For decades, the term Jihad has been portrayed in Western media as synonymous with terrorism and extremism, conjuring images of chaotic violence. However, this portrayal misrepresents the true meaning of Jihad within an Islamic framework. In Islam, Jihad refers to a structured, state-regulated policy integral to Islamic governance. Far from the Western portrayal of “terrorists,” Jihad in its true form is a responsibility undertaken by a legitimate state through a disciplined and professional military, aimed at removing obstacles to justice.

The real concern surrounding Jihad for the Western elite is not terrorism, as often depicted, but rather the potential emergence of a state-led power capable of recalibrating power in the Middle East. A legitimate Islamic state that enacts Jihad in its genuine form could potentially liberate occupied territories, including Palestine, challenging long-standing power dynamics in the region. This shift represents a major threat to Western powers’ influence in the Middle East. The real fear is not of random acts of violence but of a unified and capable Islamic state, with the military, political, and ethical foundation to bring about meaningful change. This prospect could fundamentally alter the status quo and Western dominance in the region.

Reclaiming the True Meanings

Muslims should take pride in reclaiming the true concept of Jihad, which, when correctly implemented, holds the potential to end oppression worldwide, including the genocide in Gaza. A correct understanding of Jihad as a state-regulated policy for justice challenges the false narratives that link it with terrorism, reinstating it as a legitimate force for liberation and protection of the oppressed.

At the same time, the West must confront its own legacy and reclaim the word genocide Western foreign policy has been marked by episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide, though the term is rarely applied to actions carried out or supported by Western powers. From the transatlantic slave trade and the genocide of Indigenous populations in the Americas to colonial massacres in Africa and recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western nations have frequently evaded accountability. If the West were to fully recognise and reclaim the term genocide in light of its own history, it would face a reckoning: beyond the political elite and sympathetic media, few would wish to align with a power that justifies or condones the systematic destruction of entire communities.

Western states avoid using the term “genocide” in contexts like Gaza because acknowledging it would expose serious flaws in their policies and systems, which conflict with their strategic interests, even in the face of large-scale loss of life. To label a situation as genocide is to recognise a systematic, intentional effort to annihilate a people—a reality that would reveal the limitations of Western liberalism as a system incapable of governing the affairs of humanity. Such an admission would implicate not just individual actions, but a broader historical pattern of Western complicity in or support for oppressive regimes and acts of mass violence, from colonial conquests to contemporary interventions. By refraining from using the term “genocide,” Western states avoid confronting the deep inconsistencies and double standards within their foreign policies, safeguarding alliances and narratives that serve their geopolitical agendas.

As we reflect on the “J” and “G” words, let us remember that their true meanings signal the emergence of a new world order—and the decline of colonial superpowers and their liberal pretences.