.
The woman raises her child alone. When the child reaches a conscious age, the woman meets again the man with whom she once had a romance and who is a biological father of her child. She marries him. Thus, in the house the new man turns up. He is a biological father of the child but he is still foreign to the child psychologically. The child understands that this is his own biological father and says to himself: “I have to love this man as my father.” In this sentence, the particle “as” has the meaning “in the quality of.”

As we see, the same sentence can have two different meanings.
The form of the sentence is the same but the content is different.

Thus, Christ’s main commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” has two meanings.

If the particle “as” is a comparative conjunction, the meaning of the commandment can be expressed by the words: “You shall love your neighbour like yourself.”

If the particle “as” has the meaning “in the quality of ”, the meaning of the commandment can be expressed by the words “You shall love your neighbour in the quality of yourself ” or “You shall love your neighbour - yourself.”

The ambiguity of this commandment exists in all European languages, including Greek, in which the New Testament was written.

Which meaning is authentic and which meaning is false?

Let us turn to the first sources.
The commandment of love to neighbour was first given in Torah - Leviticus 19:18.

In Hebrew the commandment sounds as follows: “Ve'ahavta L'reacha Kamocha.”
In Judaism the commandment has the single meaning: You shall love your neighbour in the quality of yourself.
Experts of the Torah language explain: You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against any of your people; and you shall love your fellow as yourself (19:18) How does one avoid acting vengefully? One should think: If a person were cutting meat and the knife cut his hand, would that hand cut the first hand in return? (Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9:4)
”Evidently, the Jerusalem Talmud is stressing that man and his neighbour are one. To harm the neighbour is to harm the self.” (The Jewish religion: a companion by Louis Jacobs)
How did the first Christians understand the meaning of the commandment? The Apostle Paul writes: “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” (Romans 12:5)
The first Christians perceived each other as limbs of one organism - Christ’s body. That is why they lived together in a commune. In Acts we read:
“And all that believed were together, and had all things common” (Acts 2: 44).
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common” (Acts 4: 32).

Thus, for the first Christians, the commandment had the single meaning: You shall love your neighbour in the quality of yourself.

The commandment acquired a false meaning in the period of early Christianity: You shall love your neighbour like yourself.
Today, the Christian world uses the distorted meaning of the commandment which cultivates separation and competition among people.






Facts related to the Applicant’s discovery


The question as to whether the Applicant’s discovery is a discovery (a new achievement in the knowledge sphere) is the key question. If the Applicant’s discovery is not a discovery, then the FSB’s action described in the Applicant’s evidence looks implausible which leads to the conclusion that the Applicant’s evidence is not credible. The discovery does not have expert conclusions. But there are facts which do not require the expert confirmation and which can be assessed and recognized by any person exercising common sense and having basic school knowledge. These facts are the following.

The first fact. The Biblical commandment of love to neighbour is ambiguous – the commandment has two meanings. The ambiguity of the commandment is explained in the document “The essence of the discovery”.
The basic logical arguments and linguistic examples provided in the document make the ambiguity of the commandment apparent. A person exercising common sense does not need expert conclusions in order to recognize an obvious fact.

The second fact. The commandment of love to neighbour is the main commandment in the Christ’s teaching. This fact does not need the expert conclusions – this fact is confirmed by the New Testament.
In the New Testament the following is said about this commandment: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Galatians 5:14)
It is said that this commandment is the Royal Law: “If ye fulfil the royall Law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe, ye doe well.” (James 2:8)

The third fact. The topic of the ambiguity of the main Christian commandment is not highlighted anywhere. It can easily be checked if one enters the appropriate words in the internet search system, for example, “The ambiguity of the commandment of love to neighbour” or “Two meanings of the commandment of love to neighbour.” The search system does not come up with anything on this topic. For comparison, in jurisprudence the ambiguity of laws is unacceptable. All laws have detailed comments of specialists. All these comments can easily be found through the internet search system. (All publications about the ambiguity of the commandment in the Russian internet are homogenous and made by the Applicant. The homogeneity of these publications is due to the fact that the same argumentation is used in all these publications and these publications are published on public forums.)

The apparent nature of the listed facts indicates that the recognition of the discovery is not a difficult question, requiring the expert confirmation. The question as to the recognition of the discovery is a matter of conscience and political purposefulness just like the recognition of the uncomfortable truth is a matter of conscience and practical purposefulness.

The Applicant’s discovery is related to Christ’s teaching and at first sight the Applicant’s statement that the authorities discriminate him for his interpretation of Christ’s teaching may seem strange. This is due to the fact that there are many Christian teachings and they interpret Christ’s teaching in their own way – it is not forbidden. Why is the Applicant’s interpretation of Christ’s teaching in principle different from other interpretations so that it becomes a ground for discrimination? Because the Applicant’s interpretation is based on the new achievement in the knowledge sphere – on the discovery of the ambiguity of Christ’s main commandment, on the discovery that the commandment of love to neighbour (in its authentic meaning) rejects principles of capitalism – division and competition. The discovery shows that capitalism and Christ’s teaching are incompatible. The discovery rejects the principle of the secular power “Divide and rule!” and enforces the principle of the Godly power “May all be one.” The discovery rejects the principles of the state and enforces the principles of the Kingdom of God. The Capitalistic social order deprived of the most important component - the agreement on values becomes illegitimate and instable.

The discovery has become a basis of the Applicant’s convictions. But the discovery undermines the ideological foundation of the secular power. The discovery is a reason of the secret services’ covert surveillance of the Applicant’s activities. The discovery (the Applicant’s convictions) is a reason of the concealed discrimination of the Applicant. The authorities cannot openly admit it as it contradicts the principles of the democratic secular society. Therefore, the authorities conceal the true motive of their action in relation to the Application.

The Applicant believes that the decision of the UK authorities is politically motivated. The true reason of refusal to provide an asylum is that the Applicant’s discovery is dangerous for the social order and the Applicant himself is an undesirable alien for the UK authorities.