TAMPA, Fla. – Lawyers for two of four men on trial here for their alleged involvement with a deadly terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, told a federal jury yesterday that the government’s case against their clients is based on meaningless evidence derived from a botched and biased investigation.

The men who were the focus of closing arguments yesterday, Ghassan Ballut and Hatem Fariz, lack the notoriety of the lead defendant in the case, Sami Al-Arian. Mr. Al-Arian, a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian Arab, is a former University of South Florida college professor whose alleged ties to terrorism have been debated in the local and national press for more than a decade.

Closing arguments for Mr. Al-Arian and another defendant, Sameeh Hammoudeh, were presented on Wednesday. After some additional arguments from the prosecution on Monday, the jury is expected to begin deliberating. The charges in the case include conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to support a terrorist organization, money laundering, and immigration fraud.

Prosecutors have alleged that Messrs. Ballut and Fariz used a Chicago-area mosque to stage rallies for a Palestinian Islamic Jihad front group and funneled donations to the terrorist group through a charity they set up, the American Muslim Care Network.

Mr. Ballut’s lawyers said the entire case against Mr. Ballut stems from an angry speech he delivered at a pro-Palestinian rally he helped organize in 1991. “We must draw the gun in one line facing the enemy. Yes to jihad and armed struggle,” he declared.

“A single isolated speech 14 years ago, doesn’t establish membership in an organization. It doesn’t establish membership in a conspiracy,” an attorney for Mr. Ballut, Bruce Howie, said. “That’s the best they have. This is Ghassan Ballut at his worst, but it’s not bad enough to convict him of a crime.”

Mr. Howie described as “absurd” the government’s contention that a magazine found during a search of Mr. Ballut’s home in 2002 indicated he was a Palestinian Islamic Jihad member because the back of the magazine included imagery used by the group. The lawyer said it was akin to charging someone with being a Nazi because he owned a book on the Third Reich that had a swastika on the cover. The lawyer also rejected the prosecution’s assertion that Mr. Ballut’s efforts to set up an Islamic school was evidence of his involvement with the Palestinian terrorist group. “The same argument could be made against every mosque and every Islamic school in the country,” Mr. Howie said.

Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Ballut and Mr. Fariz were using code when they used the Arabic terms for chickpeas and for cakes to describe Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. An attorney for Mr. Ballut, Brooke Elvington, said the practice was harmless and akin to Americans referring to Republicans as elephants and Democrats as donkeys. “This is colloquial,” she said.

Ms. Elvington accused prosecutors of a using misleading tactics to try to tie Mr. Ballut to Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders. “Ask yourself, how far will they go to inflame you?” she said.

Judge James Moody, who is presiding over the case, may share the view that the case against Mr. Ballut is weak. The judge has rejected motions to dismiss brought by the other defendants, but said he wanted more time to consider whether the evidence against Mr. Ballut is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

An attorney for Mr. Fariz, Kevin Beck, said the absence of any Palestinians or Arabic speakers from the investigation team caused prosecutors to misunderstand a taped phone conversation in 2002 which his client allegedly laughed about a suicide bombing that killed 17 people in Israel. Mr. Beck said the fact that Mr. Fariz kept close track of such events was not suspicious. “Were you on the football team in high school? Did you know what was going on the football team? That’s not conspiratorial,” he said.

Mr. Beck all but ignored some of the strongest evidence against Mr. Fariz, such as a 2002 phone conversation in which he asked a Palestinian charity alleged to have ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad to give him receipts with the group’s name altered.

A prosecutor, Terry Zitek, disputed defense claims that the government was trampling on the First Amendment. “These defendants are not being charged with making unlawful speech. They’re being charged for what they did,” he said.