Anyone who believes that sectarian strife can easily find its way into Jordan should read history well. This homeland, with its tolerant nature and the coexistence of its people since time immemorial, has never been immune to attempts to ignite strife, create religious tension, and strike at the structure of national unity with rotten regional slogans.
This terrorist crime, and the terrorist acts that preceded it targeting the homeland, were not merely isolated security events; they revealed the danger of the moment when the exploitation of religion turns into an assault on people and their houses of worship, and when difference becomes a justification for killing—and killing whom? Killing the homeland.
The occurrence of the crime does not mean that strife has won and the enemies have achieved their goals. Strife begins when criminals succeed in making people fear one another, or when the crime becomes a pretext for incitement, generalization, and revenge.
Therefore, the question that imposes itself after the "Hamoud" crime is not only: Who opened fire? But also: What did the terrorist killers want? And was their goal to kill specific individuals, or to push society into strife and internal conflict under a sectarian banner?
We must not preempt investigations by naming the parties behind this despicable act, but that does not prevent us from reading the potential goals. Takfiri groups, which view the "other" as an enemy because of their belief, find in such crimes a means to intimidate society and strike at the idea of an inclusive state. If the investigation proves that the attack carries this background, we are facing an assault on the very concept of citizenship, which is undoubtedly driven by external hands. Weakening Jordan from within may serve the calculations of known external powers that do not want this homeland to remain stable and cohesive in a region torn by wars and conflicting projects.
The real response to the "Hamoud" crime is not for us to fear one another, but to refuse to let fear become a new religion imposed by the killers on Jordanians.
"Hamoud" is not just a case of a church in Karak; it is a test of Jordan's awareness and its ability to protect its national fabric. History gives us a clear lesson: strife does not win just because a crime occurs, but rather it wins when society believes the narrative of hatred, abandons its shared memory, and allows criminals to define the relationships and destiny of its people.
The response to the "Hamoud" crime will not be for Jordanians to retreat from one another, but to draw closer, to demand truth and justice, and to prove that this homeland is resistant to strife and terrorism.
Jordan, which has stood firm and succeeded in repelling previous attacks and plots, is today more confident that it is capable of catching the "rats" of terrorism and holding them accountable.
