Jihad... more like JIHAD!! because that is most casual observers see it today. This word, very heavy and nuanced as it is, nevertheless conjures feelings of fright and confusion in most arenas of contemporary discourse. Especially with popular media and the fixation on the wars and contests in the Middle East, motherland of the Islamic faith, misinterpretations have taken root and now bear sour fruit.

Lost to the modern observer is the reformatory property laden in Jihad. Using the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, the literal meaning of the word is struggling or striving, usually with a praiseworthy aim, a caveat which is usually irresponsibly missed or blocked out. Rather the adulterated definitions proffered by fringe elements such prone to the exercise of extreme violence have been assumed and represented as the face of Islam.

To struggle or strive with transcendent aims is a theme that resonates with people today as it did throughout history. David and Goliath to examples such as the Spartans at Thermopylae, the ten thousand Greeks (Xenophon) marching to the sea and even the early Christian community persecuted in the Roman empire inspire the narrative of survival and the power of the will when geared toward positive action.
Even in the face of insurmountable odds. Much the same themes are present in the work and life of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH in the Arabian peninsula. Paganism bred division and indifference and these had knock on effects on the moral fiber of the Arabs of that era. Far from implying that the Prophet's (PBUH) mission was just one of political aim, as many do. What is more important is the moral and spiritual completeness of the faith he preached. How this seed sown in the hearts of men was able to transform their lives and communities wholly.

If it were just political then why didn't the earlier Ghassanid and Lakhmid kingdoms cut it ? What happened to their polities in time ? Jihad here was orchestrated against the vices and ills in the Peninsula and the blessings that flowed from seemingly small acts ended in the conquest of lands from Al Andalus (Spain) to Central Asia in little over three decades. And that other word Conquest... Yes after all this talk this man still states 'the conquest' and expects me not to hold my views of disdain toward jihad.

The conquest of Palestine, Egypt and other Roman lands as well as the Sasanid Persians was a politico-military event brought on by the decline of those two powers. Arabs did live and communicate with and in those lands for centuries and changing geopolitical calculations that brought them to the forefront was only well serviced by their new found unity and coordination on the grounds of Islam. Those were wars fought straight out on the field and also with propagation of religion as the denizens oF Damascus, Jerusalem and Alexandria much oppressed by the constant Church divisions in the Mediterranean world were usually more than happy to welcome non-clergy based faith.

Not an excuse for the violence but in that case much can be said for the Crusades, Alexander the Great and the Romans. These lot are never mentioned carrying the same connotations as the more Eastern/Islamic equivalents. Rather Alexander and co were spreading their Greek culture to the East... Phoenicians and other groups wholly lost their cultures to Hellenization by as early as the second century AD. But then it is not okay that areas of the Levant, North Africa and Central Asia are now Muslim after centuries. There is always a need to amend this state of things. None more atrocious than in Palestine.

PEACE AND BLESSINGS TO ALL.