By Diaa Rashwan * The statement issued by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, spiritual guide of Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya, from his prison cell in the US has provoked contradictory reactions within the ranks of militant Islamist groups. Almost a year after the Luxor massacre, the leaders of Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya were on the point of agreeing a new strategy advocating peaceful action. Now Abdel-Rahman's statement has upset the apple cart and threatens to further destabilise an already unstable situation. On 22 October Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman called for the formation of a new world Islamic front to spread and defend Islam on the basis of peaceful action, without resort to violence. Two days later, Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya issued a response over the Internet, severely criticising various "interpretations" of Sheikh Omar's statement, particularly the part where he suggests rejecting "Jihad action", as the group called it. The group riposted that there had been absolutely no change in its strategy, which aims to spread the word of God through a "correct" course of action. Then, on 31 October, 10 of the imprisoned traditional leaders of Al-Gama'a and the Jihad group sent a handwritten statement to an Islamist lawyer expressing their full support for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman's call, and denouncing the use of force by members of the group operating in Egypt. They also made clear their attitude towards The World Islamic Front for Combating Jews and Crusaders, formed last February, which was responsible for blowing up the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: "We express our full support for the stance of our brothers abroad in distancing ourselves from the anti-American front". This statement, however, instead of pacifying a tense situation, only caused yet more dissension. The next day came a series of strong statements from the leaders of the violent groups based abroad. Abu Hamza El-Masri, based in Britain, fiercely attacked the statement by the traditional leadership, considering it to be tantamount to a decision to disband the Al-Gama'a, and called for "the creation of another group on the basis of Islamic tenets". "While we do not accuse the imprisoned leaders of treason," he added, "we consider their latest statement as betraying the blood of our martyrs". He also accused Sheikh Omar of "intellectual intimidation" and declared that, though a respected leader he "did not represent the law". Yasser Tawfik Sirri, also based in London, dismissed the traditional leader's statement as a call for "surrender, not peace". This sharp clash of statements demonstrates the existence of a sharp split within Al-Gama'a, as well as in relation to The World Islamic Front for Combating Jews and Crusaders. The creation of the World Front was approved by Rifa'i Ahmed Taha, the most powerful of Al-Gama'a's leaders in Afghanistan, on behalf of the group, though he is also known to have issued a statement ten days before the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings, in which he denied the group had ever joined forces with the World Front. This was interpreted by some as a pre-emptive attempt to exonerate the group from any responsibility for what was to come. It is probable that Al-Gama'a's 13-member Shura Council dictated this latter move. A few days before the creation of the World Front, the group's leaders had achieved near unanimity to support the initiative launched last January by the imprisoned traditional leaders to stop all acts of violence. Rifa'i would seem to have signed the statement creating the front on behalf of Al-Gama'a without consulting the other Shura Council members, in the belief that this new organisation would only exist on paper, as a political stand against the US and Israel. However, it soon became clear that the Front was a real military organisation that was serious about striking at US interests. It is highly probable that the moment Rifa'i learnt of the Front's attacks on the two US embassies, he referred the issue to the Shura Council, fearing a possible backlash against the group. The Shura Council refused to acknowledge this involvement and called on Rifa'i Ahmed Taha to deny that the group had ever joined the Front. Once this awkward episode was over, most of the group's leadership, including Sheikh Omar, seem to have felt the need to assert the new peaceful approach and oppose the extremism of the Front. Hence the sheikh's statement, followed by that of the imprisoned traditional leaders. As for the statements critical of the sheikh's position, they were probably not made with full conviction, but owe more to the conditions in which the Afghanistan-based leaders now live. The World Front has foisted its extremism on Islamists of all nationalities. Nor should we forget the material dependence of the leaders in Afghanistan on Islamic elements close to the Front in their thinking. Thus, after a year of relative calm following the Luxor massacre, the scene is now set for one of the deepest splits ever seen within Al-Gama'a's ranks. In this context it seems that the statements and accusations made to the media by the leaders of the Al-Gama'a are an important factor in the escalation of the conflict, with each side digging its heels in over its position. Moreover, the intervention of other Islamist elements from outside the group with unprecedentedly violent attacks on the traditional leadership, Sheikh Omar or even Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya itself, threatens to carry the struggle beyond the group and out into the Islamist population at large. If it does, then we will be swimming in even more dangerous waters. *The writer is managing editor of The State of Religion in Egypt Report, issued by the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
