I see in several sources that Camus is "against nihilism"(though there are also a few that state he utilizes elements of nihilism), however,
(Sorry for referring to Wikipedia. Didn't have enough time to dive into more original research)
The Wikipedia entry for The Myth of Sisyphus says:
Camus claims that when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. With a nod to the similarly cursed Greek hero Oedipus, Camus concludes that "all is well," indeed, that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."
which appears to me no different than nihilism at all. In nihilism, you accept the fact that the world is inherently without any meaning, and thus are freed and will be able to live a totally happy life, doing whatever you want, which seems to be exactly what Camus is stating here.
It seems to me that the only possible difference is that Camus insists that people have to "keep living for the sake of confronting the absurd that is essential in life", while nihilism doesn't insist you have to keep your life for anything. You can just die right away.
Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without false hope. However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation and constant revolt.
(which by the way seems to be another contradiction, because it seems that Camus is against any sense of hope/purpose in life, yet this sounds exactly like a "purpose"(The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged") to keep living instead of dying.)
Also, my above doubt extends to the following statement
"I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying)."
because many people who get killed in action/live on are probably exactly living out what he defines as Sisyphus' life: fully acknowledging the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, while still carrying out the task.(Just for the sake of example, what if a hypothetical Sisyphus falls down the mountain and dies while moving the stone? Is that "getting killed for a reason for living"?) Then what does he exactly suggest people to do, if getting killed for anything is "wrong"? Is it ever possible that one does not get killed/get into danger, except for doing absolutely nothing at all? We all have to occupy ourselves with certain missions, some of which might be with passion(another of Camus' criteria for life), exciting and dangerous, even if we know it's futile. Isn't that actually conforming to, instead of against, what he proposed. Judging a deed by whether one preserved his/her life after the process doesn't appear to be a very convincing standard anyway. According to him, life is pointless in itself, except for the purpose of "living the contradiction", which, however, probably is already done in the process.
And also, is there a reason why Camus seems to be so against suicide/death, after all?
I don't know whether my interpretation makes any sense.
Thanks in advance!