Is exclusivity hazardous?

Is exclusivity hazardous?

This country has seen many splinter religious groups although
only a few of them have become national topics. At least not many
of them -- including Darul Hadis -- have been the subject of
heated debate like Darul Arqam, an exclusive Islamic group whose
popularity has become ubiquitous in several areas of the country
lately.

The group is now in hot water for its apparent exclusivity.
And its fast-growing popularity seems to have caused concern
among the authorities. Even the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI)
has become suspicious that the group is spreading devious
interpretations of Islamic theology. The local ulemas councils in
West Sumatra and Aceh have gone so far as to ban the group's
chapters there on charges they are creating unrest among the
religious public.

Although Darul Arqam itself has not made a public defense the
worsening relationship between Al Arqam -- its fountainhead in
Malaysia -- and the government of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad
has not helped improved Darul Arqam's position here. Mahathir and
deputy Anwar Ibrahim, who have ordered Al Arqam's leader Imam
Ashaari Muhammad At Tamimi to leave Malaysia, are themselves
known to be devout Moslems, who have paid great attention to the
development of Islam in that country.

In Indonesia, where religious problems are treated as very
sensitive matters, the government is being careful in its
consideration of what to do about Darul Arqam. Minister of
Religious Affairs Tarmizi Taher said that the government will not
be in a hurry to take any measures against the group.

This policy of stepping lightly across a potential minefield
is clearly geared to make sure the authorities do not make the
situation worse with any move they make.

The most complicated questions involved here, perhaps, are
just to what extent Darul Arqam's interpretation of Islamic
teachings have the potential to cause trouble, and whether any
dissension caused remains within the limits inherent to the
teachings themselves. It would be counterproductive to ban any
organization while the beliefs propagated could remain alive.

Another equally sensitive question is just how serious the
group's political activities are to our public, if what they have
done so far is simply to make statements attacking neighboring
countries, as Minister Tarmizi has charged.

Still another question now is whether there is still room for
the wisdom of discussion, for example, between Moslem
intellectuals and Darul Arqam leaders in an attempt to brush
aside misunderstandings on religious interpretations and to get a
clear picture of whether the group is just a thareqat (mystical
order).

Last but not least, if the authorities really do ban the
group, we hope that the group's leaders are given the opportunity
to defend themselves. The government will also have to spell out
clearly all reasons for such a measure, both religious and
political. This particular element is important in order to give
a three-dimensional image of the relationship between the state
and religion here.

In Malaysia, the situation existing when Mahathir emasculated
Al Arqam was different from that here at the current time. The
people there already understood the negative impacts of the
group's beliefs.

But whatever verdict the government here makes, it is
interesting to study why a group like Al Arqam -- despite its
exclusivity -- has gained such an easy foothold, not only in
Malaysia, but also in other Asian countries, inclusive of
Indonesia.