Talk:Jama'at al-Muslimin

old talk

This is rather incomplete and kind of inaccurate even. I might go through my Radical Islam books to improve it, if I have the time.--T. Anthony 00:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Removing the links on "Excommunication" and "Exodus", since Takfir and Hijra refer to the specifically Islamic versions of these concepts. AnonMoos 15:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

other translations

Page four of this document translates Takfir Wal Hijira as either "excommunication and emigration" or "anathema and exile" -- Geo Swan 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Group or ideology ?

My understanding of the Takfir is that it is a group, or well-defined organization, not simply an ideology (contrast with Salafism). I'm not sure the people listed at the end of the article really qualifies as members of Takfir, and a number of them are claimed to be members of Al Qaeda. So, can one be a member of Al Qaeda and of Takfir, although the entry claims that Takfir members attempted to assassinate Ben Laden? Either these peoples were members of Al Qaeda, or of Takfir, but both seems contradictory. Tazmaniacs 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Atonement & Migration

is the correct translation of 'Takfir wal-Hijra '. It means atone your disobedience & migrate back to obedience of God. -- 17:02, 18 November 2007 86.51.3.194

I really don't think that such words would convey the same impression to English speakers that t+k+f+y+r+ w+a+l+h+g+r+tm convey to Arabic speakers - Takfir can mean "atonement, expiation, penance", but in the context of the group's name it's generally clearly understood to mean "the act of declaring someone to be an infidel" (i.e. accusing another Muslim of not being a "real" Muslim). And Hijra is derived from a verb whose basic meaning is to go AWAY from something (not to go towards something), and is a clear reference to the historical occasion when Muhammad went away from Mecca (and later came back to conquer it). AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahle Sunnah Groups with Methodology of AlKhwarij

They have denied that they follow the beliefs of AlKhawrij & they claim to follow the beliefs of Ahle Sunnah.

founding date

According to [1], Takfir wal-Hijra was founded in 1971 by Shukri Mustafa. Is there a good source that the group was already formed in 1960s? --Vsion (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Please explain here why "neo-Khawarij" or "Salafi extremist" is the better description, instead of edit-warring... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

This article is kind of confusing, mixing information about three separate subjects - the original "Takfir wal-Hijra" group, general takfiri ideology and its supporters, and different groups calling themselves Takfir wal-Hijra today. The original Shukri Mustafa group was actually called Jama'at al-Muslimin (Society of Muslims) but was labelled Takfir wal-Hijra by Egyptian press and authorities. --80.216.162.32 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree and have tried to clarify the article. The problem is that most of the sources are equally confused. I've tried to remove all the unsourced stuff and add in some explanation of the difference between the original group and the modern "cells". The ideology section is still problematic but I'll finish editing Shukri Mustafa before getting involved there. I'm also tempted to remove the "Meaning of Takfir wal-Hijra" section, since it was given to the group by the media and they never used it themselves. --Copper button 15:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

source

One of the most recent--and definitive--articles on Takfir wa'l Hijrah is Jeffrey B. Cozzens' "Takfir wa'l Hijrah: Unpacking an Enigma," from Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 32:6 (2009). Recommend for use in this entry. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.125.2 (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

rename

Another contributor moved Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin. I couldn't find a discussion of that move, and requested the contributor who made the move to point us to the place where the move was discussed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Think he actually split or "forked" it... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

original name?

This edit introduces the assertion that Takfir is not the group's name -- however no source for this assertion has been provided. Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this point is adequately referenced in the body of the article. It can be found in pretty much any book that touches on the subject, such as Kepel's "The Prophet and the Pharoah" or Sageman's "Understanding Terror Networks". --Copper button 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Alleged members

This edit removed the names of two individuals, claiming the references did not support the men supported Takfir. I believe this was incorrect.

• According to the New York Times Guantanamo docket Saad Madi Saad al Azmi "Detainee is an Islamic extremist who has participated in extremist activity in Kuwait where he was a member of a group known as the 'Takfir Seven'"
• According to the New York Times Guantanamo docket more than half a dozen Guantanamo captives associated with Takfir. Some of those individuals later faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions, and those charges included their association with Takfir. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From what you quote, the articles link the men to Takfir, not Takfir wal-Hijra. Takfir is a concept which dates back to the earliest days of Islam - it's not exclusive to Takfir wal-Hijra. --Copper button 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

name change and division of article

[copied from Geo Swan and BoogaLouie talk pages]

You moved Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin.

I'd like to read the discussion that preceded this renaming. Could you please tell me where to look for it?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was none. Since Jama'at al-Muslimin was crushed and Shukri Mustafa executed, I thought there was enough of a distinction between Jama'at al-Muslimin and any succeeding groups calling themselves Takfir wal-Hijra to have separate articles (if for no other reason than Jama'at al-Muslimin objected to being called Takfir wal-Hijra). I originally only created a redirect from Takfir wal-Hijra to Jama'at al-Muslimin, but then I found a lot of post-Jama'at al-Muslimin sources talking about Takfir wal-Hijra, so I thought it logical to create a separate article for Takfir wal-Hijra. Do you object to the dividing of the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's conduct this discussion on Talk:Jama'at al-Muslimin. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm the one who changed the name and then divided the Takfir wal-Hijra article without a discussion first which maybe I should have engaged in, but it seems to me a good idea for reasons stated above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WRT name changes, yeah, in article space, I think they should generally be discussed first. Exceptions include when it is a new article, and other contributors haven't weighed in to any great extent.

There are some wikipedia contributors who have refined their opinions on the proper naming of articles with great precision. I am not one of those, but, in general, I think the base name of an article is generally the most widely used name, which is not always the technically correct name. We have articles on Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll and Joseph Stalin, when these three individuals' birth names were Samuel Clemens, Charles Dodgson, and Yusef Djugavili.

I hadn't really looked at this topic for several years. In some of their testimony the Guantanamo captives addressed the allegation that they were associated with Takfir. And a couple of them explain that Takfir something that was clearly a different transliteration of Jamaat al-Muslimin were the same thing. I think if they are the same thing there should be one article. If Takfir wal-Hijira is the most common name, I think it should be the basename.

References may exist, maybe I didn't look hard enough, or take my smart pills, but I didn't see any references to substantiate that Jamaat al-Muslimin is the technically correct name.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, with regard to whether the organization

1. still exists with overlapping membership that traces back to its fouding;
2. doesn't exist any more;
3. was never really active;
4. was/is only important for the ideological influence it had on other extremist groups
5. is now an important name in that brand new groups with no direct connection to founding group, have adopted the name

Well, compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR are important. If there are WP:RS who write about the group as if it still exists, we can't assert, as a fact, that the group never really existed, or no longer exists.

How reliable are US intelligence analysts? How reliable are those who draft criminal charges? I've read a lot of documents related to terrorism from the DoD, and DoJ. On a purely personal level I don't consider those documents very reliable. Those documents contain what appears to me to be some wild exagerrations. Nevertheless, I think from a purely WP:RS standpoint those documents should be seen as reliable reflections of the official position of the DoD and DoJ, and the Bush and Obama Presidencies.

I think compliance with WP:NPOV requires including coverage of reliable US Government documents that describe the group as an ongoing threat.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor responsible for much of the original text. I don't have a strong opinion on the page split - I can see the arguments in favour of having two articles, although the original group was/is far more commonly known as Takfir wal-Hijra than Jama'at al-Muslimin.

I think we're hampered by the generally poor coverage from the press etc, which seems to conflate the original group, any subsequent individual who expresses a Takfiri ideology and all the groups who have been called Takfir wal-Hijra by others. I've read fairly widely around this topic (though by no means comprehensively) and I haven't found a reputable author who takes any of it seriously. Unfortunately for us, they tend to ignore it completely rather than debunking it - Fawaz Gerges goes further than most by simply describing it as "now defunct". The only decent source I found was Jane's. The relevant passage, not available online, goes:

"However, despite the neutralisation of the original group, since the 1990s the name Takfir wa al-Hijra has been used by local authorities in Algeria and Sudan as a generic and derogatory term for local jihadists, before being similarly used in Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan and Somalia in the early 2000s. Although commonly used to describe loose knit militant cells, in several cases it has emerged that the name was used as a label for militant Islamists who were subsequently identified as distinct groups. [...] However, there is little or no evidence to suggest any connection between these incidents, or to indicate the existence of a national or international group operating under the name Al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, and it seems more likely that the name has become a label of convenience for governments to assign to any local jihadist group. This is underlined by the fact that, while takfir is an essential concept for militant Islamists to justify fighting fellow Muslims, the word takfiri is generally used as a derogatory description for extremists that kill Muslims without sufficient religious justification, and would seem an unlikely choice of name for any group looking to attract a broad following."

I understand that NPOV says we have to write what the sources say. My only argument would be that I consider Jane's a pretty authoritative source and I haven't seen the points it raises addressed anywhere else. --Copper button 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Copper button. There seem to be quite a few differences between Jama'at al-Muslimin and later so-called Al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, not least of which is that the Jama'at al-Muslimin did not think of themselves as waging jihad. This is from Kepel, who devoted a chapter of his book to Al-Jama'at al-Muslimin:

When the military judges asked Shukr what the attitude of the Society of Muslims would be if `Jewish forces` invaded Egypt, this was his reply: `If the Jews or anyone else came, our movement ought not to fight in the ranks of the Egyptian army, but on the contrary ought to flee to a secure position. In general, our line is to flee before the external and internal enemy alike, and not to resist him.`" (Muslim extremism in Egypt: the prophet and pharaoh, By Gilles Kepel p.84)

I'm going to put excerpts from both these quotes in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

more changes

Deleted this about "It advocates armed battle against Jews, Christians and apostate Muslims to restore the unity of the Islamic world order ...." as I did not find anything like that in the Kepel book (which is the most in depth source) or any other source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Designation of <'"Al-Takfir" and "Al-Hijra">' as terrorist organization(s) by the EU

The European Union maintains a list of banned organizations. Extract:

3. "Al-Aqsa e.V."
4. "Al-Takfir" and "Al-Hijra"
5. "Aum Shinrikyo"

Does line 4 = Al-Takfir wa al-Hijra = Takfir wal-Hijra? Are the quotes misplaced, or is there a real meaning to splitting "Al-Takfir" and "Al-Hijra" as if there were two separate things? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jama'at al-Muslimin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Jaballah.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222080443/http://integrityuk.org/the-evolution-of-extremist-jihadi-ideology/ to http://integrityuk.org/the-evolution-of-extremist-jihadi-ideology/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirected the page of Jama'at al-Muslimin to the page of Takfir wal-Hijra

I have redirected the page of Jama'at al muslimin to the page of Takfir wal-Hijra because Takfir wal-Hijra is the name written in all other languages of the wikipedia, the media of the world, the internet and everywhere. Kiro Bassem (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Other discussions

There are other discussions about this article in Talk: Takfir wal-Hijra. Go check it out. Note: this is the talk page of the article Jama'at al-Muslimin, which I redirected to Takfir wal-Hijra. Kiro Bassem (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)