There can never be a concept like a Jainist Jihad, or a Jainist suicide bomber. It it simply not possible within Jainist thinking.
If you think an influential figure cannot also do the same with pacifistic beliefs such as Jainism, I can only point to irreconcilable differences. Surely an influential and charismatic leader could convince many that peace can only be achieved once "heretics" (non-believers) are eradicated.
I know you're thinking it impossible. And as it currently stands, it IS IMPOSSIBLE. Jainism simply doesn't have the political clout to pull it off. But if they had a billion adherents then some of them could be led to believe that "true peace" is possible, if they resort to killing apostates to ensure peace for the future.
This is my final post on the matter. If you disagree with me, then I'll accept it and leave it at that. I won't agree with you, but I'll leave you be. Despite the outlook of non-violence in Jainism, an influential leader can change things. But they would only change things if the numbers of followers were sufficiently large to cause people to overthrow the status quo. Unless you find a better argument than "Jainist Jihad is a contradiction in terms", I'm afraid we can't move forward - such an argument is, in my opinion, ignorant of human nature.
~ Regards, PA
Edit: I'm reminded of a post I made a while back, found HERE, in which I speak of a fictional character named Byron, who never raised a finger in violence and taught a life of non-violence, and yet his followers upon his death chose to use his death as justification for violence - "Byronist Jihad " is also a contradiction in terms, yet in this universe such a thing happened.
Edited by Paranoid Android, 26 January 2013 - 02:52 PM.