Case Analysis of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya (IG)

The terrorist organization located in southern Egypt was created in 1973. Al-Gama’ adheres to strict religious ideals at Al-Islamiyya. The revolutionary group, however, does not hold any area. Furthermore, it has no ties to or is supported by drug traffickers. Its principal goal is to have Egypt’s present secular government deposed in order to make room for the establishment of an Islamic state. Al-efforts Gama’s in Al-Islamiyya have resulted in substantial losses of life and property. For example, from 1998 to 2012, there were seven reported fatalities as a result of their operations. The principal method used in its functioning is a series of violent attacks against the government. Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya began as a radical umbrella for militant student groups. Its formation was a form of reaction against the renunciation of violence by Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s. Presently IG is comprised of approximately 500 Sunni Muslims and it is the most popular in Egypt. Its members are primarily college students and unemployed graduates residing in urban areas around Egypt. Since its formation, the terrorist organization has experienced a variety of changes. For example, it split in 1997 with one faction under Mustapha Hamza standing for a ceasefire while the other faction led by Rifa’I Taha denouncing it (National Consortium for the Study of Terorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2017). Currently, one of the groups is still supporting the jihadist actions while the other stands for peace and stability reforms. As stated earlier, the organization’s participation in politics emerged after the division into factions. One of its members, Adel-el-Khayat was appointed as a governor of Luxor in 2013 but his tenure did not last even a week. The indifference in ideologies translated to conflicts within the group. For instance, the renouncing group was responsible for the 45-minute Luxor attack at the Temple of Hatshepsut that led to 71 deaths. Eventually, the party renounced violence in 2003 but reappeared in 2011 and formed Building and Development political party that won seats in the Egyptian lower house 2011-2012 elections.

Radical leaders of the group that have served since 2004 include Omar Abdul-Rahman and the late Ahmed Rafai Taha who was executed by the Egyptian authorities. The Moderate(Shura) council members include Karam Zohdy, Ali Al-Sharif, Ossamma Hatez, Badri Makhilouf, Hisham Abdul al-Zahir and Mamdouh Youssef, all who have served since 2004. The moderate military council members include Hassan al-Khalifa, Ahmed Bakri, Gharib al-Shahadat and Sha’aban Haridi since 2004.The group’s strength has been declining since its formation.The group has a variety of sources that fund its activities. For example, before 2001, Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya received funding from popular militant Islamic groups including Al-Qaida. In 2011, there were intelligences that the group had been receiving money from Germany Muslim Brotherhood networks as charities in the 1990s (National Consortium for the Study of Terorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2017). In addition, there were reports that was receiving funding from countries such Sudan and Iran.

In 1989, IG had nearly 200,000 members but the number had declined to approximately 500 in 2008. The primary suspected allies of the group include AL Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Muslim Brotherhood. The countries that are suspected to be sponsors of the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya terrorist group include Iran and Sudan. The primary enemies of the group include the foreign tourists who the group purports to be representatives of Western culture and secularism and the Egyptian government (National Consortium for the Study of Terorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2017). As opposed to the radical group that perceives the Egyptian government as a bitter rival, the moderate faction of IG perceives that the Egyptian government is merely a political rival in its quest to make Egypt an Islamic state.

To counter its activities, the government of Egypt resorted to creating laws illegalizing the group. The Egyptian government aimed at dissolving Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya and arresting its members in the early 1980s to suppress it .The law enforcement approach was accompanied by military operations which incorporated destruction of the infrastructure owned by the group. Politically, the government convinced the group to renounce violence in 2003. The political model came to fruition when the relations between the group and the government improved through peace talks. Eventually, IG group was incorporated in the governance of Egypt through its Building and Development Party.

Potential environmental for the formation of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya.

Ordinarily, parallel religious and political radicalization are precursors to the extremism that is exhibited by the groups such as Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya. Countries are prone to radicalization during crises where all members of the entire spectrum are affected. In the Egyptian case, the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya. Group emerged as a result of inherent and unsolved religious relationship conflicts within the Egyptian society. Poor relationships with the local minority religions influenced the choice of tactics, strategic objectives, and targets of the terrorist attacks. The relationships worsened when Muslim members of the Egyptian society perceived that their actions are the most appropriate in the society as opposed to those of their religious counterparts .Terrorism activities such as the massacre that led to the death of 71 people emanated from the perception that violence against those with opposing views is the only legitimate approach to making them accept that Islam is the most superior religion and hence they must change their religious views that conflicted with Islam.

The Egyptian government also played a crucial role in the growth of the IG group. For instance, it might have held onto the assumption that the network of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya was not a threat because it was too loose, financially constrained to undertake terrorist actions nurtures the terrorist group. President More so, the arrest and detention of the members of the group increased anger towards the government. Some of the actions of the government depicted carelessness in the treatment of those suspected of terrorism activities. Sources indicate that the leader of Egypt, President Anwar Sadat released a large number of prisoners without tracking their movements thereafter. Such treatment of convicts led to creation and reorganization for the militant group across Egypt.

Politically, the government of Egypt failed to exhibit strong interest in the waging aggressive action against Israel in the 1970s which angered the group. The IG developed a feeling that their government was pro-Zionist and a sympathizer of the Semites at the expense of its Arab citizens and allies. Furthermore, President Anwar Sadat’s alignment with the USA foreign policy was an indicator of “shameful people with Jews” to the members of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya. The group used the resulting outrage towards the government and the Zionist enemy to launch a terrorist group to air their grievances. A feeling of neglect of Arab neighbours in favour of the west translated to increased animosity against the government which made many people join the group to express their dissatisfaction. The subsequent growing opposition of the group by the government triggered tension between the members of IG group and the government. The growing perception that the government’s decision was similar to supporting Israel was an assault on values of Islam and Islam itself. The feelings cultivated individual and group grievances against the government, thereby promoting the emergence and growth of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya.

Moreover, the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya’s close ties with the AL Qaeda group enhanced the exchange of important information that led to a growth of operations (Smith, 2011). The ties enhanced better member understanding about terrorism activities and the most effective ways of launching attacks on the Egyptian government at any time.

Psychological Theories for the Explanation of the Radicalization in Egypt.

Identity Theory

Ordinarily, extremism remains a viable option for people that are highly committed to a particular group if it is the most appropriate means of achieving significance. The dynamics within the IG group can be explained using the group identity theory. The conceptualized group identity develops in four phases; encounter, immersion and internalization. The development of the identity negotiation begins at the critical point (salience) where the persons realize their differences with the people around (Kruglansky & Webber, 2014). They judge the outsiders based on their race and religion. The majority that is not religiously strict is perceived as a rival to the religion. After the experience, the individuals encounter others with different and team up with them. With the similar ways of thinking among the members, emotional strain develops in each individual and translate to changes in preferences and loyalties in favor of the stricter adherence to the religious doctrines. Religious teachings and practices are core to the process of radicalization and emergence of terrorist groups such as Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya s in Egypt. The process of religious radicalization entails not only religious education but also indoctrination.

Identity gives comfort to those with emotional distress and unambiguous identity during the time of uncertainty. While ideologies entail a shared reality and containing group mystifications and social illusions that undergo validation through social consensus. People turn to ideologies that are anchored in the collective beliefs of the Islamic group(Bhui, Dinos & Jones, 012). Commitment to ideology relies on social connections and group pressure to espouse ideological views. Friendship groups are created around the extremist ideas emanating from the teachings of the religious leaders such as the Imams. Radical views stem from the majority of Muslims in the community. The friendship coalescing around radicalism becomes increasingly isolated from the larger Muslim community (Kruglansky & Webber, 2014). Gradually, the former perceptions and beliefs about the sanctity of rest of the Muslim community wanes. The process translates to a scenario where people that were formerly secular become increasingly religious. It is the main reason why the members of the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya perceive that the rest of the community is not pure, and such purity can be enhanced through creation of an Islamic state. They value the spiritual rewards more than the material rewards, which indicates a gradual shift from the short-term opportunities to a long-term worldly vision. The jihadist attitude of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya can be attributed to valuing of spiritual goals more than the material values. The disintegration of the previous non-extremist social ties lead to formation of new groups with unique identity that exhibits elements of rivalry towards the previous group and other groups.

Ideally, the radicalization of some of the Islamic believers emanated from the notion that the secular government failed to adhere to the rules of Islam, therefore acting as an outsider. At the beginning, the members of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya believed that the secular Egyptian community was imperfect because it exhibited lenience the Islamic faith. The members were not willing to tolerate other religious faiths because it could signify a weakness in their religious beliefs. Justification of violence against apostates, their supporters of apostates is done with an assumption that it is the best way in which real Muslims observe strict adherence to extreme interpretations of religious faith. Terrorism justifying ideologies instruct individuals to engage in terrorism to achieve significance when the group and its activities are threatened

The Jihadist attitudes such as the 45-minute Luxor attack at the Temple of Hatshepsut that led to 71 deaths can be explained by the indoctrination process where a person that identifies himself with a particular group sacrifices everything to protect his or her life. Indoctrinated group members can harm those that are indifferent from them to change them or punish them for their disobedience (Kruglansky & Webber, 2014). With the loyalty to the teachings of their religion and leaders, the members prove their devotion to the ultimate authority to quench the thirst brought about by feelings of significance. The jihadist ideologies arose from the indoctrination process. Ideally, Islamic religion was the primary fabric that identified and united and strengthened the member’s social-political ideals and aspirations. As a result, the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya members lived on the assumption that the secular state of Egypt was a threat to its perceptions about Islamic religion and principles. The group resorted to utilization of extreme interpretations of Islam including killing their rivals to channel hatred and discontent towards those that were indifferent from them including the government, the pro-western and the pre-Christian.

The jihadist activities also reflect on the idea of conflict resolution when one’s identity is threatened. The resolution of conflicts entails dominating attempts to reach an agreement by standing firm and exhibiting stubbornness in the process as well as emotional expressions that entail reaching a solution using ‘gut ‘reactions (Bhui, Dinos & Jones, 012). The members of the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya are mainly youthful residents of urban centres. The membership is an illustration of vulnerability of young people to identity crises. More specifically, extremist ideologies and violent protests such as those of Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya appeal to youthful, disaffected and people that are socially-isolated who are searching for positive identities.

What is more, the division of the group into factions in the 1990 is also attributed conflict resolution. The religious extremism is based on the perception of like-mindedness. People with similar thinking strive to agree and avoid isolation, compete for the same resources condense the ideas and desires. The two factions actually disagreed on the best approach to facilitate sustenance and extension of religious polarisations.

Motivation Theory

The Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya members had individualistic ideas about the state but Islamic religion presented a shared bond among them. Those identified with the group were motivated by common religious notions and assumptions such as jilted beliefs, seeking acceptance, converting protesters, and appropriate interpretation of faith. To exhibit the ideal characteristics of a Muslim, abandonment of social routines, customs, and relations that make a Muslim religiously impure was the best option. Those with shared beliefs formed the most appropriate Islamic group and the consequent association with those sharing similar thoughts and convictions could help to strengthen and maintain a dedication to the strict Islamic faith. Engaging in violent terrorist activities is linked with the process of indoctrination. Specifically, it arose when the members reached attained the highest state of commitment to serve the purpose of faith that they had been called for.

Based on the dynamics of the group, the motivation for individual and groups to join Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya include attaining political and religious goals, such as removal of religious impurities from the homeland and allow Islam to thrive. On the individual basis, the motivation comprised of searching for individual honor, revenging for humiliation, and injustices and desire to gain a social status, monetary benefits and showing loyalty to a leader and desire to go to heaven(Bhui, Dinos & Jones, 012). Despite that the individual motives differed from the group motives, both incorporated the fundamental human end to gain respect, achieve and earn self-esteem or a sense of value. Motivation is present among people that perceive that they have been disrespected or humiliated such as those arrested for being members of the group. Failure to act induces feelings of insignificance, hence trying to make others subdue to their faith prevents such feelings.

Conclusion

Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya primarily emerged as a result of religious and political radicalization of some Egyptians. The member of the group perceived that the secular society that exhibited leniency in observing the doctrines of Islam was inappropriate hence resorted to using different means to change it in accordance with their extreme interpretations of the teachings of Islam. The rise of the terrorist group can be explained with the concept of identity and motivation. Ideally, the members of the Al-Gama’ at Al-Islamiyya separated themselves from the rest of the society that they perceived to be impure for not adhering to the Islamic doctrines. For them, Islam was a dominant and stable identity that created an assurance amidst confusing identities. They were also motivated by the promise of spiritual gains as opposed to material gains.

References

Bhui, K., Dinos, S., & Jones, E. (2012). Psychological process and pathways to radicalization. Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense, 5, 1-5. https://www.omicsonline.org/psychological-process-and-pathways-to-radicalization-2157-2526.S5-003.pdf

Kruglansky, W. A., & Webber, D. (2014). The psychology of radicalization. http://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2014_9_843.pdf

National Consortium for the Study of Terorism and Responses to Terrorism. (2017). Al-Gama’at Al-Islamiyya(IG). Retrieved from Start: http://www.start.umd.edu/baad/database/al-gamaat-al-islamiyya-ig-2012

Smith, L. (2011). The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Anchor.