What is Jihad?

Photograph of the
Imam Husayn Shrine
By أخٌ‌في‌الله

What is Jihad?
Tuesday – November 18, 2025

Throughout the last couple of decades there's been much talk about Islamic Jihad, Islamism, and terrorism, and while there have been good reasons for this discourse I fear that most people don't quite understand the purpose of the Jihad, and while I am by no means an Islamic scholar I would like to provide my own perspective on the Jihad, from both a historical perspective and a modern one. See, historically Jihad was no different from the many warrior cultures that existed throughout Europe and the rest of the non-Islamic world. Jihad was not merely used as a phrase to wage holy war because in those times there was essentially no difference between waging war and metaphysics: to wage war, was to restore the scales of the celestial order, on behalf of God, Allah, and this was again no different from the many wars that have been labeled "religious" wars in Europe, and the aim was essentially the same and the moral arbiter was essentially the same: God and only God. Of course, in modern times there's a certain mismatch between those who claim at any rate to fight on behalf of the celestial order and those many secular and liberal hordes. Indeed, a man fighting to restore the scales of the celestial order is essentially no different from a man fighting to uphold human rights, at least not from a materialist perspective: both fight to uphold ultimate justice. But modern and liberal men fail to see this and for good reason. See, the humanist axiom is universalist and essentially totalitarian which basically means that anyone who doesn't espouse the core tenets of this ideology is a person that hasn't been enlightened yet and has to be dismissed either as a threat or as a person of no interest. In the Imperial Core the people who claim to fight to restore the scales of Islamic Jurisprudence have been labeled a threat and for good reason: I will not attempt to argue otherwise, but what I am attempting to do is really just to highlight how it becomes rather strange that only people that fight to uphold the materialist order are permitted to enter into this polite and supposedly "open" society. Yes, as I previously stated: Jihad is really from an Islamic perspective a way to uphold righteousness and this doesn't always have to take the form of violent imposition of the Fiq or resistance: this can indeed and does more often than not take the form of Radical Peace. It would be quite inconsiderate to assume that all persons of the Islamic faith are violent savages because of the actions of few men. Since most of the Arab and really Islamic worlds have been less exposed to the ravages of modernity that older modes of being should've gone on living there for longer, but this isn't not really true: see, there was a long period during the 20th century in which the Arab world in particular went through a rather rapid phase of secularism and nationalism and indeed I think it would be more accurate to label the people who claim to fight on behalf of Allah reactionaries in a fairly modern context. I reject the notion that the Arab world in particular is substantially more conservative than the Imperial Core: yes, the Arab world is somewhat but not substantially more conservative, at any rate there's no evidence for this. I will say this: yes, some of the gulf states could be at least partially labeled conservative, but even those countries aren't that conservative in the true meaning of that word, which you can read more about here. Yes, some in the Imperial Core do recognize the certain civilization clash between Islam and the openness of the west, and some even go as far as to label this clash a war, and this has especially been the case following the decline of the American Empire. Yes, in some way you can consider the seemingly inevitable clash between these two distinct metaphysical traditions in terms of a war and in fact so far there has been a lot of violence, but I do believe doing so is to miss the point: the point is really this, the liberal world order has recognized Islam to some extend at least as a threat precisely because traditional Islam does not conform nor does it seek to conform to the imperial ambitions of white men, something that I rather admire, and just as well. Why should Islam conform to the peculiar ways of white and western men? That would not be for me to answer.

    Well, actually I should provide at least a short answer to that last question: see, as I've stated multiple times, liberalism is in a broad sense—while championing so-called freedom and increasingly multicultural diversity, mostly to placate the capitalist production base—fundamentally incompatible with the old world and with anything that goes against its core tenets, and this is surely the case with Islam. Yes, for the most part Islam is not compatible with liberalism and most scholars of Islam have no issue recognizing this and there's not this silly attempt on their part to pretend otherwise, but liberals while at the same time being very much skeptical of Islam have to resolve an internal contradiction, namely: should forces opposed to an open society be allowed in the open society? Now, that question is not for me to answer.

    At the end of the day, Jihad is really no difference from the more western concept of justice and a man moved and motivated by Jihad is in his own mind just as righteous as the liberals advocating for western intervention around the world in order to uphold the liberal world order by engaging in nation-building, and both can be just as violent and peaceful. So if you're not a follower of Mohammed, should you fear Islam? Generally you have no reason to fear Islam more than you should fear the aggression of the Imperial Core, but yes, if you cross the metaphysical line of Islam and if you introduce certain aggravating and provocative behaviors and actions within what can largely be considered the Islamic world, then yes you should fear, you should fear just as much as the Jihadist should fear the American Armed Forces. When you cross over a certain anthropological limit, you also accept that after that point you are on your own and if you don't want to accept this, then I don't recommend that you ever travel to Saudi Arabia or another part of the Islamic world. But the suggestion that Jihad is somehow uniquely evil and violent is none other than western propagandist drivel.

Reginald Drax – November 18, 2025.