Jordanian Writers Interpret The Karak Attack

(MENAFN- Amman Net) Jordanian writers and analysts have examined the implications of the terrorist attack targeting mourners near Hamoud Church in Karak Governorate, describing it as an assault on Jordanian society as a whole and warning that extremist, takfiri ideology continues to pose a threat to social relations and could fuel divisions. Their articles explored the circumstances surrounding the attack, its timing, and the intellectual environment that allows extremism to spread, while cautioning against attempts to exploit the incident for political and regional purposes.

The analyses focused on several interconnected issues, including the attack's impact on domestic cohesion, the origins of the ideology that drives individuals to target innocent people, and questions about possible external links. Some writers also revisited earlier episodes in Jordan's struggle against terrorism, arguing that the attack in Karak has once again placed the protection of society and the fight against hate speech at the forefront of public debate.

Makram Tarawneh:“The Church Attack: Who Wants to Keep Jordan Preoccupied?”

In his article,“The Church Attack: Who Wants to Keep Jordan Preoccupied?”, writer Makram Ahmad Tarawneh argues that the crime cannot be understood in isolation from the political and security circumstances surrounding Jordan, in a region marked by successive crises and political projects shaped by overlapping security, economic and social calculations.

Tarawneh points out that Jordan faces challenges along its borders while also dealing with domestic pressures that cannot be separated from regional instability. In these circumstances, he argues, maintaining domestic cohesion is one of the state's most important sources of strength. Any attempt to provoke divisions among citizens could undermine the country's ability to confront the challenges around it.

The writer raises questions about the timing of the attack and whether it was an isolated terrorist act or whether its objectives extended beyond the perpetrators' immediate motives. He links these questions to broader Jordanian concerns about regional projects aimed at reshaping the Middle East, including plans involving expansion, displacement and changes to the region's geopolitical landscape.

Tarawneh, however, distinguishes these broader concerns from any claim that a direct connection between such projects and the attack has been established. He stresses that such a link cannot be confirmed without evidence. Political questions, however compelling they may appear, cannot replace the findings of investigations in determining who carried out the attack and whether other parties were involved.

He warns that terrorism does not achieve its objectives through killing alone. It may also succeed if it manages to sow suspicion and fear among citizens or encourages them to view one another through the lens of religion and social identity. If society becomes embroiled in mutual accusations, he argues, the perpetrators will have achieved an impact extending well beyond the moment of the attack.

Tarawneh maintains that confronting these risks begins with strengthening the principle of equal citizenship, reinforcing trust in institutions and the rule of law, and challenging rhetoric that justifies violence or provides it with religious or political cover.

He also calls for the solidarity displayed by Jordanians after the attack to become the foundation of lasting national awareness rather than a temporary emotional response. The priority, in his view, is to protect relationships among citizens from incitement and to address the roots of extremism through education, culture and enlightened religious discourse.

Fahd Khaitan:“The Hamoud Massacre Unites Jordanians”

Writer Fahd Khaitan begins his article,“The Hamoud Massacre Unites Jordanians”, with the shock that engulfed the town after a woman's funeral turned into a bloody crime targeting people who had gathered to bid farewell to a relative and offer condolences to her family.

Khaitan highlights the stark contrast between the nature of the occasion, which embodied grief and social solidarity, and the brutality of an attack on people carrying out a basic human duty. He recalls a town whose residents had maintained relationships of neighbourliness and shared celebrations and sorrows for decades, raising the question of how extremist ideology can drive someone to kill neighbours and members of their own community.

The writer argues that the attack exposes the danger of takfiri ideology, which does more than reject others. It strips them of their humanity and transforms their killing into an act that perpetrators believe is justified. He places this pattern within the region's experience with extremist organisations that have committed crimes against both Muslims and Christians and have not hesitated to attack or seek control over the very communities in which they operated.

Khaitan notes that this form of extremism does not necessarily emerge overnight. It is sustained by ideas, environments and rhetoric that tolerate takfir, or the practice of declaring other Muslims apostates, and encourage hatred. He also highlights the role of digital spaces in spreading such ideas, particularly when social media platforms become arenas for incitement and violence is presented as an expression of religious conviction or political commitment.

In assessing the public response, Khaitan argues that the hours following the attack demonstrated Jordanian society's ability to absorb the shock and prevent it from turning into division. Solidarity extended beyond the town and the governorate, making Hamoud a national symbol and reflecting Jordanians' sense that the attack had affected them all.

He stresses that the crime targeted Jordan in all its diversity, as well as the state and the rule of law. It should not be treated as an attack confined to a particular religious group. The support shown by Jordanians for the victims' families demonstrated that society viewed the tragedy not as an issue affecting one community alone, but as a shared national wound.

Khaitan also recalls the 2005 Amman hotel bombings, arguing that the latest attack has distinctive features that require careful attention to its potential consequences. The challenge, in his view, is not limited to pursuing those responsible. It also involves protecting the national values the perpetrators sought to undermine and preventing the ideology behind the attack from reproducing itself.

Maher Abu Tair:“A Scenario for Manufacturing Discord in Jordan”

Writer Maher Abu Tair examines the attack from a broader political and security perspective, warning that targeting a church in Jordan could be exploited to inflame religious sensitivities in a country where Muslims and Christians share citizenship, neighbourhoods and deeply intertwined social relationships.

In his article,“A Scenario for Manufacturing Discord in Jordan”, Abu Tair recalls the 2005 Amman hotel bombings and the 2016 Karak Castle attack, alongside attacks on churches in Syria and mosques in Iraq and Pakistan. He cites these examples to argue that takfiri groups do not target only one religious community. Their ideology permits the killing of innocent people and directs violence against societies that reject their agenda.

Abu Tair argues that understanding the background to the crime requires answering a key question: who directed the perpetrators? He outlines two main possibilities. The first is that the group was local in both its direction and execution. The second is that it was connected to external parties through financing, coordination or planning.

The first possibility, he argues, calls for a comprehensive reassessment of extremism within Jordanian society and an examination of the ideas that produce behaviour legitimising attacks on Muslims and Christians alike. The second would require a broader investigation into the condition of extremist organisations across the region and their ability to rebuild networks and recruit new members amid what he describes as a fragile regional security environment.

The article does not provide conclusive evidence for either possibility. Rather, Abu Tair presents them as potential risks, arguing that identifying the nature of the responsible party would be an important factor in determining how the threat should be addressed.

He pays particular attention to the internet's role in nurturing extremism, warning against treating the problem as exclusively domestic. Rhetoric that legitimises hatred can reach individuals through pages, websites and platforms operating outside Jordan, making the response dependent on efforts that go beyond conventional security measures.

Abu Tair also warns that targeting Jordanian Christians carries an additional risk: the attack could be used to portray Jordan as a country experiencing religious conflict, despite the longstanding and generally close relationships among its citizens. He emphasises that Jordanian Christians are an integral part of the country's citizenry and do not need to prove their belonging or obtain anyone else's endorsement.

He cautions against allowing the crime to trigger tensions based on religion, family origins or regional background. He urges the public to consider which actors might benefit politically or through the media from domestic instability. He also examines the possibility that the attack could be used in Western political discourse, particularly by right-wing movements seeking to reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims.

His central argument is that Jordan must investigate possible domestic motives, verify any external connections and confront the online environments that allow hate speech to circulate, without allowing the crime to become a fault line within Jordanian society.

Hussein Rawashdeh:“A Crime in a Church: What Soil Did It Emerge From?”

In his article,“A Crime in a Church: What Soil Did It Emerge From?”, writer Hussein Rawashdeh focuses on the intellectual and social environment that produced the perpetrators. He argues that understanding the attack requires examining two interconnected factors: the context of regional conflicts and the domestic conditions that allowed extremist ideas to take shape and spread.

Rawashdeh argues that the attack targeted the state, society and the nation, not Christians alone. Understanding it requires examining the culture that influenced the perpetrators, the rhetoric that shaped their thinking, and the movements and ideological authorities that may provide an environment in which violence is justified.

He suggests that terrorism, whose presence in the region had diminished in recent years, could reorganise itself and re-emerge in new forms. He warns against assuming that the decline of extremist organisations on the battlefield means the disappearance of the ideas and networks on which they rely.

Jordan has extensive experience in confronting terrorism, Rawashdeh notes, but it is not immune to its dangers. While security measures are essential, he argues, they must be accompanied by efforts to address the sources of extremism within society and prevent ideas that justify takfir and violence from turning into action.

Rawashdeh gives considerable weight to domestic responsibility, calling for a review of local factors that could enable extremist groups to penetrate society. External interference, if established, cannot easily achieve its objectives, he argues, unless it finds internal weaknesses to exploit.

He therefore calls for the law to be enforced firmly against those who adopt or promote hate speech, alongside efforts to tackle the roots of extremism in schools, homes, streets, places of worship, media platforms and political forums. He also argues that takfir must be treated as a dangerous gateway to denying the legitimacy of others and sanctioning violence against them.

Rawashdeh recalls Jordan's role in protecting the region's Christian heritage and historic Christian communities, pointing to the kingdom's stated positions in defence of Christian presence in the Middle East. An attack on a church in Jordan, he argues, presents society with a painful contradiction: it targets a model of coexistence that the state has repeatedly emphasised in its political and religious discourse.

The writer asks whether the attack was an individual act or part of an organised operation with broader objectives. He acknowledges, however, that a definitive answer requires sufficient information and evidence. He calls for a review of the environment that may enable extremism to emerge without waiting for investigations to conclude, while insisting that those responsible must be identified and held accountable under the law.

For Rawashdeh, confronting terrorism begins with establishing who carried out the attack and who may have been behind it. But it does not end there. It also requires addressing the intellectual and social conditions that make some individuals willing to target their neighbours and fellow citizens.

Jihad Momani:“On the Timing of the Attack”

In his article,“On the Timing of the Attack”, writer Jihad Momani offers a political interpretation linking the assault to regional developments, particularly Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and what he sees as attempts to use violent incidents to affect Jordan's international image and standing.

Momani begins by observing that takfiri groups have targeted Arabs, Muslims and Christians in various Arab countries, while their operations have not been directed at Israel or its interests. From this observation, he advances an interpretation that such groups may serve the interests of external actors, directly or indirectly.

He argues that the timing of the attack could serve Israeli political and media objectives amid preparations for Israeli elections and developments on the ground in the West Bank. An attack on a church in a country known for coexistence between Muslims and Christians, he suggests, could be used to portray the region as an environment threatening Christians, diverting attention from Israeli actions against Palestinians.

Momani also links the crime to what he describes as previous campaigns against Jordan's image, involving the circulation of rumours, attempts to divide Jordanians along lines of origin and background, and doubts about the state's ability to confront challenges. In his assessment, such campaigns create an atmosphere of mistrust that could be exploited by actors seeking to weaken Jordan's domestic front.

He argues that undermining trust among Jordanians is one of the most serious aspects of these efforts because internal divisions could open the way to wider political and social crises. He therefore stresses the importance of scrutinising information circulating on digital platforms and refusing to treat rumours as facts, particularly in the aftermath of deadly incidents.

Momani presents his theory regarding external responsibility as a direct political accusation, linking it to potential Israeli interests. These conclusions, however, remain part of his personal analysis and do not establish that any particular party was responsible for the crime unless supported by investigation findings and reliable evidence.

His central appeal is to preserve Jordanian social unity and prevent the attack from becoming material for incitement among citizens. Jordan, where Muslims and Christians maintain deeply interconnected social relationships, must protect those ties from campaigns of suspicion and misinformation while ensuring that the perpetrators are held accountable, he argues.

Laith Kamal Nasrawin:“Karak Stands Firm Against the Bullets of Treachery”

Laith Kamal Nasrawin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Jordan's Faculty of Law, focuses in his article,“Karak Stands Firm Against the Bullets of Treachery”, on the national and social dimensions of the attack. He recalls Karak's place in Jordanian history and its significance as an example of relations between Muslims and Christians.

Nasrawin describes the hours following the assault as a period of profound grief and anger across the governorate, after gunfire targeted people attending a relative's funeral. The brutality of the crime was compounded by the location and occasion: mourners had gathered near a church to fulfil a basic human obligation, only for the area to become the scene of a tragedy affecting the people of the governorate.

The writer recalls the events in Karak in 2016, when terrorist attacks killed civilians and members of the security forces. He argues that the latest crime revives painful memories of Jordan's confrontation with terrorism. Despite the attacks it has endured, Karak remains part of the country's national history as a city whose residents have made sacrifices to protect Jordan.

Nasrawin stresses that the victims were Jordanians above all else and that the attack cannot be described as targeting Christians alone, because its impact extended to the entire community. Christians, he says, are an integral part of the kingdom's history, institution-building and defence of its land. Their national belonging is not something they need to prove.

He describes relations between Muslims and Christians as an essential part of Jordanian social life, in which citizens share celebrations, sorrows and public occasions without allowing religious differences to define or divide them. The attack, he argues, highlights the importance of preserving these bonds. National unity becomes visible during difficult moments through concrete actions, not slogans alone.

Nasrawin also refers to King Abdullah II's visit to the injured, describing it as a clear message about the state's position on the attack and its determination to impose the harshest penalties on those responsible. He links the crime to Jordan's declared commitment to protecting Christian communities and religious heritage in the region, noting that the attack came weeks after the king addressed the United Nations General Assembly, where he spoke about safeguarding that heritage and defending the true image of Islam against extremism.

Nasrawin calls for a response that goes beyond condemnation and demands for punishment. He stresses the need to support the victims' families and the injured, confront rumours and hate speech, and maintain public confidence in state institutions.

He concludes that Karak, despite the grief it has suffered, will overcome the tragedy, and that an attack on a church or place of worship cannot erase a long history of coexistence among the governorate's residents. The task, in his view, is to ensure that relationships among Jordanians remain stronger than attempts to spread violence and to turn this ordeal into a renewed commitment to national unity and accountability for those responsible for the crime.

MENAFN25102026000209011053ID1111863440