Jihadism is a term used to describe modern militant and political movements that justify the use of violence, including against civilians, by appeal to the Islamic concept of jihad. The term is most commonly applied to transnational and regional armed groups-such as al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and their affiliates-that emerged from currents within Salafi Islam from the late twentieth century onward. The scope, definition, and even the appropriateness of the term itself are contested; some scholars and Muslim commentators argue it conflates a broad and historically varied religious concept with a narrow set of violent actors, while others use it as a descriptive shorthand for a specific ideological and organizational phenomenon. See jihadism-terminology-debate for discussion of the term's contested usage.

Scholars generally distinguish jihadism from the broader Islamic concept of jihad, which classical jurisprudence treats as encompassing both an internal spiritual struggle and, in certain circumstances, armed struggle regulated by traditional rules of war. Jihadism, by contrast, is typically analyzed as a modern ideological movement that draws selectively on classical and medieval sources-particularly the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah-filtered through twentieth-century thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and organized through networks that emerged from the Soviet-Afghan War and subsequent conflicts. Researchers commonly identify jihadism as a subset of, or closely associated with, Salafi Islam, though most Salafis reject violent jihadism and the relationship between Salafism broadly and jihadist violence specifically remains a matter of scholarly and political dispute. A fuller account of this development is provided at jihadism-history.

Contemporary jihadist movements are not monolithic. Analysts typically differentiate between groups oriented toward transnational attacks on a “far enemy” (notably al-Qaeda's historical strategy), groups focused on establishing territorial control and governance (notably the Islamic State's “near enemy” and caliphate-building strategy), and more localized insurgent or sectarian groups that adopt jihadist framing for regional conflicts. These strategic and doctrinal differences have produced significant intra-movement conflict, including the split between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Researchers also debate the relative weight of religious ideology versus political, social, and economic grievances in explaining recruitment and violence, a dispute treated at jihadism-causes-debate.

• Ideological-primacy viewpoint - holds that jihadist violence is best explained as the product of a specific theological and ideological framework, and that countering it requires engaging that framework directly. See jihadism-ideological-primacy-viewpoint.
• Grievance-and-context viewpoint - holds that political, economic, and social grievances (foreign occupation, authoritarianism, marginalization) are the primary drivers of jihadist violence, with religious framing serving as a vehicle or justification rather than the root cause. See jihadism-grievance-viewpoint.
• Mainstream Islam distinction viewpoint - emphasizes that jihadism represents a fringe distortion of Islamic teaching rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims and mainstream Islamic scholarship. See jihadism-mainstream-distinction-viewpoint.
• Salafism-link skeptical viewpoint - argues that linking jihadism closely to Salafism unfairly stigmatizes the much larger non-violent Salafi community and obscures jihadism's debts to other intellectual currents. See jihadism-salafism-link-skeptical-viewpoint.
• Civilizational-conflict viewpoint - frames jihadism as one expression of a broader, longer-running conflict between Islamic and Western or non-Muslim civilizations. This view is a minority position among scholars but has notable presence in political and public commentary. See jihadism-civilizational-conflict-viewpoint.
• State-sponsorship and geopolitics viewpoint - emphasizes the role of state actors, foreign intervention, and great-power competition in fostering or exploiting jihadist movements for strategic ends. See jihadism-state-sponsorship-viewpoint.

• Dispute over whether Western counterterrorism and immigration policy responses to jihadism have disproportionately targeted or stigmatized Muslim communities generally. See jihadism-counterterrorism-profiling-controversy.
• Dispute over the use of the terms “Islamic terrorism” and “radical Islam” by political leaders, and whether such terminology is accurate, stigmatizing, or strategically counterproductive. See jihadism-terminology-political-controversy.
• Dispute over the responsibility of Saudi Arabia and Gulf state funding networks in the global spread of jihadist ideology. See jihadism-gulf-funding-controversy.

• jihadism-history
• jihadism-terminology-debate
• jihadism-causes-debate
• jihadism-ideological-primacy-viewpoint
• jihadism-grievance-viewpoint
• jihadism-mainstream-distinction-viewpoint
• jihadism-salafism-link-skeptical-viewpoint
• jihadism-civilizational-conflict-viewpoint
• jihadism-state-sponsorship-viewpoint
• jihadism-counterterrorism-profiling-controversy
• jihadism-terminology-political-controversy
• jihadism-gulf-funding-controversy
• Al-Qaeda
• salafism
• islamic-state

1. Gilles Kepel, *Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam*, trans. Anthony F. Roberts (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002).
2. Fawaz A. Gerges, *The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
3. Thomas Hegghammer, “Jihadi-Salafis or Revolutionaries? On Religion and Politics in the Study of Militant Islamism,” in *Global Salafism: Islam's New Religious Movement*, ed. Roel Meijer (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 244-266.
4. Shiraz Maher, *Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea* (London: Hurst & Company, 2016).
5. Bruce Hoffman, *Inside Terrorism*, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017).
6. Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement,” *Studies in Conflict & Terrorism* 29, no. 3 (2006): 207-239.