"Of the Arabic excisions in the new “Dune” films, two in particular stand out. One is of jihad, Herbert’s term for the fervent crusade led by Paul Atreides with the Fremen against the oppressive interstellar regime. Herbert saw jihad as the embodiment of messianic and religious passion—a force that is socially transformative and potentially liberating, but also dangerous and to be feared: “The ancient way, the tried and certain way that rolled over everything in its path.” Though now the word is overwhelmingly associated with Islamic extremism and terrorism, the original “Dune” offers a nuanced consideration of the concept that goes beyond simplistic and negative portrayals."
I do not think the original Dune books did not portray the jihad in a good way. It was the way that led Paul to triumph over the Imperator, but it was also the path, that lead him to burn worlds and establish a cruel theocracy. Which was only hinted at in the first books, but showed completely in Dune Messiah. Which is why many did not like it anymore as the glorious hero was dismantled.
I read all the books, and in one of the forwards by his son, he mentioned that Frank wanted to make Paul an antihero. He knew his audience wouldn't like it, but that's kind of the point of his books in the first place. Basically, you can't have nice things because that's what it means to be human.
Frank Herbert talked about this in his own words in his introduction to _Eye_ and his son talks about it in more detail in _Dreamer of Dune_. Herbert was fascinated by the power of leaders when followers aren't skeptical of them.
"Basically, you can't have nice things because that's what it means to be human."
But I would disagree to this conclusion. I rather think his goal was (among many others) to show that you cannot have nice things, when your "heros" of the culture stand for glorious war. No matter if it was a "good war" at first.
I think it's not really possible to have a black and white analysis of Paul's character, because the timescale matters - which is better explained in the books.
How could one choose between a jihad (bad on short term) and the golden path (good on very long term)? Especially if the golden path requires nasty personal sacrifices?
Paul did not like the choices he had (understandable) but can't say he was clearly a hero or an anti-hero.
> How could one choose between a jihad (bad on short term) and the golden path (good on very long term)?
That's kind of the central question of the books, isn't it? Were the horrors along the way a justification of the ends? They certainly were horrors. They long term good was certainly the rationalization for much of the the horrors.
> Paul did not like the choices he had (understandable) but can't say he was clearly a hero or an anti-hero.
Paul took more of the selfish choices than not and still rationalized to a great deal that he was the hero. Irulan's slash fic of the both of them as great rulers together also didn't help but further rationalize Paul's villainous choices as "heroic" both in universe and for most readers of the early books.
But if timescale matters, and given timescale is such a crucial part of the series, it probably does: on the largest timescales offered by the series and the internal writers with the longest views of history it's almost always said that Paul was one of the worst villains of history. It's a heck of a rug pull, but it is absolutely an intentional rug pull in the series. It's fascinating what the series does with such unreliable narrators. (Among other things, rooting for the "hero white savior" who turns out to be the "genocidal villain" seemed certainly meant to allegorically give a lot of Americans reason to question American ethics in world politics, especially with regards to climate change.)
"Paul did not like the choices he had (understandable) but can't say he was clearly a hero or an anti-hero."
He became the godlike imperator and inquisitors in his name burned people for questioning his new religion. So yeah, the picture is mixed as Paul was not portrayed as someone who wanted this. But he still did it.
There was a quote in the book about the holocaust and how tiny the numbers were, compared to what Paul was responsible for. And speaking of, Hitler was also not proud of massacring children and women, but he thought this was something that needed to be done.
The difference is of course, that in Dune, there was the plot of the fixed fate and Pauls ability to clearly see the future to a certain point and him not really being able to change anything about it.
(But Hitler also thought he was choosen by god/fate)
I do not think the original Dune books did not portray the jihad in a good way. It was the way that led Paul to triumph over the Imperator, but it was also the path, that lead him to burn worlds and establish a cruel theocracy. Which was only hinted at in the first books, but showed completely in Dune Messiah. Which is why many did not like it anymore as the glorious hero was dismantled.