Jihad is an important concept in Islam, war is not.
The word jihad is often used in the context of internal and personal struggle, and physical (or external) jihad becomes the struggle against oppression or prosecution.
Perhaps what changed between the past and today is the shift in focus from an 'inner' jihad to an 'outer' one. Militants justify their violence with the chaotic events of the last century; these are perceived as oppression, much of it due to western countries.
It's not a straight continuum from peaceful jihad in the past to violent jihad today, though. Early Islam expanded greatly through conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests), establishing much of what we today consider the Muslim world. Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest by establishing the division of the world between the Dar al-Islam ("house of Islam"), countries which had adopted Islam and were therefore not to war against each other, and the Dar al-Harb ("house of war"), countries that had not adopted Islam and were therefore fair game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam...)
None of which is to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion; just that it historically has oscillated back and forth between peace-seeking and external aggression, rather than starting as one and coming today to be the other. (Which is not an uncommon thing; Western Christianity has done much the same, with Crusades and Inquisitions flaming up and dying off as militancy in that faith waxed and waned.)
Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest...
It did not regularize anything. That notion does not carry any weight, it was an attempt by some scholars to "model" the landscape, without backing by the Quran or Hadith, hence, not based in Islam proper.
Comments
Jihad is an important concept in Islam, war is not. The word jihad is often used in the context of internal and personal struggle, and physical (or external) jihad becomes the struggle against oppression or prosecution.
Perhaps what changed between the past and today is the shift in focus from an 'inner' jihad to an 'outer' one. Militants justify their violence with the chaotic events of the last century; these are perceived as oppression, much of it due to western countries.
For more on the concept of Jihad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
It's not a straight continuum from peaceful jihad in the past to violent jihad today, though. Early Islam expanded greatly through conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests), establishing much of what we today consider the Muslim world. Islamic jurisprudence eventually regularized the practice of conquest by establishing the division of the world between the Dar al-Islam ("house of Islam"), countries which had adopted Islam and were therefore not to war against each other, and the Dar al-Harb ("house of war"), countries that had not adopted Islam and were therefore fair game. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam...)
None of which is to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion; just that it historically has oscillated back and forth between peace-seeking and external aggression, rather than starting as one and coming today to be the other. (Which is not an uncommon thing; Western Christianity has done much the same, with Crusades and Inquisitions flaming up and dying off as militancy in that faith waxed and waned.)
It did not regularize anything. That notion does not carry any weight, it was an attempt by some scholars to "model" the landscape, without backing by the Quran or Hadith, hence, not based in Islam proper.