EGYPTIAN NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW WITH ISLAMIC GROUP LEADER
Date Reported: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 Incident Type: SECURITY Country: EGYPT Incident: U.S. Embassy Cairo submits the following report: On October 31, the Egyptian daily al-Arabi published an interview with Rifa'I Ahmed Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group in Egypt, believed to be living in Afghanistan. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a military court in 1992 for anti-regime activities. Taha is the head of the IG shura (consultative) council, and is the most senior leader of the IG abroad. His name is on the Egyptian government's "red list" of the 14 most dangerous terrorists. In the interview, Taha states that he and other IG leaders are committed to a universal cease-fire. While he says the killing of Muslim civilians is religiously forbidden, he is less forthright about the killing of non-Muslim civilians. On the issue of negotiating with the Egyptian government, Taha believes that discussions that benefit all Muslims are acceptable, but do not constitute recognition of the regime's legitimacy, which he continues to deny. Taha also makes it clear that the main purpose of the IG is to bring Islamic law to Egypt. While he denounces the US and Israel, he claims that actions against them are secondary and less important. **** Q: Have you changed your position and become in favor of the cease-fire? A: Since the first moment the cease-fire appeal was announced we said that we had confidence in our leaders in prison to whom the appeal was attributed. Only at the beginning we had doubts that they were really the ones who issued it. As for the appeal itself, it was in the form of a call on the IG cadres inside and outside of Egypt to halt operations. With that appeal, the IG leaders fulfilled their duty for their religion, nation, and group. Q: Some people confidentially say that the cease-fire decision was mere tactics as a result of the IG losses, and not expressive of the IG's real position, and that this decision could be retracted if the need should arise. What is your opinion? A: That decision belonged to the IG. In that decision, the IG responded to the call by its leader sheik Omar Abel Rahman and its leaders in prison. It was the regime that prevented us from fulfilling our propagation duty by killing our sons, putting others behind bars, and storming mosques. This made the group defend itself and defend its honor and mosques. When it finished doing its best, it halted its operations. And this is enough. Q: Now that you have announced your acceptance of the cease-fire, why don't you consider negotiating with the government? Do you still adopt the same extremist position, namely rejection of negotiations with the regime because the regime is atheistic? A: We don't believe that it is not permissible to negotiate with the regime or reach an agreement with it. On the contrary, we believe that according to God's law negotiation is permissible as long as it is in the legal interest of Muslims. Since its establishment, the IG had no objection to negotiations, but it rejects any agreement that would stop the group from propagation or from supporting righteousness, or that would make the group revolve in the regime's orbit. Q: But how could an agreement be discussed while you are an illegal group not recognized by the government? A: This is true. The regime does not recognize us, nor do we recognize it. However, this should not block negotiation or agreement. There is a big difference between our position and the regime's position. The regime does not follow Islam and was not rightfully selected by the people, but through rigged elections. But we (on the other hand) support righteousness and have a cause, namely enabling our people to obtain their freedom and resort to religion and its values. We are hostile to the regime not only because it does not recognize, but also because it fights Islam and the supporters of Islam. The group will never recognize the legitimate presence of the regime as long as the regime continues to ignore God's law. As for negotiation, as I said earlier, it is something else; it does not mean recognizing the regime's legitimacy or acknowledging its policies. What I want to say is that negotiating with a party and/or reaching an agreement that benefits the Muslims is not considered recognition of that party's legitimacy. Q: In the wake of the Luxor massacre, there was a lot of talk about the group's position on the killing of Egyptian civilians or foreign tourists, and you were quoted as permitting the killing of non-Muslim civilians. What is the truth about this? A: The group's position on Muslim civilians of Egypt or other countries is fixed and well-known. Every Muslim condemns any attack on Muslims even if the attack is by someone who is considered a member of the Group. The group considers itself one of the defenders of civilians and one of those who incite the civilians to obtain their rights and who consider the Muslims, their blood, money, and honor untouchable. As for the Luxor operation and the killing of foreign tourists in that incident or in other incidents when the group was targeting the tourism industry in Egypt, I briefly say that the group would not condone any legitimate violations regardless of who committed them. Likewise, the group would not do something it regards as "haram" (religiously forbidden) regardless of the gains that could be achieved. The group was not targeting tourists per se or for their nationalities; the group had warned them in its statements and asked them not to come to Egypt in order not to jeopardize their lives. At the time, some European newspapers published articles saying that the group was not targeting tourists, but targeting the regime and the tourism industry. Q: Would you agree to participate in an act that targets US interests if the talk about the presence of bridges of communication with Washington is untrue? Should we expect to see IG operations against Israel? And would that take place unilaterally or in coordination with other forces, or is it all just statements for local and public opinion consumption? A: I am surprised and I denounce the talk about bridges of communications between us and the United States in light of Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman's continued presence in a US prison and in light of the US confrontation of all Islamic currents, which the US regards as the first enemy after the downfall of the Soviet Union, let alone the pursuit of Islamic and jihadist movement members which the US is doing in cooperation with regional countries. As for dealing blows at the US or the Zionist entity, I would like to stress that dealing with the United States and its protege, the Zionist entity, whether in peace or in war would take place only through an Islamic state whose policy, constitution, values, and principles are based on Islam and through a power that enables that Islamic state to safeguard its dignity and dictate its will ... Even if that Islamic state is not as strong as the United States or the Zionist entity. At an early stage after its establishment, the IG announced that the liberation of Jerusalem begins with the liberation of Cairo. Other than that, the blows dealt to the United States or the Zionist entity here or there - regardless of the importance of these blows to maintain the nation's sense of jihad - are in our opinion mere skirmishes that may disturb the enemy but would not exterminate it. What you said about local consumption, we call it (Islamic) propagation and an effort to open the eyes of the nation to its enemies. Therefore, we unmask the US role in our Arab and Islamic countries through propagation and inciting the nation to do its duty. This is not for local consumption or for satisfying public opinion. Q: Some of the recognized political parties in Egypt have called for political reform that includes the release of the prisoners of conscience in non-violence cases and the lifting of the emergency law and the amendment of the constitution. What is your position on this? A: As I have said earlier, Egypt in my opinion needs much more than political reform and freedoms. Egypt in the first place is living a crisis of identity and a crisis of being away from religion and God's shariia (Islamic law). As long as this issue is not settled, Egyptian society and the state will always be in a state of permanent unrest and instability. This state may dwindle sometimes, but it soon comes back again with different degrees. Although I am personally convinced that attempts at political reform are useless because the regime is not qualified to accept something like that, yet I support any step towards correcting the existing situation in Egypt, such as the release of all prisoners of conscience, including anyone who only did it in writing or anyone who exercised his right to defend his religion and freedom in the so-called "cases of violence." I do not agree with the parties' statement on ignoring and excluding these people and refusing to call for their release.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
