ES6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

Edit: This did "provide an answer to the question", in the sense that it asked for a solution "using jQuery" which in this case entails forcing it into the equation somehow.

Ferrybig apparently needs the joke explained (still joking, I'm sure there are limited options on the review form), so without further ado:

Other answers are using jQuery's attr() on the location or window objects unnecessarily. This answer also abuses it, but in a more ridiculous way. Instead of using it to set the location, this uses attr() to retrieve a function that sets the location.

The function is named jQueryCode even though there's nothing jQuery about it, and calling a function somethingCode is just horrible, especially when the something is not even a language.

The "85 bytes" is a reference to Code Golf. Golfing is obviously not something you should do outside of code golf, and furthermore this answer is clearly not actually golfed.

Basically, cringe.

ECMAScript 6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

This did "provide an answer to the question", in the sense that it asked for a solution "using jQuery" which in this case entails forcing it into the equation somehow.

Ferrybig apparently needs the joke explained (still joking, I'm sure there are limited options on the review form), so without further ado:

Other answers are using jQuery's attr() on the location or window objects unnecessarily.

This answer also abuses it, but in a more ridiculous way. Instead of using it to set the location, this uses attr() to retrieve a function that sets the location.

The function is named jQueryCode even though there's nothing jQuery about it, and calling a function somethingCode is just horrible, especially when the something is not even a language.

The "85 bytes" is a reference to Code Golf. Golfing is obviously not something you should do outside of code golf, and furthermore this answer is clearly not actually golfed.

Basically, cringe.

ES6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

Edit: This did "provide an answer to the question", in the sense that it asked for a solution "using jQuery" which in this case entails forcing it into the equation somehow.

Ferrybig apparently needs the joke explained (still joking, I'm sure there are limited options on the review form), so without further ado:

Other answers are using jQuery's attr() on the location or window objects unnecessarily. This answer also abuses it, but in a more ridiculous way. Instead of using it to set the location, this uses attr() to retrieve a function that sets the location.

The function is named jQueryCode even though there's nothing jQuery about it, and calling a function somethingCode is just horrible.

The "85 bytes" is a reference to Code Golf. Golfing is obviously not something you should do outside of code golf, and furthermore this answer is clearly not actually golfed.

Basically, cringe.

ES6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

Edit: This did "provide an answer to the question", in the sense that it asked for a solution "using jQuery" which in this case entails forcing it into the equation somehow.

Ferrybig apparently needs the joke explained (still joking, I'm sure there are limited options on the review form), so without further ado:

Other answers are using jQuery's attr() on the location or window objects unnecessarily. This answer also abuses it, but in a more ridiculous way. Instead of using it to set the location, this uses attr() to retrieve a function that sets the location.

The function is named jQueryCode even though there's nothing jQuery about it, and calling a function somethingCode is just horrible, especially when the something is not even a language.

The "85 bytes" is a reference to Code Golf. Golfing is obviously not something you should do outside of code golf, and furthermore this answer is clearly not actually golfed.

Basically, cringe.

ES6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

ES6 + jQuery, 85 bytes

$({jQueryCode:(url)=>location.replace(url)}).attr("jQueryCode")("http://example.com")

Please don't kill me, this is a joke. It's a joke. This is a joke.

Edit: This did "provide an answer to the question", in the sense that it asked for a solution "using jQuery" which in this case entails forcing it into the equation somehow.

Ferrybig apparently needs the joke explained (still joking, I'm sure there are limited options on the review form), so without further ado:

Other answers are using jQuery's attr() on the location or window objects unnecessarily. This answer also abuses it, but in a more ridiculous way. Instead of using it to set the location, this uses attr() to retrieve a function that sets the location.

The function is named jQueryCode even though there's nothing jQuery about it, and calling a function somethingCode is just horrible.

The "85 bytes" is a reference to Code Golf. Golfing is obviously not something you should do outside of code golf, and furthermore this answer is clearly not actually golfed.

Basically, cringe.