1044
Jihad - not what one might think. The Quran does not promote Jihad as murder.
Back in the day, when all these doctrines were written there was no real 'lines in the sand' so to speak. No sovereignty. It was a matter of what one's Army, Calvary, Camel Warriors could 'hold' as territory/land. Territory is a better word actually. In those days, either a military such as the Roman and even the Greeks would seek expansionism by taking lands as territories and enslaving people to work while paying taxes for their freedom or sometimes just life. That is how the Jews were enslaved. But, that is not the subject.
Mohammad was a profit. He set down rules. Rules to survive by. As with the Jewish religion many of the 'dietary laws' are soundly based in very real risks of disease/infection and the spread of it.
But, war was not seen as an aggression to defend territory. It was a matter of economics. When a territory was established and began to run out of resources it was time to move on. The Middle East tribes were nomads. They weren't necessarily nice nomads and not necessarily pastoral nomads. They were brutal to some extent. So when they 'took' territory it was a matter of survival/econmics (Same thing ). The 'method' was allowable through a form of war called Jihad. A permission to be uncivilized. Within their communities these people sorta got along although it was still a matter of 'the strongest will survive/have the best economics.'
The war method was to NOT capture slaves. Mohammed didn't see slavery as an allowed way of handling people. Within the communities/tribes they were benevolent. Somewhat. Slaves, like the Jews to Hitler were a liability as well. They needed to be fed and had expense the economy didn't/couldn't bear.
There was a level of hospitality within Islam that no one sees today in Western Culture. There is an experssion within the Islamic culture, when a person (primarily men) traveled a great distance (especially across a desert) and arrived at your household, the statement "I have come to be your guest." means there was a great deal of hardship placed behind the traveler to come to a 'famous/favored' household/economy. They were welcomed as family. That carries through today, but the way. It was noticed by me when Jordan openly granted hospitality to Saddam's daughters. It was also a way of diluting inbreeding (I don't mean to be crass, so much as painting a picture).
At any rate, Jihad was really no different than the mass attacks of Genghis Khan. They were brutal and designed to destroy the opposition. The attacking tribes never wanted to 'take on' the culture of those dominated as did the Greeks and Romans. The 'Jihad' was of the opinion their culture worked for them and didn't need to expand their horizons.
The point is, Jihad, was a form of eonomic viability. It's purpose was to give permission to the tribe to survive. The word, Jihad, as it's used today is PERVERTED. There is no way today in the year 2006 Jihad even applies to any actions by men. It's ancient. It has no place except in the annals of the Islamic culture.
That is why the 'permisison' by governments like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq. the UAE and the like is so ludicrous to allow 'the Islamic street' to exist in this 'fantasy' of the Quran. The 'fantasy' literally holds the culture at the brink of it's own annihilation by the virtue of the fact these young men whom define their masculinity by killing other people according to the fantasy are literally destroying the Arab gene pool.
There is no rational reason, except murder, for the word Jihad to be in the vocabulary of Islam. It must be a real 'head rush' to be Nasrallah (Nas - r - ALLAH.) sending young men to their deaths regardless of the empty promise of a heaven after those deaths while committing murder and NOT an economic movement to secure their society from extinction. If anything idiots like Nasrallah are shortening the meer existance of Arabia.
enough