A Jordanian court has found 12 men guilty of plotting terror strikes against the US and Israeli embassies in Jordan.
The convicted defendants - mostly Jordanians or Jordanians of Palestinian descent - were sentenced on Sunday to prison terms ranging from one and a half years to three years after being found guilty of conspiring in 2004 to carry out the embassy attacks.
The 12 defendants, who did not enter pleas, were also accused of planning other attacks, including against a hotel popular with Israeli tourists in the northern city of Irbid; the home of a cultural festival director and an American troupe performing at the annual event.
Wearing prison uniforms, the defendants stood behind bars in the courtroom dock to hear the handing down of the guilty verdicts, which can be appealed. Another four defendants were acquitted for insufficient evidence.
As the sentences were handed down, the defendants started hailing the fourth anniversary of the terror attacks on the United States.
"Our brothers have made America cry on this day," one of the defendants shouted from the chicken wire-covered cage holding them in the courtroom.
"This is the day that showed how vulnerable America is."
Convicts' accusation
Group mastermind Abed Shihadeh al-Tahawi described the trial and sentencing as "a plot hatched against us to satisfy America and Israel."
Many terror convicts accuse the government of Jordan, which signed a 1994 peace deal with Israel, of exaggerating terror plots against the kingdom to garner US support.
US vessels in the port of Aqaba
recently came under attack
"This verdict will not dissuade us from pursuing the path of jihad," he shouted.
Al-Tahawi, 50, and two others were sentenced to three years' jail for leading the conspiracy, raising funds, recruiting fighters, mapping out plans and sending men for training in Yemen and Iraq.
Two others were given two-year terms and the remaining seven sentenced to one and a half years.
The prosecution did not say how the defendants planned the attacks. The plot was uncovered and foiled when the defendants were detained in August and September last year.
Al-Tahawi was accused of pursuing the takfiri ideology, which is bent on killing anybody considered an infidel. He allegedly has recruited accomplices while preaching in mosques in Irbid, 80km north of Amman.
During the trial that opened in March, the defendants repeatedly praised Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. But the chargesheet did not directly link the defendants to al-Zarqawi or any other known group.
Retrial
Separately, the military court upheld a June 2004 guilty verdict against Jordanian Ahmad Mahmoud al-Riyati, described as an al-Qaida terror cell leader, who was jailed for seven and a half years for plotting terror attacks against unspecified US and Israeli interests here.
"This verdict will not dissuade us from pursuing the path of jihad"
Group mastermind Abed Shihadeh al-Tahawi
The verdict came nine months after an appeals court asked for a retrial citing "technical faults" in last year's trial.
Al-Riyati began plotting attacks in Jordan as early as August 2001 in mutual agreement between Osama bin Ladin's al-Qaida network and another group, Ansar al-Islam, the court heard.
His targets also included Western tourists and top Jordanian intelligence officials. Details of the plots were not revealed. Al-Riyati has denied the charges.
Jordan has been battling hardliners for several years and regularly sentences "militants" either at large or in custody to heavy prison sentences.
This is a difficult one to answer. If you believe that the resistance against the occupation in Palestine and Iraq is justified, then you should be justified in fighting the occupation powerw whereever you find them. But if you choose to fight them on territory belonging to a third party, e.g. Jordan, then you are dragging another country into a fight which they do no consider to be theirs, so are you still justified? Or is it wrong to spread war and destruction to a people or region which does not class itself as being involved in the dispute?
May Allah reward the Brothers for their noble work and hasten their release. Ameen.
You call planning attacks on civilian targets noble? What in the name of all that is holy are you smoking man? And please, when you attempt to rebutt this, do not post a link to a downloadable essay, just tell me straight.
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimdub
This is a difficult one to answer. If you believe that the resistance against the occupation in Palestine and Iraq is justified, then you should be justified in fighting the occupation powerw whereever you find them. But if you choose to fight them on territory belonging to a third party, e.g. Jordan, then you are dragging another country into a fight which they do no consider to be theirs, so are you still justified?
In my opinion, no.
Or is it wrong to spread war and destruction to a people or region which does not class itself as being involved in the dispute?
Yes, especially when the attackers are not even striking military targets.
You call planning attacks on civilian targets noble? What in the name of all that is holy are you smoking man? And please, when you attempt to rebutt this, do not post a link to a downloadable essay, just tell me straight
Asallama Alaikum brother since you're siding with the Americans so you think killing children is something noble to do eh....?
In my opinion, no.
Should've known
Yes, especially when the attackers are not even striking military targets.
I'm about getting fed-up with this.Do you have any daleel for it?
Asallama Alaikum brother since you're siding with the Americans so you think killing children is something noble to do eh....?
When did I ever side with the Americans? Killing children is evil. Evil wears many masks. Some are American. Some are 'Muslim'. All the masks look like us.
Should've known
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
I'm about getting fed-up with this.Do you have any daleel for it?
I don't have a Hadith book to hand, but there are several where it is explicitly stated that Muslims are forbidden to attack non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, and sources of food. C'mon Ansar, you budding scholar-to-be, help me out here
'Is a Muslim allowed to kill unarmed civilians, pregnant women and little children? Does a Muslim become a martyr if he dies in such a killing? Is there some kind of bonus for a Muslim who kills Jews in that way? Does Islam allow a woman to do all the above, and with the same reward? Thanking you in advance for any clarification of these difficult issues
ANSWER: Irrespective of the objectives of a martyr, it is incorrect to kill civilians especially women and children and there is no reward for killing a civilian Jew in times of peace.
Yes, if the target is a soldier, for instance, and a civilian is caught in the crossfire, it will be viewed as unavoidable collateral damage.
ANSWER: Irrespective of the objectives of a martyr, it is incorrect to kill civilians especially women and children and there is no reward for killing a civilian Jew in times of peace.
Would that mean there is reward for killing a civilian Jew in times of war? Thats what the answer implies.
Yes, if the target is a soldier, for instance, and a civilian is caught in the crossfire, it will be viewed as unavoidable collateral damage.
So if its a military target and civilians get unintentionally caught up in the crossfire - its alright as the Shaikh says, as its 'unavoidable'. Thanks for posting that, it really helped and confirmed what I had already researched. Go here for a more indepth look at the topic.
Would that mean there is reward for killing a ciilian Jew in times of war? Thats what the answer implies.
If that's what it does mean, it can't mean you can just go and kill ANY Jew in wartime, since the rulings regarding non-combatants, women and children still apply.
So if its a military target and civilians get unintentionally caught up in the crossfire - its alright as the Shaikh says, as its 'unavoidable'. Thanks for posting that, it really helped and confirmed what I had already researched.
Yes. But the people in the article had planned to attack civilian targets, which is just flat-out wrong.
The way it's phrased does make it sound as if killing civilian Jews in war time is allowed, but I seriously doubt that is what it means since it would contravene other Islamic teachings.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
I'm sure the sister wants any daleel whether religious or a different source.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks