If the political discourse of any state should reflect the political reality of its time, then "offensive jihad" is not an exception, and with it the then coming of the Islamic empires to the world political scene, just like the other empires before and after Islam. What this means is that although the expansion of all the Islamic empires was conducted in the name of jihad, it was in the final analysis a political act in the name of the interests of the state, and not that of religion. Using jihad and other religious jargons in this context was a case of the religious, or the ideological providing a cover for the political. There is no other way to comprehend this, especially when the Muslim scholars of the time did not consider the Umayyad empire as a true Islamic caliphate. For them the Umayyad's was another manifestation of a worldly kingdom (mulk) obsessed with its own worldly interests and vices. This is despite the fact that the Umayyad state was militarily the ever most active Islamic state, and the one that achieved most of the Islamic conquests.

Nowadays, Islamic states are nation states. The word jihad is not part of their political discourse, except perhaps "defensive jihad" in the face of an encroaching foreign power. That is the case with such states as that of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two most prominent self-proclaimed Islamic states in the world. Even Islamic movement like the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad do not use the jargon of jihad in their language. Instead, they usually tend to use the term resistance in the face of the Israeli occupation. This is, a again, a sign of the time.

With that in mind, how are we to make of terrorism as it is practiced throughout the world in the name of jihad? The first thing to note here is that the concept of jihad has never been as controversial as it is now. Until recently, the dispute over the meaning of jihad used to be almost limited to one between the Muslims, on the one hand, and the Westerners, on the other, particularly the Western orientalists. Now the dispute is boiling among the Muslims themselves, and even within each Arab and/or Muslim country. The dispute here is related to the spread of terrorism in the name of jihad. The majority of Arabs and Muslims are vehemently opposed to turning the religio-political obligation of jihad into a means of targeting civilians anywhere. Al Qaeda, and its like militant groups, sees the issue from a different angle. For them, the Muslim societies are threatened by American military, political and cultural onslaught, and that every Muslim is called upon to stand up and defend the faith and the nation. It must be stressed, however, that the Arab and Muslim side of the encounter is not limited to the terrorists. It includes other groups; extra-legal groups committed to the principle of resistance. Thus the controversy keeps boiling, especially in the Arab world.

There is no way to avoid the fact that the US, with its Western allies, is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank. So, there is a truth in how the militant groups put the issue here. To be sure, the way the terrorists are going about it is repugnant and appalling, but its back drop is quite real. That is the real politique of the situation. The wide perception in the Arab world is a feeling of weakness and helplessness. Extra-legal resistance and terrorism are coalescing somehow to provide the only defense the Arabs and Muslims could mount against Western aggression. Certainly this is a sign of weakness. But, then Arab and Muslim states are so weak that they seem to be short of any option but to appease the West. Militarily, they cannot protect the Muslim land, and politically they are inept to influence Western, especially American foreign policies, in the direction of bringing about a political solution to the occupation, and the crises resulting from it. In this sense, resistance and terrorism, called jihad by both, cannot but be linked to U.S. and Israeli aggression, on the one hand, and weakness on the part of Arab and Muslim states, on the other. In other words, resistance is a natural and legitimate reaction to aggression and occupation, and terrorism is the natural result of a weak or failed state facing aggression, or under occupation. Rarely, if ever, had terrorism and resistance been entangled the way they are now in the Middle East.

In conclusion, three things need to be noted. At the present Arab and Muslim lands, and not others, are under occupation. Second, resisting occupation or foreign encroachment is included in the lesser jihad. Three, Arab and Muslim majority are strongly opposed to resorting to terrorism, even in this context. All three emphasizes what many Arab and Muslim scholars have been saying all along that militancy is not the essence of jihad, nor is it meant for the purpose of converting non-Muslims into Islam. In fact, some would compare jihad to the Western doctrine of "just war" (see L. Carl Brown; Religion and State, 2000, p. 26-27).

If we are to ask why then terrorism is unleashed under the banner of jihad, the answer must be related to the failure of the state, i.e., the Arab and Muslim state.