The Ideology behind the Gun 

The recent shooting at St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church in Hamoud, located in Jordan’s Al-Karak governorate, prompts a critical examination of a pressing issue. When acts of violence appear to be motivated by religious beliefs, should accountability solely rest with the individual who executes the act, or is it also imperative to address the underlying ideology that promotes hatred?

According to Reuters, the attack took place on 23 October during a funeral, killing nine people and wounding 40 others. On 26 October, Jordanian security forces arrested three relatives suspected of involvement. Authorities initially said investigators had found no evidence linking the suspects to other militant cells, and no group had claimed responsibility (Reuters, 26 October 2026).

Later that day, Jordan’s military said its air force had struck what it called militant hideouts in southern Syria, claiming the attackers were linked to “terrorist groups” operating there. Syria said it had received no advance notice of the strikes. The Syrian Civil Defence reported that seven people, including three children and a woman, had been killed and three others wounded in strikes in the countryside of Daraa and Sweida provinces. Jordan had not immediately commented on that casualty account (Reuters, 26 October 2026).

Jordanian officials have given differing accounts of the attackers’ links: some said they were not tied to any organised group, while the military later said they were linked to groups in Syria. The investigation must establish the facts, including the attackers’ motives, rather than allow speculation to harden into accepted truth. Even so, the tragedy calls for a wider examination of the ideas that can turn religious identity into a justification for violence.

Takfir and extremist teaching

Takfir is the practice of declaring another Muslim an unbeliever or apostate. In extremist settings, it can be used to exclude people from the religious community and justify hostility towards them. The Associated Press reported that Jordanian officials described the suspects as takfiri militants (AP, 26 October 2026). The danger arises when religious teaching dehumanises others, denies their equal dignity or presents violence as a sacred duty.

The gunmen are only the most visible part of the problem. Before an attack, there may be a chain of influences: propaganda, extremist preaching, recruitment, social networks and, in some cases, financial support. Each link deserves investigation where credible evidence exists.

Jordan’s Christians are not foreign guests in their own country. Christianity has deep historical roots in the region, and Christian communities remain part of its social and religious fabric. Their right to worship safely is a matter of citizenship and the rule of law.

A disturbing warning from Nigeria

The same concern is pressing in Nigeria, where religious tension and insecurity have already cost many lives.

On 26 October, Premium Times reported on a viral video in which a man appeared to lead boys in a Hausa-language chant calling for an AK-47 to kill Christians or non-Muslims in Enugu and Plateau states. The children wore uniforms resembling those of the First Aid Group associated with Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’ah Wa Iqamatis Sunnah (JIBWIS). At the time of the initial reporting, it remained unconfirmed whether those shown were registered members of the organisation or whether its leadership had sanctioned the display (Premium Times, 26 October 2026).

In a follow-up report on 28 October, Premium Times said the Zamfara State Police Command had identified the recording location as Maradun Local Government Area and reported that the suspect, Umar Ibrahim, had been arrested. Police said he would face charges relating to breach of public peace, incitement of hatred and criminal intimidation. JIBWIS’s leadership condemned the remarks and distanced the organisation from them (Premium Times, 28 October 2026).

These developments call for investigation, not premature accusations. The authorities must establish the facts and determine individual responsibility, while the organisation should clarify any questions about affiliation or authorisation. An arrest is not proof of guilt.

If children are taught to celebrate the killing of people because of their religion, the problem extends beyond one disturbing video. It becomes a warning about how young minds are being formed. Children taught to regard their neighbours as enemies may carry that hostility into public life.

Who will hold preachers accountable?

Religious leaders influence how followers understand their obligations towards people of other faiths. That influence carries responsibility.

Governments should investigate credible threats and prosecute incitement in accordance with the law and due process. Religious institutions should set standards for teachers and preachers, respond transparently to allegations and reject messages that encourage attacks on civilians.

Local scholars, community leaders and institutions also have a role in challenging extremist interpretations and defending peaceful coexistence. Punishment alone cannot eliminate violent ideology; prevention requires responsible religious instruction, education, protection for minorities and constructive opportunities for young people.

The United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee has stressed that repression alone cannot counter violent extremism. It advocates a comprehensive approach that respects human rights and involves religious communities, educators, civil society and local communities in countering extremist narratives. See the Committee’s resource, Countering Violent Extremism and Terrorist Narratives.

That approach should include investigating credible evidence of financial support for violent networks. Allegations involving states, charities or private donors must be assessed individually and supported by evidence.

The danger of denial

Two errors must be avoided: collective blame and denial. Extremists should not be used to condemn all Muslims, but concern about prejudice must not prevent scrutiny of dangerous teaching.

History shows that violence is rarely sustained by weapons alone. Propaganda, dehumanisation, institutional complicity and silence can create conditions in which atrocities become possible. Societies must therefore confront any ideology that strips others of their dignity.

The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism identifies human rights and the rule of law as essential to preventing terrorism and violent extremism. Security measures must therefore protect vulnerable communities without becoming an excuse for discrimination or collective punishment.

Beyond religion

The struggle is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between respect for human dignity and ideologies that make a person’s rights conditional on religious identity.

Jordanian Christians, Nigerian Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths deserve equal protection under the law. No one should fear that attending a funeral, entering a church or gathering for prayer could make them a target.

The response to religious violence must therefore go beyond arresting the attackers. It must confront incitement, investigate credible links to violent networks and protect vulnerable communities through lawful, evidence-based action.

The gunmen must be stopped. But those who teach hatred, encourage violence or knowingly shield credible threats must also face scrutiny. Gunmen spill blood; the ideology teaches them first whose blood may be spilled.