pegharaman arqam

The banning of Darul Arqam in Malaysia

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid

On 25 October 2004, the Malaysian government made a historicdecision by releasing Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad, the former leader ofDarul Arqam, the Islamic movement which had been controversiallybanned nationwide through a ruling issued by the National FatwaCouncil on 5 August 1994. He was freed from restrictions imposedupon him since being arrested under the Internal Security Act on 2September 1994.1 The release ended what had arguably been one ofthe longest, if not the longest, detention orders applied in Malaysia onleaders of independent movements and organisations who hadmounted a challenge to the state. Speculation about the release hadspread for two months,2 especially since the momentous decision bythe Federal Court to quash the conviction on former Deputy PrimeMinister Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy, thereby granting him freedomafter six years in prison. Despite the government’s insistence that thejudiciary had come to its decision independently, the Malaysian publicwidely saw the liberal hand of the executive influencing the court.3Since assuming power in late October 2003, Prime Minister AbdullahAhmad Badawi has made an effort to establish ‘good governance’ anda ‘people-friendly image’ as hallmarks of his administration (KhooBoo Teik 2004: 8–10).

Despite the official purpose of detaining, under the HomeMinister’s authority, anybody who ‘has acted or is about to act or islikely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia’(ALIRAN 1988: 24), the Internal Security Act has often served as aconvenient tool for ruling politicians to stifle opposition, whethercoming from within or beyond ruling party circles. A detainee underthe Act can be held without trial for a preliminary period of sixty dayspending investigation, followed by a two-year period of confirmed

Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, vol. 39, no. 1 (2005), pp. 87–128.

detention, renewable indefinitely on a two-yearly basis, subject torecommendations from the Special Branch and an appointed AdvisoryBoard (Lent 1984: 443–4). Upon release, detainees may have a furtherrestriction order imposed upon them, effectively confining theirmovements to a designated locality and circumscribing their publicrole (Barraclough 1985: 808). In Ustaz Ashaari’s case, his movementwas confined to the Gombak district in Selangor from the end ofOctober 1994 until February 2002, when he was forcibly transportedto Labuan, off the coast of Sabah, where he remained until October2004. Throughout the period, he had to report to the nearest policestation once a week and was not allowed to be outside his residence atnight. The identity of his visitors and the subject of conversations hehad with them were closely monitored.

Having established Darul Arqam, a seemingly innocentreligious study group in the lower middle class Dato’ Keramat suburbin Kuala Lumpur in 1968, Ustaz Ashaari rapidly developed themovement by means of intense self-purification and soul-searchingactivities. Early recruits were generally young, first generation rural-urban migrants who formed the upcoming Malay middle class. Suchurban spiritualism laid the foundation for a powerful sense ofsolidarity and commitment among adherents, who were prepared tosacrifice material comfort in order to create model Islamic villageswhich sprouted around the country after the founding of DarulArqam’s pioneering Sungai Penchala settlement in the outskirts ofKuala Lumpur in 1973. The settlements became bases where courseson the essentials of Islam were organised, missionary activities wereplanned, economic enterprises were set up, schools were built, medicalfacilities were offered and publications were produced. In the 1980s,Darul Arqam expanded internationally, as shown by Ustaz Ashaari’sdecision in 1988 to travel abroad more or less continuously. By theearly 1990s, Darul Arqam had burgeoned into a self-styled businessempire with an extensive global network whose influence penetratedmainstream socio-political circles. The clampdown on Darul Arqam in1994 involved persistent vilification in the mainstream media, raidsinto Darul Arqam communal villages by the security forces, wantonconfiscation of property, job and scholarship suspension, state-incited

88 Ahmad Fauzi

social boycott, a ban on overseas travel, detentions of Darul Arqamleaders under the Internal Security Act and mass arrests of followersfor minor criminal offences such as failing to register marriages anddistributing illegal publications. The wholesale proscription of DarulArqam, by necessitating the closure of its economic activities andinstitutions, led to its 8,000 strong workforce almost instantlybecoming unemployed. The former Darul Arqam members had toundergo special classes of the state Islamic Centre (Pusat Islam), laterrenamed the Islamic Advancement Department of Malaysia (JAKIM:Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia).4

Having had their livelihood disrupted if not destroyed, DarulArqam’s former followers paid a heavy price for its dissolution. TheseMalay-Muslims, despite the anti-establishment tag put on them, had infact contributed to Malay economic development, thus realising amajor target of the New Economic Policy (Nagata 1984: 107, 113;1997: 138). But in the true manner of neo-feudal Malay patronagepolitics, these achievements were not acknowledged by the statebecause they took place outside the network of state institutions andparties dominated by ruling elites. Independent Malays wereconsidered dangerous because their power base and loyalty would benecessarily independent of official corridors of political, economicand social influence (cf. Nidzam Sulaiman 2002). The demise of DarulArqam abruptly stopped a bold attempt to create Malay-Muslims whocould develop independently from the state, though the state’scrackdown on Darul Arqam was undertaken in the name of guardingthe sanctity of Islam.

Throughout the ‘Darul Arqam versus the state’ saga, thegovernment consistently stressed that the stern measures againstDarul Arqam were based on religious rather than political grounds(Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid 2000: 36). As we proceed to examine thisclaim in the following sections, it will become clear to readers that thegovernment’s strategy of demonising Darul Arqam relied significantlyupon a compliant mainstream media, whose freedom had experiencedconsiderable erosion throughout Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’stempestuous Premiership (1981–2003). Steady restructuring of mediaownership since the 1970s meant that by the late 1980s, major

The banning of Darul Arqam in Malaysia 89

Malaysian newspapers and television stations had been either directlycontrolled by the government or indirectly via share acquisitions byinvestment subsidiaries of the ruling elites. To make matters worse,Dr. Mahathir’s era had been notoriously marked by unabashedexpression of and hold on to antipathetic views on press freedom(Lent 1984: 451-2, Means 1991: 137–41). From the moment of theauthorities’ declaration in 1986 of Darul Arqam being suspected ofpractising deviant teachings, the media played a crucial role in buildinga negative public image of Darul Arqam through a vicious onslaughtof libellous and biased coverage, the intensity of which fluctuated butoccasionally reached high points in 1986, 1988, 1991 and ultimately1994.

The transformation of the relationship between DarulArqam and the Malaysian state

Darul Arqam had earned the ‘deviant’ tag in the mid-1970s, when itsattempt to revive elementary Islamic practices, as manifested in itsmanners of eating, dressing and communicating, was widely viewed asantithetical to the modern values advocated by the socio-politicalestablishment. Allegedly displaying anti-progressive attitudes, DarulArqam pioneers fostered in many minds the image of religious fanaticsaspiring to recreate the ‘age of the camel’ within their retreats(Muhammad Syukri Salleh 1995: 228–9). The earliest newspaper articleon Darul Arqam accused it of basically inventing a ‘new religion’which demanded total abandonment of worldly comfort (UtusanMelayu 26 May 1976). Public misinterpretation of Darul Arqam’sendeavour was predictable in view of the widespread ignorance ofIslam beyond the paradigm set by the dominant post-Independenceliberal-capitalist thinking and refurbished by post-1969 leaders ofnational reconstruction. Despite contemptuous responses to DarulArqam growing in society and the pro-establishment media, thepolitical authorities took hardly any notice (Muhammad Syukri Salleh1992: 102–7). A handful of recluses who seemingly shunned worldlypursuits and were in turn shunned by society was hardly an irritationto the state. Probably convinced that Darul Arqam’s influence wouldremain marginal, the political elites were content to maintain minimal

90 Ahmad Fauzi


surveillance of Darul Arqam at a time when the political potential ofIslamic resurgence was beginning to cause apprehension in officialcircles. The officially-sanctioned Islamic Centre did react to publicpressure by dispatching an investigation team to Darul Arqam’s mainsettlement in Sungai Penchala, but despite reservations about DarulArqam’s alien world-view and lifestyle, this team came out with largelypositive findings (Mingguan Islam 21 Oct. 1988).

As Darul Arqam’s socio-economic and dakwah (missionary)activities began to create a significant impression among the Malay-Muslims, especially the urban youth who flocked in large numbers toself-contained Darul Arqam villages to join their Islamic activities,Darul Arqam’s exclusive ‘anti-development’ image was tacitly acceptedas inaccurate. This change of perception was reflected in the officialcooperation extended to Darul Arqam’s economic projects, and thereception of influential government figures at Darul Arqam functions(Nagata 1984: 112, Hussin Mutalib 1990: 89). The cordial visit toDarul Arqam’s principal headquarters by the Federal Territory mufti,Syeikh Mohsin Salleh, in 1978 did much to dispel the notion that theIslamic practices enjoined by Darul Arqam differed substantially fromthose of the Muslim masses (Al Islam June 1978). A minor outcryagainst Darul Arqam surfaced in 1979 amidst the expulsion of sixleading members for allegedly questioning Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad’sunorthodox teachings, but this issue was quickly resolved by anamicable discussion between Darul Arqam leaders and Islamic Centreofficials, and the consequent agreement of Ustaz Ashaari to clarify hismystical beliefs in the following December issue of the Al-Arqamnewspaper (Kedah Religious Affairs Department 1994: 3–4,Meuleman 1996: 52). The first official recognition of Darul Arqam bythe political establishment came in the same year when Ustaz Ashaariwas summoned to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, DrMahathir Mohamad, to explain the nature of Darul Arqam’s activities.Having apparently been convinced that Darul Arqam’s struggle didnot forsake the world and was therefore not antithetical to the aims ofthe New Economic Policy, Dr Mahathir was reported to haveexpressed admiration for the ambitions of Darul Arqam (AshaariMuhammad 1993b: x–xii).5 Paradoxically, it was during Dr Mahathir’s

term as prime minister that the relationship between Darul Arqam andthe Malaysian state deteriorated to the point at which reconciliationbecame impossible.

In 1986, in the wake of the resignation of and revelations bythe erstwhile Deputy Sheikh Al-Arqam, Ustaz Mokhtar Yaakub, thegovernment began to unearth allegedly deviant (sesat) practices ofDarul Arqam. Propaganda against Darul Arqam’s peculiar lifestyle wassuperseded by allegations of theological ‘deviationism’, which cameofficially from the Islamic Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’sDepartment (BAHEIS: Bahagian Hal Ehwal Islam Jabatan PerdanaMenteri) and were sanctioned by its political masters.6 There wererelentless media attacks on supposedly Darul Arqam doctrines.7 At thecentre of the dispute were the theological status of the AuradMuhammadiah8 and certain practices associated with it, and DarulArqam’s position with respect to the Imam al-Mahdi.9 Darul Arqam’sresponse to the allegations came not in the form of replies through thegovernment-controlled media or outbursts of unruly behaviour, butrather through the intensification of dakwah, social services andexplanations to the public. Theologically, Ustaz Ashaari defended histeachings in his book Aurad Muhammadiah Pegangan Darul Arqam(Aurad Muhammadiah: The Conviction of Darul Arqam) (1986), towhich the Islamic Centre replied with an anonymously writtendiscourse, Penjelasan Terhadap Buku Aurad Muhammadiah Pegangan DarulArqam (An Explanation of the book ‘Aurad Muhammadiah: TheConviction of Darul Arqam’) (1986).

The intellectual exchange of arguments between theauthorities and Darul Arqam, however, was short-lived. In 1988,unambiguous declarations of Darul Arqam’s deviationism were madeby the Islamic Centre (Utusan Malaysia 22 Sept., 12 Oct. 1988; BeritaHarian 14 Oct. 1988), and followed by state religious councils.10 Thebook Aurad Muhammadiah Pegangan Darul Arqam was banned, and thepublishing permits of seven Darul Arqam’s newspapers andmagazines were revoked by the Home Affairs Ministry for fear theywould lead the public astray by disseminating the AuradMuhammadiah.11 Denied of nearly all means of communication withthe public, Ustaz Ashaari questioned the banning and the unilateral

92 Ahmad Fauzi


declarations of Darul Arqam’s deviationism and replied to the bookPenjelasan with another book, Berhati-Hati Membuat Tuduhan (Be Carefulin Making Allegations) (1989). Nevertheless, response from theauthorities came in the form of intensified allegations and repressiveregulations.

Throughout the 1990s, the Malaysian public witnessed asystematic campaign against Darul Arqam launched through the massmedia and the distribution of pamphlets, Friday sermons and publiclectures in mosques, offices, universities and places of public interest(cf. Abdul Khaliq 1993: 8–16, Haswan 1993: 12–23). With theintervention of senior Malaysian political figures, allegations againstDarul Arqam mixed theological and non-theological, primarilysecurity, issues. Following a firm declaration by the Chief Director ofthe Islamic Centre banning all Darul Arqam activities and products ingovernment departments, agencies and ministries — a ban whichwould also in due course cover statutory bodies, local authorities,political organisations and the private sector (Utusan Malaysia 12 Sept.1991)12 — the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, stated that the activities ofthe Sheikh Al-Arqam would be investigated to ascertain whether ornot they were dangerous and threatened national security (BeritaMinggu 15 Sept. 1991). Pronouncing that the decision to ban DarulArqam was made by Islamic experts, Dr Mahathir unconditionallydeclared that Darul Arqam had deviated from Islam (Utusan Malaysia14 Sept. 1991, Berita Harian 14 Sept. 1991). A similar allegation waslater reiterated by his deputy, Ghafar Baba (Utusan Malaysia 28 Sept.1991). These were followed by the commitment given by the DeputyHome Affairs Minister, Megat Junid Megat Ayub, that Darul Arqamleaders would be arrested under the Internal Security Act if theiractions were found to create tension and jeopardise national harmony(Utusan Malaysia 27 Sept. 1991). On the sluggishness of thegovernment to enforce the ban, Deputy Minister at the PrimeMinister’s Department, Dr. Abdul Hamid Othman, replied thataggressive action against Darul Arqam would turn its supporterstowards militancy (Berita Harian 12 Oct. 1991, New Straits Times 18 Oct.1992). Allegations surfaced of Ustaz Ashaari’s extravagant lifestyleabroad and of Darul Arqam illegally operating its own radio station

(Berita Harian 7 Dec. 1991, Utusan Malaysia 6 Oct. 1991). Permits fornewly published Darul Arqam magazines were revoked without anyjustification being given.13

In 1993, following Dr. Abdul Hamid’s accusation that DarulArqam was manipulating Islam to highlight the image of its leader asa political hero (Berita Harian 24 Feb. 1993), the Chief Director of theIslamic Centre claimed that militancy had crept into Darul Arqam,which allegedly harboured designs to overthrow the government byrevolutionary means (Berita Harian 4 May, 6 May 1993). After thePrime Minister stressed yet again that Darul Arqam activities would beclamped down on (Utusan Malaysia 8 May 1993), a prominent UnitedMalays National Organisation (UMNO)14 senator urged thegovernment to confiscate Ustaz Ashaari’s passport. He claimed thatDarul Arqam was more dangerous than the communists, that UstazAshaari had ambitions to become Prime Minister, that Darul Arqammembers believed their leader was the Imam al-Mahdi, and that theDarul Arqam lifestyle so promoted promiscuity that syphilis was rifeamong its members (Berita Harian 26 May 1993).15

While state religious officials and politicians in charge ofIslamic affairs tried to justify government actions from a theologicalpoint of view, other politicians and bureaucrats from the ruling elite,in their occasional outbursts, failed to portray the ‘Darul Arqam versusgovernment’ controversy as a strictly non-political affair. For example,the clampdown of 1994 was triggered by the Islamic Centre’s chargethat Darul Arqam had formed a 313-men ‘suicide army’ based inBangkok in a plan to take over power in Malaysia through militantmeans (Utusan Malaysia 13 June 1994, 14 June 1994). The InformationMinister, Mohamed Rahmat, simultaneously accused Darul Arqam ofharbouring extreme political ambitions (Utusan Malaysia 14 June 1994).Immediately following the fatwa (legal ruling) banning Darul Arqam,Deputy Minister at the Prime Minister’s Department, Dr Abdul HamidOthman insisted that Darul Arqam’s concept of Imam al-Mahdi was apolitical concept which had been associated with a religious struggle(Utusan Malaysia 6 Aug. 1994). Following the Internal Security Actarrests, the Malaysian Police Chief claimed to have extractedinformation from Ustaz Ashaari, under interrogation, proving that

94 Ahmad Fauzi


Darul Arqam had plans to capture political power ‘through magic andviolence’ (The Nation 17 Sept. 1994).

Clearly, as Darul Arqam expanded in size and influence, thestate had, on its own volition, transformed the nature of itsrelationship with Darul Arqam from one of provisional toleration toone of overt hostility. While concerns about Darul Arqam’s lifestyleand religious beliefs and practices had ostensibly determined thegovernment’s actions until the late 1980s, statements by ruling elites inthe 1990s suggested that antagonism between both parties hadassumed political proportions, despite official disclaimers to thecontrary. But insofar as it needed a religious justification to act againstDarul Arqam, which was not legally registered, the government had tocontinue using Islam to conceal more directly political motives. Sincethe ‘Darul Arqam episode’ had always been presented by thegovernment as a purely religious affair devoid of political motives,16 itis pertinent to examine the contending arguments from just such aperspective.

Theological dimensions in the ‘Darul Arqam versus theMalaysian state’ crisis

In its 5 August 1994 ruling outlawing Darul Arqam, the NationalFatwa Council listed nine facets of Darul Arqam’s teachingsconsidered to have deviated from Islam.17 These, however, and othercharges of theological deviationism against Darul Arqam may beclassified under three broad headings; the theological validity of theAurad Muhammadiah, the nature of Darul Arqam’s belief in theImam al-Mahdi and fanaticism of Darul Arqam members towardstheir leader. The first two issues had consistently been the sources ofcontention between the official religious authorities and Darul Arqam,as revealed in public statements by representatives of the IslamicAffairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department (BAHEIS) andthe booklets and documents it published on the matter (Berita Harian10 June 1993, 16 July 1994; BAHEIS 1986, 1993, n.d.). The issue ofDarul Arqam’s alleged fanaticism, although existent from the earlystages of the controversy, became conspicuous only in the 1990s, afterthe unprecedented interest shown by hitherto indifferent politicians

who tried to justify their arguments in religious terms, hence practicallyforcing the official ulama to follow suit.

Theological validity of the Aurad Muhammadiah

Dispute concerning the status of the Aurad Muhammadiah, as appliedby Darul Arqam, concerned both the tariqah’s foundational basis andelements of its practice. First and foremost, the official religiousauthorities contested Darul Arqam’s belief that the AuradMuhammadiah was taught directly by the deceased ProphetMuhammad to Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi during ayaqazah18 in Makkah, as related in the biography of the tariqah’sfounder written by his eldest grandson, Mohd. Taha Suhaimi (1990:26–7) and cited approvingly by Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986:34–5). The authorities refuted the possibility of such a yaqazah, whicharguably implied that the shariah, as contained in the Quran andSunnah, was incomplete.19 Acknowledging yaqazah apparentlydegraded both the Quran and the missionary character of the ProphetMuhammad (Berita Harian 10 June 1993), whose death in 632 was anaccomplished fact. Communication with the dead was said to be totallyimpossible, for it went against both Divine Revelation and immutablelaws of nature, such that Darul Arqam’s claim that the founder of theAurad Muhammadiah received it directly from the ProphetMuhammad was judged to be fabrication and nonsense (BAHEIS1993: 15, 19; n.d.: 30). Moreover, it was argued that no mention ofyaqazah could be found in the stories of the Prophet Muhammad’scompanions, who were presumably more in need of his directguidance to confront chronic problems besetting Muslims of theirtime (BAHEIS 1993: 11). Referring to a fatwa by the Makkan-basedRabitah Al-Alam Al-Islami, a highly respected Islamic legal body,BAHEIS declared that claims of ‘the dead maintain[ing] physicalcommunication with the living, although the latter are allegedlyendowed with supernatural abilities, are absolutely false’ (1986: 79–80).

Although Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986: 68–71)corroborated his claim with Quranic and Prophetic evidence allowingfor the Prophet Muhammad’s posthumous encounters withsucceeding generations among his ummah,20 the authorities argued that

96 Ahmad Fauzi

his interpretations of the relevant texts had strayed from theconsensus of scholars of tafsir and hadith (BAHEIS 1986: 21–6,65–79; 1993: 20-1, n.d.: 12). Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986: 70–3)also quoted anecdotes from classical sufi texts and personal admissionsof prominent sufi scholars proving that yaqazah with the ProphetMuhammad had taken place, but the authenticity of his references wasseverely questioned. For example, BAHEIS (1986: 26) rejected UstazAshaari’s use of episodes from the mediaeval book Sharh al-sudur asincapable of scientific authentication, and implied that such writingswere influenced by the Hindu doctrine of the ‘reincarnation of thesoul’. This disregarded the fact that Sharh al-sudur was compiled by Jalalal-din al-Suyuti (d. 1505), the renowned Egyptian jurist universallyrecognised as a great Islamic mujaddid (reformer) (cf. Atiqul Haque1990: 113–15), and who, according to Mohd. Taha Suhaimi (1990: 28)and Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986: 71, 1989: 109), admitted to havemet and spoken with the deceased Prophet Muhammad seventy-fivetimes. The religious authorities manifestly held that the authoritativereputation of a scholar was not enough to validate his findings andcompilations.

Of Darul Arqam’s ritual practices declared to have deviatedfrom true Islamic teachings, two towered in importance above others.Firstly, there was the allegedly longer shahadah contained in the AuradMuhammadiah, whereby the practitioner was expected toacknowledge, after the normal attestation of faith to Allah and theProphet Muhammad, the Righteous Caliphates of Abu Bakr (d. 635),Umar (d. 644), Uthman (d. 656) and Ali (d. 661), and of the futureMuhammad al-Mahdi. The whole addition was deemed to be publiclymisleading, besides the claim that including Al-Mahdi as one of thebearers of the Righteous Caliphate was a bid’ah (innovation) whichlacked evidence from the Quran, hadith or practices of the ulama(BAHEIS 1986: 46–8, 1993: 22–3, n.d.: 24–5). Secondly, there wasDarul Arqam’s practice of tawassul21 as contained in the tahlil22 ofAurad Muhammadiah. The authorities vehemently repudiated theability of godly people to mediate in the affairs of God and Hiscreatures, and implied that resorting to tawassul denied Hisomnipotence and verged upon polytheism (BAHEIS 1986: 49–52).


Defending his teachings, Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986:89-90, 1989: 110–12) pointed out that, grammatically, the apparentlyadditional portion of the shahadah ascribed to its Aurad Muhammadiahversion was in reality a separate recitation; the phrases shared noconnection, apart from being in juxtaposition with one another. Therelevant question then became whether mentioning the names of theProphet Muhammad’s companions and of Al-Mahdi, following theconventional recitation of the shahadah, was permissible. Ustaz AshaariMuhammad (1986: 90–4, 144-51; 1989: 112–16, 118, 227–31)laboriously extracted evidence from the hadith and rulings by classicaland contemporary ulama permitting both the successive recitation andtawassul. As, however, similar accusations figured in subsequent fatwaon Darul Arqam’s deviationism, the authorities had clearly chosen toignore the sources cited by Ustaz Ashaari.

At this juncture, it should be discernible that theologicaldisagreement between Darul Arqam and the religious authoritiesstemmed primarily from discrepancies in the sources used to buttresseach other’s arguments. While Ustaz Ashaari espoused the orthodoxSunni theology as systematised by Abu’l Hassan al-Ashari (d. 936) andAbu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 944) and found in classical works ofmediaeval ulama who unanimously endorsed sufism,23 the authoritiesrelied on the works of modern scholars belonging to the version ofreformist Islam whose intellectual origins could be traced to theteachings of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1263) and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1787), both of whom sought to purge sufism of itsallegedly heretical excesses. Among scholars who could be included inthis latter category, and whose arguments were utilised to emasculateand disprove Quranic interpretations and hadiths brought forth byUstaz Ashaari, were Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905), former GrandMufti of Egypt; Mahmud Syaltut, former rector of Al-AzharUniversity; and Nasiruddeen al-Albani, a well-known Syrian-basedmuhaddith (BAHEIS 1986). Contemporary orthodox Sunnis haveconventionally used the epithet ‘Wahhabi’ to describe the followers ofthis theological school which unanimously rejects the Asharite andMaturidite systems of beliefs,24 and have gone to great lengths torefute these doctrines (cf. Sirajuddin Abbas 1991: chapters XXI,

98 Ahmad Fauzi

XXIII; Ibn Muhammad 1994: 78–121, 142–6). Embracing atraditionalist system of beliefs which tolerated controversial spiritualpractices such as yaqazah, veneration of awliya’ and tawassul, UstazAshaari Muhammad identified the authorities’ theological doctrines asresembling Wahhabi thought, which was ‘in conflict with Sunnithought’ and ‘repudiated spiritual and sufi matters’ (1989: 110). Hesuggested:

I am not sure how far the Islamic Centre accepts my suggestion thatits views are closer to those of the Wahhabis than of Sunnis. If thatwere true, what harm is there in explaining to the public, that theconflict between me and the Islamic Centre is actually a continuationof the traditional conflict between Wahhabis and Sunnis, and not onebetween true Islamic teachings and teachings said to be ‘deviant’ or‘deviationist’ (1989: 44).

The question of discordant sources apart, one may argue, bya detailed examination of both sides’ discourses, that dispute betweenthe religious authorities and Darul Arqam might have been alleviatedhad the former refrained from accusing the latter of subscribing toviews and practices it strenuously disavowed. For example, theauthorities accused Darul Arqam of adding phrases to the shahadah,hence distorting a cardinal tenet of Islam, although this had beencategorically denied by Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986: 89–90).Further, the authorities accused Darul Arqam of honouring thefounder of the Aurad Muhammadiah as an anointed caliph, with thesame status as the four Righteous Caliphs, yet Ustaz AshaariMuhammad had made it plain clear that the ‘Muhammad al-Mahdi’mentioned after the Aurad Muhammadiah’s shahadah was notnecessarily Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi, but rather theawaited al-Mahdi (1986: 94–5). Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad alsopainstakingly explained that by yaqazah, he did not mean a consciousmeeting with the original body form of the Prophet Muhammad,which would indeed constitute a denial of the completeness of theshariah, but rather with his soul (roh), from whom the acceptance ofany command had been declared as commendable by al-Suyuti, amongothers (1986: 71–3). While such mistakes may have originally been theresult of an unfortunate misreading of Ustaz Ashaari’s Aurad


Muhammadiah Pegangan Darul Arqam (1986), the fact that the sameallegations were reiterated in 1993 (Berita Harian 10 June 1993,BAHEIS 1993: 2), despite Ustaz Ashaari’s disavowal of such claims inBerhati-Hati Membuat Tuduhan (1989: 77-8, 108, 110–12) which wentunanswered, showed that the authorities had resorted to a deliberatedistortion of facts smacking of theological sophistry.

If Darul Arqam were guilty of adopting beliefs and practicesas portrayed by the authorities, their arguments in defence of theirteachings would have been less credible. But the authorities had tomisrepresent facts to convince the masses, who were perenniallyexposed to only one side of the polemic, that Darul Arqam had indeeddeviated from the straight path. Darul Arqam was left defenceless inthe psychological warfare against the state as its publications weresuccessively proscribed, so that the public was made to digest notDarul Arqam’s actual opinions and convictions, but what theauthorities wanted them to believe about Darul Arqam. Unlikeprevious official campaigns against heterodox beliefs,25 no DarulArqam member was charged in the shariah court for embracing orpropagating deviationist teachings, a fact which lends doubt to theauthorities’ claim that Darul Arqam’s teachings lacked proper Islamicfoundations.

Belief in Imam al-Mahdi

The fundamental point of dispute on this matter related to DarulArqam’s conditional belief that Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi was still alive and was being ‘kept’ in a miraculous state byGod to prepare for his reappearance as Imam al-Mahdi, the messiahwhose advent was ordained by several hadiths.26 Based on theprevailing chaos in the contemporary world and the prediction madeby Jalal al-din al-Suyuti that Al-Mahdi would appear around 1407Hijrah, Darul Arqam believed that Al-Mahdi was the anointed saviourof the fifteenth Islamic century, and the last in the list of celebratedmujaddids mentioned in the hadith, as related by Abu Dawud: ‘Allah willraise, at the head of each century, such people for this Ummah as willrevive its Religion for it’ (Ashaari Muhammad 1987a: 6, 48–54; 1988:257). This was not surprising since the coming of Al-Mahdi as a ruler

100 Ahmad Fauzi

who would bring justice and prosperity to the world had always beena favourable topic of discussion and speculation among sufis, whoregarded the messiah as the final and greatest wali (saint) (MuhammadLabib Ahmad 1980: 29–31, 42). But Ustaz Ashaari’s postulation thatthe founder of the Aurad Muhammadiah was the most plausiblecandidate for the Mahdi-ship was based on purely arbitrarysuggestions made by his grandson Mohd. Taha Suhaimi (1990: 67, NewSunday Times 13 July 1986), and upon circumstantial evidence such asan ancestral lineage reaching to the Prophet Muhammad through hisdaughter Fatimah, and physical features and a name which accordedwith the description of Al-Mahdi in hadiths, as testified by hiscontemporaries still alive (Ashaari Muhammad 1986: 178, 1989: 48–9).One of them, known only as Kiyai Mahmud, was said to have heardin person Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi’s prediction thatthe revival of the Aurad Muhammadiah, after a brief decline followinghis occultation, would occur under the leadership of a man named‘Ashaari Muhammad’ (1989: 84).

The religious authorities’ claim that the aforesaid beliefsconstituted theological deviationism was contested by Ustaz AshaariMuhammad (1986: 165–78), who expressed the view that the wholeissue of Al-Mahdi was not a matter of theological belief, such thateven a disavowal of Al-Mahdi would not negate one’s aqidah (Islamicbelief). When the whole matter was not even a tenet of the Islamicfaith, unlike beliefs in God, His Messengers, Angels, His Books, theDay of Judgement and qada’ and qadar (fate and predestination), howcould determining someone as Al-Mahdi constitute a deviation fromaqidah? Ustaz Ashaari supplied evidence showing that there wereprominent Sunni ulama who claimed to have met Al-Mahdi and agreedwith the Shiite view that Al-Mahdi had been born and was alive,without risking being labelled as heterodox (Ashaari Muhammad 1986:170–4).27 Paradoxically, part of the evidence came from a BAHEIS-published book, Aliran Syiah (The Shiite Sect), by Wan Alias Abdullahof the officially sanctioned Islamic Research Centre (AshaariMuhammad 1986: 173). Ustaz Ashaari’s view that the question ofdetermining the person of Al-Mahdi fell within issues allowingdifferences of opinion (khilafiah) based upon independent reasoning


(ijtihad), and was beyond matters affecting one’s aqidah, waspurportedly supported by several contemporary scholars whom UstazAshaari listed (1986: 175). To Ustaz Ashaari, all matters concerning Al-Mahdi were subsidiary branches rather than the core of the Islamiccreed, such that even holding a mistaken opinion on any aspect ofthem did not make one accountable to God in the Hereafter (1986:185, 1989: 79).

The authorities patently disagreed with the analysis above,stating that ‘there exists no avenue for us to deny that the question ofImam Mahdi concerns the aqidah’ and ‘determining the Imam Mahdiis surely a false and misguided bid’ah’ (BAHEIS 1986: 64). But apartfrom a fatwa by Mahmud Syaltut, whose unorthodox views had beenrejected by the majority of the Sunni ulama, BAHEIS failed to provideany documentary evidence to support its stance (1986: 61–5).Moreover, as Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1989: 46–7) pointed out,BAHEIS’ arguments were replete with contradictions and confusingstatements. For instance, prior to its damning conclusions above, it hadagreed that ‘to Sunnis, matters concerning Imam Mahdi are onlykhilafiah’ (BAHEIS 1986: 63), thus implying that ijtihad was permissiblein such cases. But it also added that ‘determining something on amatter which is non-obligatory (khilafiah) surely becomes a bid’ah’(BAHEIS 1986: 63). Any student of fiqh could not help beingconfounded by such a statement, for bid’ah, by definition, referred toany belief or action which was in contradistinction to the Sunnah (alAlwani 1993: 137), and the very fact that permissible differences ofopinion occurred among scholars on any issue indicated that no clearguidance on it existed in the Quran and Sunnah, thus necessitating theinterpretative process of istinbat (inference).

BAHEIS had also erroneously claimed that the Prophet’scompanions and the scholars following them had made ijtihad on‘matters whose bases were clear in the Quran and Sunnah (having nasqat’i)’ (1986: 64). For, as had been asserted by Dr Taha Jabir al Alwani,interpretation of a revealed text was ‘only admissible in matters onwhich there [was] no clear guidance in the Quran and the Sunnah andwhich require[d] the use of rigorous reasoning (ijtihad),’ but in matters‘pertaining to belief there [was] no room for ijtihad ...’ (al Alwani 1993:

102 Ahmad Fauzi

25). The whole purpose of BAHEIS’ arguments seemed to beestablishing that Ustaz Ashaari had committed a bid’ah by tentativelydetermining the person of Al-Mahdi, but its failure to substantiatethem with any evidence from the revealed texts or consensus ofprevious ulama clearly violated the conditions permitting legitimatedifferences of opinion among scholars. These are, as outlined by alAlwani:

Firstly, each disputant must have evidence or proof (dalil) toauthenticate his argument. Failure to provide such evidence wouldinvalidate an argument.Secondly, the adoption of a divergent opinion should not lead toanything preposterous or false. If the opinion is manifestly false fromthe beginning, it should be abandoned straight away (al Alwani 1993:81).

In a desperate effort to convince the public that DarulArqam’s opinions on Al-Mahdi were blasphemous and deviant, thereligious authorities again blatantly resorted to factual distortion. Forinstance, as reported in Berita Harian (10 June 1993), to BAHEIS,‘Ashaari’s claim that Sheikh Muhammad Suhaimi Abdullah did not die[was] impossible since even the most honourable Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) died.’ This gave the impression that Darul Arqambelieved that Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi would neverdie, which obviously contradicted the Quran (XXI: 35): ‘Every soulshall have a taste of death.’ In its official fatwa of 5 August 1994, theNational Fatwa Council used the word ‘resurrected’ to describe DarulArqam’s belief in the coming of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi as Imam al-Mahdi, hence implying that it was a case of onerising from the dead (The Star 6 Aug. 1994). But as Ustaz AshaariMuhammad (1989: 117) and Mohd. Taha Suhaimi (1994: 100) stressed,in response to bewildering allegations of Sheikh Muhammad AbdullahAl-Suhaimi’s immortality, they had said that Sheikh MuhammadAbdullah Al-Suhaimi had not died, not that he would not die.

BAHEIS’ insistence that the real name of the founder of theAurad Muhammadiah was Muhammad Suhaimi Abdullah instead ofMuhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi, as appeared in his biography byMohd. Taha Suhaimi (1990), was another subtle attempt to deny his


claims to the Mahdi-ship, for hadiths had stated that al-Mahdi wouldbear the same name as the Prophet Muhammad.28 Clarification byUstaz Ashaari Muhammad (1989: 78) was apparently not accepted byBAHEIS (n.d.: 19), who claimed to have derived Sheikh MuhammadAbdullah Al-Suhaimi’s real name from his original Javanese-languagebiography authored by his son and Mohd. Taha Suhaimi’s father,Sheikh Muhammad Fadhlullah Suhaimi.29 But Mohd. Taha Suhaimi(1994: 90–1), by presenting evidence from books which hisgrandfather himself wrote and printed, verified that SheikhMuhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi’s real name did indeed resemble thatof the Prophet Muhammad. Mohd. Taha Suhaimi also explained thathis father, having gone to study in Egypt at a young age and settled inJava for a significant duration thereafter, was never in closecompanionship with his grandfather, such that intimate details ofSheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi’s traits and life were missingfrom the biography he wrote (1994: 72, 95).

Perhaps most significantly, BAHEIS (n.d.: 22) accused DarulArqam of deciding for certain the person of Al-Mahdi, whereas UstazAshaari Muhammad (1986: 184; 1989: 47–8) had emphasised that hisbelief in Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi as Al-Mahdi waszanni (uncertain) instead of qat’i (certain) since it had not yethappened. This was appropriate for such a belief derived from ijtihad.Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad (1986: 182–4) said his attitude was one oftawaqquf, that is not wholly rejecting, yet not necessarily accepting,circumstantial evidence and oral testimonies supporting the view thatSheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi was Al-Mahdi. Since theconviction could turn out to be wrong (Ashaari Muhammad 1989: 48),the so-called determination of the person of Al-Mahdi was nothingmore than a prediction (Ashaari Muhammad 1988: xi). Furthermore,since the belief was the result of a personal ijtihad by Ustaz Ashaari, itwas unfair of the authorities to implicate all Darul Arqam membersand practitioners of the Aurad Muhammadiah with it. Ustaz Ashaarihimself insisted that he never forced Darul Arqam members tosubscribe to this personal view of his as derived from the view ofMohd. Taha Suhaimi, and that it bore no connection with the AuradMuhammadiah as a tariqah (Ashaari Muhammad 1986: 95, 186).

104 Ahmad Fauzi

Fanaticism of Darul Arqam members

Charges of fanaticism against Darul Arqam most probably carriedpolitical motives from the beginning, but they were carefully shroudedby religious language and terminology so as to make politicians’statements incriminating Darul Arqam appear theologically justified.In his 1995 Eid al-Fitr30 address broadcast nationwide, Prime MinisterDr Mahathir Mohamad denounced fanatical teachings whichencouraged the blind following of leaders, and gave the example ofDarul Arqam as an originally innocent movement which eventuallycultivated fanaticism through attempts to create a ‘personality cult’around its leader who was allegedly glorified as Imam al-Mahdi.Fanaticism was thus singled out as the reason why the governmentdisbanded Darul Arqam and rehabilitated its leaders and followersaccording to true Islamic teachings (Utusan Malaysia 3 Mar. 1995). Asa matter of fact, instead of the conventional allegations of DarulArqam’s heresy as outlined in the previous two sub-sections, it was theissue of fanaticism which pre-occupied the authorities in its conflictagainst Darul Arqam in the period immediately preceding NationalFatwa Council NFC’s decisive fatwa on 5 August 1994. It was the caseof an old issue, Darul Arqam’s deviationism, being presented byofficial and unofficial state organs in a new fashion, centring upon thedominating personality of Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad.

Immediately before the allegation of Darul Arqam’s operatinga ‘suicide army’ in Thailand surfaced, Deputy Home Affairs Minister,Megat Junid Megat Ayub, had already declared that stern action wouldbe taken against a religious group which was so obedient to itsleadership that it repudiated the validity of the national leadership andadministration (Berita Minggu 12 June 1994). We might have expectedrevelations of a Darul Arqam ‘suicide army’ to have come from theHome Affairs or Foreign Ministry, but ironically, the unsubstantiatedallegation was advanced by the Chief Director of the Islamic Centre,Zainal Abidin Abdul Kadir. He further claimed that the armed squadwould fight against anyone who refused to accept its leader as ‘Imamal-Mahdi’, as chosen by the Prophet Muhammad and destined to rulethe world (Utusan Malaysia 13 June 1994). The Prime Minster thenrebuked Darul Arqam as an organisation whose strength was based on


fanaticism and the power of personality, whose leader harbouredambitions to rule the country and was regarded like a prophet andImam al-Mahdi by his followers (Utusan Malaysia 18 June 1994).Deputy Minister at the Prime Minister’s Department, Dr Abdul HamidOthman, accused Darul Arqam members of having been brainwashedinto blindly executing any command coming from Ustaz Ashaari, whohimself was accused of self-exaltation, through concepts such asabuya (father of the community), his alleged origins from the tribe ofTamim, khawariq al-’adah (defiance of natural laws) and his position asthe main vizier of Imam al-Mahdi, to a position attainable only byGod’s Messenger (Utusan Malaysia 21 June 1994). He revealed thegovernment’s intention to broadcast a video-recording showing UstazAshaari claiming himself as Al-Mahdi and the operations of DarulArqam’s ‘suicide army’ (Utusan Malaysia 24 June 1994).31 By lateralleging that the concept of Imam al-Mahdi as brought forth by UstazAshaari was political in nature — not to mould one’s faith but toinculcate fanaticism in one’s leader — Dr Abdul Hamid hadunwittingly divulged the government’s fears of Darul Arqam andMahdism as a political threat (Utusan Malaysia 27 June 1994). Despitedenials by the Thai government and police as to a Darul Arqam-operated ‘suicide army’ in Bangkok,32 Dr Abdul Hamid, in aparliamentary statement, maintained that the formation of such anarmy took place as a material and personal sacrifice to protect UstazAshaari (Utusan Malaysia 5 July 1994). The formation of the army waseven mentioned as part of Darul Arqam’s deviant teachings byAbdullah Fahim, chief research officer at the Islamic Centre (BeritaHarian 16 July 1994). The Police Chief, Rahim Mohd. Noor,condemned Darul Arqam’s allegedly excessive glorification of itsleader as potentially threatening public order, and raised fears that thetragic aftermath of cult movements, like those of David Koresh inTexas in 1993 and Jim Jones in French Guyana in 1978, might occurin Malaysia (Utusan Malaysia 12 July 1994). Darul Arqam’s schools werecensured by both Dr Abdul Hamid Othman and Zainal Abidin AbdulKadir for allegedly neglecting the modern sciences and emphasisinginstead the creation of a cult figure out of Ustaz Ashaari (Sunday Star31 July 1994, Berita Harian 1 Aug. 1994).

106 Ahmad Fauzi

Evidently, as the promulgation of the fatwa of 5 August 1994neared, the leading theme behind Darul Arqam’s alleged deviationismshifted from issues concerning the Aurad Muhammadiah and Imamal-Mahdi to those related to the authoritarian nature of the leadershipin Darul Arqam. Hero worship charges concurrently shifted attentionfrom the mysterious figure of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Al-Suhaimi to that of Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad who was in a positionto respond to provocations, albeit from abroad, and who could beacted against as a Malaysian citizen. To give a religious colouring to thenewly created atmosphere and thus maintain the semblance of a‘Darul Arqam versus the state’ crisis that was wholly apolitical, theauthorities persistently imposed upon Ustaz Ashaari the image of amilitant cult leader who was idolised to an extent exceeding thereverence accorded to the Prophet Muhammad, who exclusivelyclaimed for himself the mantle of prophethood and Mahdi-ship, andwho manipulated countless ‘innocent’ followers towardsaccomplishing his selfish aims.33 Unequivocal denials by the accusedand interested parties, such as the Thailand government with regard tothe ‘suicide army’ allegation, were brushed aside.34 Yet, a week beforethe promulgation of the fatwa proscribing Darul Arqam, AbdullahFahim, chief research officer at the Islamic Centre, sensationallyconfessed to Reuter reporters that the ‘suicide army’ charge againstDarul Arqam was actually ‘a propaganda exercise … to get peopleready for a comprehensive fatwa’ banning Darul Arqam (Daily ExpressSabah 30 July 1994). Significantly, this admission appeared only in anobscure regional newspaper which the masses of Malay-Muslims inPeninsular Malaysia could not have obtained.

In the fatwa of 5 August 1994, two main allegations oftheological deviationism were levelled against Ustaz Ashaari in hispersonal capacity. Firstly, that he claimed to have consciously met andhad a dialogue with the Prophet Muhammad. This accusationoriginally surfaced after the alleged discovery of a tape-recording ofthe said dialogue, in which the Prophet was said to have acknowledgedDarul Arqam as a bona fide Islamic group (Berita Harian 16 July 1994).The recording was played to representatives of the media, beforebeing heard on television on 29 July 1994 and printed in Utusan


Malaysia on 6 August 1994. Whereas the Prime Minister and his deputyrespectively questioned the respect accorded to Ustaz Ashaari by theso-called ‘Prophet Muhammad’ who addressed him as ‘Sir’, and thesubstandard language used throughout the dialogue (New Straits Times2 Aug. 1994, Berita Harian 21 Aug. 1994), Dr Abdul Hamid Othmandisputed the whole basis of the alleged encounter as a logicalimpossibility which strayed from Islam (Berita Minggu 17 July 1994).This pitted both sides in an irreconcilable position, with regard totheological arguments permitting and denying the possibility ofyaqazah with the Prophet Muhammad. Even if we allow that yaqazahcould not take place, it was instructive that the allegation of the tape-recording being really concocted by Darul Arqam was neverscientifically verified in court. This raised the possibility that it was apre-meditated fabrication by the government.35

Secondly, that Ustaz Ashaari was claimed to have beenendowed with the divine power of creation as summarised by the termkun fayakun (be and shall be).36 Believers in such claims would haveinvolved themselves in shirk (polytheism) — an unpardonable sin inIslam. The source of the allegation came from an article written byKhadijah Aam, Ustaz Ashaari’s wife and head of Darul Arqam’sQismu Muslimah, entitled ‘Ayatullah’ in an internal Darul Arqampublication, Siri Terkini Era Kasih Sayang (Latest on the Era of Loveand Care) (1994). In the article, she praised Ustaz Ashaari as anayatullah, that is a sign of the greatness of God through whom Hisblessings were showered on to mankind. The controversial phraseappeared to be, ‘If Allah is endowed with the attribute of kun fayakun,we can observe the representation of this attribute of His in Hispeople.’ Khadijah’s use of the nomenclature ayatullah must have causedshudders among the authorities for its resemblance with the title ofShiite imams, and was regarded in official quarters as another explicitrecognition of Ustaz Ashaari as the promised messiah.37

However, the crux of the dispute lay in the disparate writingand interpretative processes utilised. While the authorities relied on aliteral understanding of Khadijah’s text, Khadijah’s work evidentlybore hallmarks of a sufi discourse competently written in modernMalay prose. Since the article was meant for an internal Darul Arqam

108 Ahmad Fauzi

readership, it should not have been interpreted out of context, that isbeyond the confines of sufi literary traditions. A thoroughexamination of classical sufi texts would reveal that discoursessmacking of semi-pantheistic doctrines and advocating a seeminglyfanatical adoration of a sufi master are not uncommon, written andcomprehended in a state of zauk.38 For example, the controversialAndalusian sufi, Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), poetically wrote:

So if one say ‘I am God,’ then hearken to him, for it is God (whosename be exalted) saying ‘I am God,’ not he. But thou hast not attainedto that to which he has attained; for if thou hadst attained to thatwhich he has attained, thou wouldest understand what he says, and saywhat he says, and see what he sees.39 (Ibn ‘Arabi 1976: 21).

The hypocrisy of the government’s stance with regard toDarul Arqam’s deviationism, could be gauged by the continual sellingof sufi-inclined religious books whose doctrines were akin to DarulArqam’s beliefs and practices alleged to be deviant. One may wonder,if the government was consistent in its theological position and itsconcern to protect the faith of its people, why did they not declare allsuch materials which indirectly approved Darul Arqam’s controversialreligious stance as illegal, and prosecute their authors or translatorswho were Malaysian citizens? During his several visits to Malaysia after1988, the year in which Ustaz Ashaari’s Aurad Muhammadiah PeganganDarul Arqam was banned, the present author managed to purchasesuch books from open shelves in public bookshops. Any reader wouldbe startled to discover that the books candidly accepted the theologicalvalidity of, among others, yaqazah with the late Prophet Muhammadand determination of Al-Mahdi.

For example, in Husain Hasan Tomai’s Masalah BerjumpaRasulullah Ketika Jaga Selepas Wafatnya (The Question of ConsciouslyMeeting the Messenger of Allah After His Death) (1989), translatedwith explanatory notes by a Malay scholar, Ustaz Anuar AbdulRahman, the author presented a concrete defence of the NorthAfrican-based Tijaniyyah sufi order, whose founder, Sheikh Ahmadibn Muhammad al-Tijani (d. 1815) also claimed to have received thepractice of his tariqah directly from the Prophet Muhammad. InTazkiratul-Auliya’: 62 Orang Wali Allah (Reminders of Saints: Sixty-two


Saints of Allah) (1990), translated into Malay by Abdul Majid HajiKhatib, Fariduddin ‘Attar narrated the anecdote of a medieval wali,Abu al-Hasan al-Khirqani, who claimed to teach hadith just as he wasdirectly taught by the Prophet Muhammad, telling his student:

The Prophet is always with me when I teach you. When a false hadithis recited, his facial expression changes in disapproval. From there, Iknow whether a reputed hadith is true or untrue. (‘Attar 1990: 125).

In the document Mengenal Al-Tarekat Al-Ahmadiah(Introducing the Ahmadiyyah sufi order) (1993), written jointly byMohd. Murtadza Sheikh Haji Ahmad, the mufti of Negeri Sembilan,and Professor Mahmud Saedon Awang Othman of the InternationalIslamic University, the authors more than once explicitly referred tothe conscious meetings of Sheikh Ahmad ibn Idris (d. 1837) and ofhis disciple Syeikh Ibrahim al-Rasyidi with the Prophet Muhammad inconnection with the origins of the Ahmadiyyah sufi order.40 While theyaqazah of Sheikh Ahmad Idris, a teacher of Sheikh Ahmad al-Tijani,has also been mentioned by other researchers (Tomai 1989: 100–3,Wan Mohd. Shaghir Abdullah 2000: 124–5), the fact that both theaforesaid authors were members of the National Fatwa Council whichdeclared Darul Arqam as heterodox, would astonish any reader.Furthermore, the book was published by the Negeri Sembilan IslamicAffairs Department and contained a preface by the state’s UMNOChief Minister.

On the issue of Al-Mahdi, a writer not known to have anyconnection with Darul Arqam, boldly stated, in close resemblance withUstaz Ashaari’s views, that:

Meanwhile, the author has discovered a book entitled Manakib asy-Syeikh as-Saiyid Muhammad bin Abdullah as-Suhaimi, founder of theSuhaimi41 sufi order famous in the Malay world. In the book, it ismentioned that Syeikh Suhaimi, said to have ‘died’ or disappeared in1929, will reappear and assume an important position as decided bythe Council of Saints. He will be easily recognisable through severaldistinctive physical features, such as a mole on his right cheek. Besidesthat, the Manakib also proves that Syeikh Suhaimi is a descendant ofthe Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) … it could therefore beconcluded that Syeikh Suhaimi will reappear as the awaited Imam Mahdi.

110 Ahmad Fauzi

However, before disappearing, he reminded his disciples to sustainand implement the laws of Allah. (Muhammad Labib Ahmad 1980:44, emphasis added).

On the whole, theological allegations against Darul Arqamwere never properly investigated or proven, but were judged to be truebased on a malicious campaign of ‘trial by media’. As far as the mediacoverage of the ‘Darul Arqam versus the state’ controversy from areligious perspective was concerned, a balanced view, that is one whichgave exposure to perspectives from schools of Islamic thought notsubscribed to by the authorities, was perennially elusive. Even if therewere remarks representing views congruent with those of the accused,they were relegated to obscure sections of a publication, given minuteportions of a page, or even outright distorted, such that the balance ofthe argument would eventually be in the authorities’ favour.42 It wasthis biased environment which may explain Darul Arqam’s reluctanceto speak out through the media. At the end of the day, the Malaysianstate succeeded in pushing its sinister portrayal of Darul Arqam downthe throats of the Malay-Muslim population, with the exception of aninformed minority whose overt or covert dependence on statepatronage and resources cowed them into silence and unwillingsubmission to the establishment.

Concluding remarks

In Malaysia, the present author’s attempt to rethink theologicalcontroversies surrounding the banning of Darul Arqam would mostprobably be frowned upon by mainstream Malay-Muslims. Refusal toacknowledge religious pluralism in Malaysia developed out of apeculiar Islamic administrative structure which overrules diversitybetween Islamic traditions and organisations and from an obsessivedesire of Malay ruling elites to ward off any signs of Malay-Muslimdisunity in the context of maintaining a delicate political balancebetween Muslims and non-Muslims (Meuleman 1996: 56). As such,constitutional freedom of religion applies only with respect to Islamvis-à-vis other religions, but not among different interpretations ofIslam. The Malaysian government, as represented by its religiousbureaucracy, considers its version of religious orthodoxy to be


universally applicable to the Malay-Muslim population, althoughlegitimate evidence indicates that alternative positions, as adopted forinstance by Darul Arqam, have been tolerated within the framework ofacceptable differences of opinion in the Islamic intellectual tradition.In fact, it could be argued that before the onset of Wahhabi reformismin Arabia and its global dissemination, made possible by Saudi Arabia’spatronage of the pilgrimage and massive Middle Eastern oil wealth, itwas traditionalist doctrines familiar to the world of sufism, as upheldby Darul Arqam, that were dominant among the ummah and certainlyin the Malay world (Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid 2001b; 2001c).

Although Malaysia and Indonesia share a similar Islamicheritage, in Indonesia, a higher degree of tolerance of unofficialIslamic viewpoints prevails. In Darul Arqam’s case, despite a publicstatement by the Ulama Council of Indonesia (Majlis Ulama Indonesia)on 13 August 1994 proclaiming Darul Arqam’s deviationism forreasons not dissimilar to the ones in the Malaysian fatwa and proposinga national ban on Darul Arqam (Media Dakwah September 1994,Kompas 14 Aug. 1994), the Indonesian fatwa was not universallyendorsed by the ulama, intellectuals and the government of Indonesia.The Indonesian Council, and for that matter, the Malaysiangovernment, was dealt a severe blow when the Nahdatul Ulama,Indonesia’s largest Islamic organisation with sixty-million members,issued an opposite fatwa which exonerated Darul Arqam from chargesof deviationism and exhorted the government not to ban DarulArqam on the basis of aqidah (Pengurus Besar NU 1994, Kompas 13 Aug.1994, Dunia Islam October 1994). Eventually, as proclaimed by theAttorney-General on 5 October 1994, Darul Arqam was spared froma national ban since it had hitherto posed no threat to Indonesia’ssecurity and stability (Straits Times Singapore 6 Oct. 1994, UtusanMalaysia 6 Oct. 1994).

Within the Indonesian scholarly community, discussionsputting forth different sides of arguments pertaining to the DarulArqam affair flourished.43 Although the Indonesian Islamic authoritieshad also been penetrated by Wahhabi elements, they failed to imposetheir viewpoints by letter of the law. Respectable sections of societywere too familiar with the traditionalist-modernist dimension of

112 Ahmad Fauzi

doctrinal conflict to be coaxed by any interested party intoexcommunicating either school. As Meuleman noted, in Indonesia,representatives of the ‘traditionalist’ style of Islam ... considered theDarul Arqam doctrine as acceptable within the Islamic tradition,’ andalthough at first glance, Indonesia looked ‘less democratic thanMalaysia,’ its handling of the Darul Arqam affair indicated thatIndonesia offered ‘more religious tolerance and dynamism and moreopen discussions between various religious figures and organisationsor scholars than Malaysia’ (1996: 60–2). In Malaysia, by contrast, thehighly limited scope of academic discussion was confirmed by theimpression Meuleman obtained in an interview with a Malaysianscholar, that ‘one should be careful not to discuss certain issues orexpress certain opinions before the wrong forum’ (1996: 56).

In the ten years of state-imposed solitary confinement,neither Ustaz Ashaari nor any former Darul Arqam member wasformally accused in a syariah court for professing or disseminatingheterodox teachings. Yet, during this period, there were those whowere formally charged for subscribing to similarly unorthodoxbeliefs.44 The difference appears to be that while other individualspossessed no systematically organised mass following, Ustaz Ashaaridid. Despite the ten-year blanket imposed on him, he has since 1997regrouped some of his former followers in a bustling business entityformally registered as Rufaqa’ Corporation (Muhammad Syukri Salleh2003: 142–8).45 Ustaz Ashaari’s release shows that Rufaqa’ has reacheda modus vivendi with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration, thatRufaqa’ focuses purely on economic activities, without indulging itsmembers in theological controversy.

The state’s strong-arm tactics in defeating the challenge posedby Darul Arqam was indicative of the growth of authoritarianism thathad been a major trait of the Mahathir era (Case 1993: 198ff.; KhooBoo Teik 1995: chapter 7; Crouch 1996: 240). In spite of theologicalhaziness surrounding the state’s case against Darul Arqam, Islam inMalaysia had been sufficiently centralised, bureaucratised and managedin such a way that those who dared to stray from an officially definedorthodoxy risked social ostracism as a price for their heresy, which,unfortunately, might have been politically rather than theologically


motivated (Nagata 2004: 111). In April 2003, the Home Ministrybanned the present author’s Malaysia Daulah Pemuda Bani Tamim: RahsiaKeagungan Ummah (The Malaysian State of the Youth of Bani Tamim:Secrets of the Glorious Ummah) — a study of the messianic ideologycentred around the ‘youth of Bani Tamim’. Altogether, under thePrinting Presses and Publications Act 1984 (Amended 1987), thirty-five books were gazetted as ‘detrimental to the public peace’ (NewStraits Times 9 April 2003). Malaysia Daulah Pemuda Bani Tamim waswholly theoretical in orientation, without juxtaposing any particularfigure or group as the candidate most fitting the credentials of the‘youth of Bani Tamim’. It does not contain arguments supportingDarul Arqam’s theological position which made it unacceptable to thereligious establishment. The book does, however, mention that UstazAshaari Muhammad, utterly convinced that Malaysia was theprovenance of the ‘youth of Bani Tamim’, has been the one who mostrecently strove to realise the hadiths related to this concept (AhmadFauzi Abdul Hamid 1999a: 153–5). Deviation from religiousorthodoxy becomes sensitive to the Malaysian state whenever it isdeemed to constitute a challenge to the hegemony of religio-politicalelites. It is not religious heterodoxy as a false doctrine in itself whichbothers the Malaysian authorities, but rather, whether or not the elitesare affected by it.

Appendix: Summary of the fatwa banning Darul Arqamand its legal implications

(Sources: The Star, 6 August 1994; The Sun, 6 August 1994)

On 5 August 1994, the National Fatwa Council, under thechairmanship of the Royal Mufti Ahmad Tajuddin Abdul Rahman,issued a fatwa banning Ashaari Muhammad’s Darul Arqam movement,after a unanimous agreement by members that Darul Arqam wasdeviant. Ten aspects of Darul Arqam’s teachings were considered bythe Council to have deviated from Islam:

1. The belief that Sheikh Muhammad As-Suhaimi, the founder ofAurad Muhammadiah (the philosophy of Al Arqam), would beresurrected as Imam Mahdi, a messiah.

114 Ahmad Fauzi

2. The belief that Sheikh Muhammad As-Suhaimi had a consciousmeeting with Prophet Muhammad in the Kaabah and received theAurad Muhammadiah from him.

3. Adding false information to a prayer by saying that SheikhMuhammad As-Suhaimi was Imam Mahdi and giving him equal statusto the four Righteous Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali.

4. Wrongly defining the meaning of Verse Three of Surah An-Nisa’(Chapter IV: Women) in the Quran by claiming that the origin ofmarriage began with two wives and then the third and fourth. Thisconflicted with the accepted translation and opposed the consensus ofrecognised scholars on marriage.

5. The claim by Al Arqam leader Ashaari Muhammad that he had aconscious meeting with Prophet Muhammad and his followers andhad a dialogue with the Prophet.

6. Al Arqam followers were so entranced by their leader that theyidolised Ashaari and believed he could perform miracles, was a saintand protector.

7. Ashaari also claimed that the Prophet acknowledged the bona fides ofAl Arqam teachings.

8. It was claimed that Ashaari was given the power of Kun-Fayakun (beand shall be) possessed by Allah. The claim could give rise to shirk(polytheism), by comparing Allah with His creations.

9. Al Arqam failed to observe state Islamic laws and enactments andother written laws regarding Islamic affairs, did not comply withdecisions of recognised scholars of the Sunni sect and ignored adviceand rulings of state ulama and mufti.

10. Ashaari claimed he was a descendant of Bani Tamim Arab whenin fact he was of the Bawean Malay descent.

The fatwa imposed a ban on Darul Arqam’s practices, materials andactivities. Specifically, it prohibited members of the public from:

1. Adopting Darul Arqam’s ideology, philosophy and practice whichgo against Islamic teachings and practice.

2a. Using Darul Arqam’s publicity materials such as photographs,posters, graphs, circulars, film slides and newspaper advertisements.

2b. Possessing Darul Arqam’s books, magazines, pamphlets, films,audio tapes, laser discs, phonography, compact discs and all forms ofrecordings.


2c. Displaying any symbol, diagram or sign that could identify thegroup with any movable or immovable property.

3. Becoming a member or leader, holding ceramah (religious talks),conducting classes or becoming involved in economic, social, art,cultural or other activities for the purpose of upholding andexpanding the movement.

As a consequence of the fatwa, the following actions, applying fullweight of the law, were to be taken against Darul Arqam:

1. Under the Education Act, all Darul Arqam schools are to closebecause they are not registered with the Education Ministry or anyreligious authority. Students are to be put in special classes ingovernment schools.

2. Under the Companies Act, Registrar of Companies’ regulationsprohibit the use of words connected with Islam, like the names offriends of the Prophet, for a company name or logo, without theapproval of the Islamic Centre. Al Arqam is the name of a friend ofa Prophet. It did not seek approval and this by itself will render thesymbol invalid.

3. The Societies Act specifies that the symbol of any society must beapproved by the registrar. The use of Ashaari’s photograph on badgesworn by Darul Arqam followers is disallowed. The Act prohibits thecollection of money.

4. The Printing Presses and Publications Act imposes a ban on themovement’s publications.

5. District councils are to remove any symbol associated with themovement.

6. The National Film Development Corporation is to prohibit any filmproduction by the movement.

7. Under the Internal Security Act, it is up to the police to use theirdiscretion to enforce the ban.

8. The Public Services Department will act against civil servants whoare members of Darul Arqam.

9. Darul Arqam’s assets may be frozen if it can be established theseassets are not registered under the name of movement but under thenames of individual members.

116 Ahmad Fauzi

Dr Ahmad Fauzi is a Senior Lecturer in Politics in the School of DistanceEducation, Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang. His email address is:[email protected]

Notes

1. ‘Ex-leader of Al Arqam can now move freely’, New , 27.10.04; ‘Formerleader of Islamic sect freed’,Straits Times(Singapore), 28.10.04.

2. ‘Pengikut yakin Ashaari akan dibebaskan’, Kosmo!, 08.09.04; ‘’Abu Ya’Ashaari bebas!’, Buletin Demokrasi, 28.09.04; ‘Jakim serah kepada KDNtempoh tahanan terhad Asaari’, Utusan Malaysia, 12.10.04.

3. ‘Was there a deal?’,Straits Times (Singapore), 04.09.04; ‘Time for Healing: Ina stunning decision, Malaysia’s highest court allows Anwar Ibrahim to gofree. Can he be a political force again?’, Time, 13.09.04.

4. For background information on the ‘Darul Arqam versus the state’ conflict,see also Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (1999b: 5-18, 2001a).

5. Subky Latiff, ‘Arqam Yang Pernah Disanjung oleh Dr. M’, Harakah,28.10.91.

6. See the preface to the book Penjelasan Terhadap Buku Aurad MuhammadiahPegangan Darul Arqam by Dr. Mohd. Yusof Nor, then Deputy Minister atthe Prime Minister’s Department, 06.11.86.

7. ‘Yayasan Arqam Berpecah Belah’, Utusan Malaysia, 18.06.86; ‘KewajipanMemerangi Kesesatan’, Utusan Malaysia, editorial, 28.06.86; ‘Haji MokhtarDedah Kepercayaan Pengikut al-Arqam: Buku Tarikat Disimpan sebagaiPasport Tentera Imam Mahdi’, Utusan Malaysia, 12.07.86; ‘Al-ArqamAdakan Tentera Berpedang Sambut Kebangkitan Imam Mahadi’, UtusanMalaysia, 16.10.86.

8. Aurad Muhammadiah refers to the tariqah (sufi order) practised by DarulArqam members. Technically, Aurad Muhammadiah consisted of therecitation, individually after each daily prayer and preferably incongregation on Thursday nights, of seven verses in the correct order,preceded by reading the first chapter of the Quran. These verses, four andthree of which were to be read ten and fifty times respectively, weretogether a collection of Quranic verses, the kalimah shahadah (attestation offaith to God and the Prophet Muhammad as His Messenger) and asalutation of peace upon the Prophet Muhammad (salawat) (cf. AshaariMuhammad 1986: chapter 5).

9. Imam al-Mahdi is the Islamic version of the messiah who will appeartowards the end of the world to restore Islamic political supremacy anduniversal justice, heralding the ensuing advent of Jesus Christ.


10. As religious matters are under jurisdiction of the states according to theFederal Constitution, consent of states’ religious authorities, headed bymuftis, was needed for any legal action to be taken against Darul Arqam.For examples of state religious councils’ pronouncements on DarulArqam’s ‘deviationism’, see Kedah Religious Affairs Department (1994)and Ashaari Muhammad (1989: 74-7, 98-100). For Ustaz Ashaari’s replies,see pp. 77-93, 100-19.

11. The newspapers and magazines affected by this ban were Al Arqam (jawiscript), Al Arqam (romanised script), Al Arqam (English), Mingguan Islam,Al Munir, Al Mukminah — a women’s magazine, and Al Ain — a children’smagazine.

12. For the formal letter of ban, written by Zainal Abidin Abdul Kadir, ChiefDirector of the Islamic Centre, on behalf of the federal Chief Secretary,see Utusan Malaysia, 11.10.91.

13. In October 1991, four magazines viz. Al Qiadah, An Nasihah, Anak Solehand Generasi were banned. In November 1992, the permit of the magazineAmal was revoked after only two issues, and in March 1993, the magazineRatu, a week after the publication of its premier issue, encountered a similarfate; see Darul Arqam (1993: 191). From then onwards, Darul Arqampublications purely served the internal market, that is, for members only.

14. The chief Malay component of the ruling National Front (BN: BarisanNasional) coalition.

15. For the complete statement of Senator Nazri Abdul Aziz in Parliament,see Ashaari Muhammad (1993b: 110–11).

16. ‘Anwar on banning of Al Arqam’, Malaysian Digest, August/September1994; ‘Abdullah: No reason to give members asylum’, New Straits Times,05.09.94; ‘A butterfly upon a wheel’, The Economist, 10.09.94.

17. The official pronouncement of the fatwa made headline news of allnational daily newspapers on 6 August 1994. See the appendix at the end ofthis article.

18. Meeting, in a state of consciousness and zauk (spiritual intoxication),between two human beings, one or both of whom may have been deceasedand therefore present in spiritual and not physical form. Sufis regardyaqazah with the late Prophet Muhammad as a karamah accorded to theawliya’ (saints); see Tomai (1989).

19. The position of the Islamic Centre on yaqazah was clarified by Dr AbdulHamid Othman, Deputy Minister at the Prime Minister’s Department, asfollows: ‘Muslims believe that the Prophet can only be met in dreams andnot directly. If the Prophet can be encountered in such a [direct]circumstance, then whatever explanations that occur in the Quran are not

118 Ahmad Fauzi

correct’ (Berita Minggu 17.07.94). The respective Quranic verse and hadithto support this view are: ‘This day have I perfected your religion for you,completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as yourreligion’ (Quran V: 3), and ‘I leave behind the Quran and my Sunnah and aslong as you hold on to both of them you will not be lost’ (related by Hakim)(BAHEIS 1986: 27, n.d.: 12).

20. For example, the verse ‘And say not of those who are slain in the way ofAllah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not’(Quran II: 154) and the hadith ‘The prophets live in their graves and theypray’ (related by Baihaqi) (Ashaari Muhammad 1986: 68).

21. The practice of invoking intermediaries, usually the saints, when makingdo’a (supplication) to God. The issue of whether tawassul is permissible ornot in Islam has long been a source of contention between Islamictraditionalists, who allow it, and Islamic modernists, who forbid it. SeeSirajuddin Abbas (1991: 284-301, 316-26) and Deliar Noer (1975: 56-7).

22. Tahlil refers to religious chantings which testify that Allah is the One andOnly God. The tahlil of Aurad Muhammadiah refers to specific chantingsrecited in congregation by practitioners of the Aurad Muhammadiah onThursday and Sunday nights (Ashaari Muhammad 1986: 119–27).

23. For an exposition and defence of doctrines of the orthodox Sunnitheology, see Sirajuddin Abbas (1991: chapters II, III, XXVIII) and IbnMuhammad (1994: 122–41, 147–9).

24. The term Wahhabi was derived from the name of the reformer of Najd(in present-day Saudi Arabia), Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1787). Ithas been suggested that this epithet is a misnomer, for its impliedsanctification of ibn Abd al-Wahhab was contrary to his opposition againstveneration of humans, and that the so-called ‘Wahhabis’ preferred to beknown as muwahhidun (unitarians). (Mortimer 1982: 64, Sirajuddin Abbas1991: 309).

25. For an account of such heterodox groups and the measures taken tocombat them, see Jamil (1988: chapter 4) and Mustaffa Suhaimi (2000: 142-55).

26. For hadiths on the coming and characteristics of Imam al-Mahdi, see IbnKathir (1991: chapter 6) and As-Siddiq (1985).

27. Twelver Shiites (Shiah Ithna Ashariah), the dominant Shiite sect in Iran andmost of the world, believe that Imam al-Mahdi is their twelfth Imam,Muhammad Hassan al-Askari, who allegedly disappeared into a tunnel inSammara’, Iraq, in 260 Hijrah at five years of age. Sunni scholars claim thatthis belief is based on fabricated evidence; see Sirajuddin Abbas (1991: 127-8) and Ibn Kathir (1991: 20). Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad personally refuted


Shiite doctrines, including the one on Al-Mahdi, in Bahaya Syiah (Dangersof Shiism) (1987b), but unlike the authorities’ attitude towards DarulArqam, he stopped short labelling Shiites as ‘deviants’ or ‘infidels’ (p. 134).

28. An example is the hadith narrated by Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, reported byAbu Dawud and mentioned by Ibn Kathir (1991: 21) in connection with al-Mahdi, where the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘If there were only one day leftfor the world, that day would be lengthened until a man from among mydescendants or from among the people of my household, was sent; hisname will be the same as my name, and his father’s name will be the sameas my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and fairness, just as itwill have been filled with injustice and oppression. The world will not enduntil a man of my household, whose name is the same as mine, holds sway.’

29. Unlike his father, who was well-known in his lifetime among the AuradMuhammadiah circle and other sufi groups mainly for his supernaturalabilities, Sheikh Muhammad Fadhlullah Suhaimi (d. 1963) excelled as aconventional religious scholar prominent for his founding of the IslamicCollege in Klang and vociferous defence of orthodox Sunni theologyagainst the onslaught of Wahhabism, leading to his famed debate againstthe Indonesian modernist scholar , A. Hassan Bandong, in Penang in 1953.He is mentioned twice by Safie Ibrahim (1981: 17–18), in connection withhis article in Utusan Melayu (27.07.51) advocating the unification ofreligious administrations of Malay states, and his chairing a conference ofulama which was instrumental in leading to the formation of PAS. WilliamRoff, in his study of Malay-Indonesian students in Cairo in the 1920s, refersto Ata Allah Suhaimi, chairman of the organising committee ofcommemorative celebrations to honour founders of the Seruan Azharjournal, as ‘a younger brother of the well-known alim Fadlullah Suhaimi,who lived and taught in Singapore and Malaya for many years’ (1970: 85, fn.37). In passing, it may be mentioned that the present Malaysian ambassadorto Saudi Arabia and former UMNO Chief Minister of Terengganu from1974 to 1999, Wan Mokhtar Ahmad, is Sheikh Muhammad FadhlullahSuhaimi’s son-in-law and reputedly a practitioner of the AuradMuhammadiah; a fact which he had never admitted in public, probably tosafeguard his political interests.

30. Day of celebration to mark the end of the month of Ramadan, throughoutwhich Muslims are obliged to fast from dawn until sunset every day.

31. The video-recording was eventually never shown on television, lendingcredence to suspicions that it was a government hoax and propagandaeffort.

32. Thai police investigations failed to provide any concrete evidence to

120 Ahmad Fauzi

substantiate the suicide army charge (Thailand Times 26.06.94, Bangkok Post28.06.94, The Star 12.07.94). In a letter published in the New Straits Times(23.06.94), Surapong Posayanood, the Thai ambassador to Malaysia, wrote:‘As regards the Al-Arqam movement, the embassy takes note that there arestill differences of opinion within Malaysia and that a dialogue between thetwo sides has been advocated ... With regard to the alleged training of thearmed unit in Thailand, there has been no clear evidence put forward byany party.’

33. ‘Pusat Islam atur strategi selamatkan 6,000 pengikut’, Berita Minggu,17.07.94.

34. For explicit Darul Arqam denials of operating a suicide army and ofUstaz Ashaari’s claims to Mahdiship, see respectively, the statement byHassan Mokhtar, secretary of the Majlis Syuyukh, in ‘Arqam nafi punyaitentera Al-Mahadi’, Utusan Malaysia, 14.06.94; and Asiaweek’s (20.07.94)interview with Ustaz Ashaari, who called the accusation a ‘big lie’ which hadbeen clarified many times.

35. As believed by some Darul Arqam members and sympathisers (personalcommunication). Some others, perhaps the more committed ones, upheldthe basic veracity of the recording, but suspected that such insideinformation could only have reached the authorities via government agentswho had infiltrated Darul Arqam and who may have defiled the originalcontents.

36. The term is derived from the Quran; for example ‘Verily, when He intendsa thing, His Command is, ‘Be’, and it is!’ (Quran: XXXVI: 82).

37. See for example ‘Action against staff with Al-Arqam links’, New StraitsTimes, 06.07.94, and the text of the Friday sermon entitled ‘Penyelewengan Al-Arqam’ (Al Arqam’s Deviationism) delivered at the National Mosque, KualaLumpur on 05.08.94, in Utusan Malaysia, 11.08.94.

38. One is reminded of the ulama’s misunderstanding of the paroxysmalutterances of the phrase ‘anal-haq’, meaning ‘I am the Truth i.e. God’ by thelegendary Persian sufi al-Hallaj (d. 921), who was ultimately condemned todeath on charges of heresy (‘Attar 1990: 113–20, Al-Jiasi 1976: 72). InAurad Muhammadiah Pegangan Darul Arqam, Ustaz Ashaari Muhammad(1986: 181) acknowledged the supernatural abilities of al-Hallaj. Thisapparent approbation of al-Hallaj’s mysticism was at least partly indicativeof Ustaz Ashaari’s sufi inclinations.

39. This saying was itself derived from a Prophet Muhammad’s hadith, which,given a mystical interpretation, would probably absolve Darul Arqam ofcharges of deviously comparing God with His creation. The hadith, relatedby Bukhari on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, reads: ‘Allah the Almighty


has said: Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I shall be at warwith him. My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more lovedby Me than the religious duties I have imposed upon him, and My servantcontinues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall lovehim. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing withwhich he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which hewalks. Were he to ask (something) of Me, I would surely give it to him; andwere he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it’ (An-Nawawi1976: 118).

40. The Ahmadiyyah sufi order derived its name from the afore-mentionedSheikh Ahmad ibn Idris, a progenitor of Islamic revival in nineteenth-century North Africa. Despite his strong sufi credentials, Sheikh Ahmadibn Idris has not unusually been identified by scholars as a ‘fundamentalist’,whose criticism of degenerated forms of mysticism bore resemblance withWahhabi views and earned him the wrath of traditional sufi brotherhoods.Disciples of Sheikh Ahmad ibn Idris were instrumental in the founding ofthe Tijaniyyah and Sanusiyyah sufi orders, both of which were similarlyrevivalist in orientation. See Mortimer (1982: 72–4) and Tomai (1989:102–3, fn. 97).

41. That the author mentioned here ‘Suhaimi’ instead of ‘AuradMuhammadiah’ may be due to factual misinformation in his research, or tothe possibility that the ‘Suhaimi tariqah’ was another name for ‘AuradMuhammadiah’. It has not been known that Sheikh Muhammad AbdullahAl-Suhaimi had founded any other tariqah besides the AuradMuhammadiah, although he did mention that before practising the AuradMuhammadiah, he was a practitioner of the ‘Alawiyah tariqah (As-Suhaimin.d.: 3).

42. Personal conclusion from the scrutiny of mainstream newspaper articlesand reports on the ‘Darul Arqam versus the state’ conflict from June toAugust 1994.

43. cf. special report in Editor, ‘Al Arqam: Pro dan Kontra’ (Pros and Cons ofAl Arqam), June 1990; ‘Azyumardi Azra, ‘Terlalu Banyak Campur TanganPolitik’ (Too Much Political Interference), Dunia Islam, October 1994;interviews in the special report in Sinar, ‘Kerajaan Bisnis Darul Arqam’(The Business Government of Darul Arqam), 01.08.94; JalaluddinRachmat, viewpoint in Sinar, 08.08.94.

44. cf. ‘Nordin tidak mengaku salah’, Berita Harian, 09.04.96; ‘Nordinmengaku Imam Mahadi kurun ke-15’, Berita Minggu, 21.03.04.

45. cf. ‘Former Al-Arqam redefines itself: The movement now concentrateson its business enterprises’, New Sunday Times, 30.04.00.

122 Ahmad Fauzi

References

Abdullah Hassan (ed.) (2002), Prosiding Persidangan Antarabangsa MelayuBeijing ke-2 Jilid 1: Agama, Budaya, Pendidikan, Ekonomi, Sejarah danSeni, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Abdul Khaliq (1993), Senjata Makan Tuan: Kesan Tekanan Terhadap DarulArqam (Self-Devouring Weapon: Impact of Pressures on DarulArqam), Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Al Munir.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, Dr (1999a), Malaysia Daulah PemudaBani Tamim: Rahsia Keagungan Ummah, Kuala Lumpur: AbukuHebat.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (1999b), ‘New Trends of IslamicResurgence in Contemporary Malaysia: Sufi-Revivalism,Messianism and Economic Activism’, Studia Islamika: IndonesianJournal for Islamic Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–74.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (2000), ‘Political Dimensions of ReligiousConflict in Malaysia: State Response to an Islamic Movement’,Indonesia and the Malay World, vol. 28, no. 80, pp. 32–65.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (2001a), ‘Pemerintah dan Gerakan Islamdi Malaysia’ (The Authorities and Islamic Movements in Malaysia),Pemikir, no. 23, pp. 111–58.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (2001b), ‘Sufi Undercurrents in IslamicRevivalism: Traditional, Post-Traditional and Modern Images ofIslamic Activism in Malaysia — Part 1’, Islamic Quarterly, vol. XLV,no. 2, pp. 119–37.

Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (2001c), ‘Sufi Undercurrents in IslamicRevivalism: Traditional, Post-Traditional and Modern Images ofIslamic Activism in Malaysia — Part 2’, Islamic Quarterly, vol. XLV,no. 3, pp. 177–98.

Al Alwani, Taha Jabir (1993), The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam (trans.Abdul Wahid Hamid), Herndon, Virginia: The InternationalInstitute of Islamic Thought.

ALIRAN (1988), ISA dan Keselamatan Negara, Penang: AliranKesedaran Negara.

Al-Jiasi, Mustapha Mohamed (1976), Mengenal Diri dan Wali Allah(Recognising the Self and the Saints of Allah), Kota Bharu:Pustaka Aman Press.


An-Nawawi (1976), An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith (trans. Ezzeddin Ibrahimand Denys Johnson-Davies), Lebanon: The Holy Koran PublishingHouse.

As-Siddiq, Abdullah ibn (1985), Jesus, Al Mahdi and the Anti-Christ(trans. Imam Ahmad Darwish), New York and London: As-Siddiquyah Publishers.

As-Suhaimi, Muhammad bin Abdullah (n.d.), Hembusan Kasturi: MaulidNabi SAW (Musky Breeze: Birthday of the Prophet, peace be uponhim, trans. Md. Taha Suhaimi), Singapore: Peripensis.

Ashaari Muhammad, Ustaz Hj. (1986), Aurad Muhammadiah PeganganDarul Arqam: Sekaligus Menjawab Tuduhan (Aurad Muhammadiah:The Conviction of Darul Arqam), Kuala Lumpur: Penerangan AlArqam.

Ashaari Muhammad, Ustaz (1987a), Siapa Mujaddid Kurun Ke 15? (Whois the Mujaddid of the Fifteenth Century?), Kuala Lumpur:Penerangan Al Arqam.

Ashaari Muhammad, Ustaz (1987b), Bahaya Syiah (Dangers of Shiism),Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Shoutul Arqam.

Ashaari Muhammad, Ustaz (1988), Inilah Pandanganku (MyContemplations), Kuala Lumpur: Penerangan Al Arqam.

Ashaari Muhammad, Ustaz (1989), Berhati-hati Membuat Tuduhan (BeCareful in Making Allegations), Kuala Lumpur: Penerangan AlArqam.

Ashaari Muhammad, Abuya Syeikh Imam (1993), AssalamualaikumDato’ Seri PM: Surat-surat Kepada Perdana Menteri Malaysia (jawapankepada tuduhan-tuduhan) [Assalamualaikum Dato’ Seri PM: Letters tothe Prime Minister of Malaysia (answers to allegations)], KualaLumpur: Penerbitan Abuya.

‘Attar, Syeikh Fariduddin (1990), Tazkiratul-Auliya’: 62 Orang Wali Allah(Reminders of Saints: Sixty-two Saints of Allah, trans Abdul Majidbin Haji Khatib), Kota Bharu: Pustaka Aman Press, ninth edition.

Atiqul Haque, M. (1990), Muslim Heroes of the World, London: TahaPublishers.

BAHEIS (1986), Penjelasan Terhadap Buku Aurad Muhammadiah PeganganDarul Arqam (An Explanation to the book ‘Aurad Muhammadiah:The Conviction of Darul Arqam’), Kuala Lumpur.

124 Ahmad Fauzi

BAHEIS (1993), Penyelewengan Aqidah Darul Arqam (The Deviation ofDarul Arqam’s Theology), Kuala Lumpur.

BAHEIS (n.d.), The Deviation of Darul Arqam Teaching, Kuala Lumpur.Barraclough, S. (1985), ‘The Dynamics of Coercion in the Malaysian

Political Process’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 797–822.Case, William (1993), ‘Semi-Democracy in Malaysia: Withstanding the

Pressures for Regime Change’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 66, no. 2, pp.183–205.

Crouch, Harold (1996), Government and Society in Malaysia, St. Leonards:Allen and Unwin.

Darul Arqam (1993), 25 Years of Darul Arqam: The Struggle of AbuyaSyeikh Imam Ashaari Muhammad At Tamimi, Kuala Lumpur:Penerbitan Abuya.

Debernadi, Jean; Forth, Gregory and Niessen, Sandra (eds) (1995),Managing Change in Southeast Asia: Local Identities, Global Connections,Edmonton: Canadian Council for Southeast Asian Studies.

Deliar Noer (1975), ‘Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia: A PreliminaryStudy’, Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, vol. 9, no. 2, pp.51–70.

Haswan (1993), Menangani Ancaman Al Arqam (Confronting the AlArqam Threat), Kuala Lumpur: Penerbitan Al Munir.

Hussin Mutalib (1990), Islam and Ethnicity in Malay Politics, Singapore:Oxford University Press.

Ibn ‘Arabi (1976), ‘Whoso Knoweth Himself ...’, Abingdon: BesharaPublications.

Ibn Kathir (1991), The Signs Before the Day of Judgement (trans. HudaKhattab), London: Dar Al Taqwa.

Ibn Muhammad, Sayf ad-Din Ahmed (1994), Al-Albani Unveiled: AnExposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues, Blackburn: IslamicPromotions.

Jamil, Fadzillah bin Mohd. (1988), The Reawakening of IslamicConsciousness in Malaysia 1970–87, Ph.D. thesis, University ofEdinburgh.

Kedah Religious Affairs Department (1994), Penyelewengan Al-Arqamdari Ajaran Islam (Al-Arqam’s Deviation from Islamic Teachings),Alor Star: Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Negeri Kedah.


Khadijah Aam (1994), ‘Ayatullah’, Siri Terkini Era Kasih Sayang, KualaLumpur: Penerbitan Hikmah.

Khoo Boo Teik (1995), Paradoxes of Mahathirism: An Intellectual Biographyof Mahathir Mohamad, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Khoo Boo Teik (2004), ‘Malaysian Politics in 2004: Transitions andElections’, Political and Security Outlook 2004: Political Change inSoutheast Asia, Trends in Southeast Asia Series monograph 7, Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Lent, John A. (1984), ‘Human Rights in Malaysia’, Journal ofContemporary Asia, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 442–58.

Means, Gordon P. (1991), Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation,Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Meuleman, Johan Hendrik (1996), ‘Reactions and Attitudes towardsthe Darul Arqam Movement in Southeast Asia’, Studia Islamika:Indonesian Journal for Islamic Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–78.

Mohd. Murtadza Sheikh Haji Ahmad, Sohibus Samahah Al Sheikh andMahmud Saedon Awang Othman, Prof. Dr. (1993), Mengenal Al-Tarekat Al-Ahmadiah (Introducing the Ahmadiyyah sufi order),Seremban: Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan.

Mohd. Taha Suhaimi, Ustadz Hj. (1990), Sejarah Hidup SyeikhMuhammad Suhaimi (The History of Syeikh Muhammad Suhaimi’sLife), Singapore: Peripensis.

Mohd. Taha Suhaimi, Ustadz Hj. (1994), Jawapan Bagi Tuduhan-tuduhanTerhadap Sejarah Hidup Syeikh Muhammad As-Suhaimi dan AuradMuhammadiah (Answers to allegations concerning the biography ofSheikh Muhammad as-Suhaimi and Aurad Muhammadiah),Singapore: Peripensis.

Mortimer, Edward (1982), Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam, London:Faber and faber.

Muhammad Labib Ahmad (1980), Siapa Imam Mahdi? (Who is ImamMahdi?), Singapore: Pustaka Nasional.

Muhammad Syukri Salleh (1992), An Islamic Approach to RuralDevelopment: The Arqam Way, London: Asoib International Ltd.

Muhammad Syukri Salleh (1995), ‘Islamic Change in Malaysia: ThePolitics of Unfavourable Responses’ in Debernadi, Forth andNiessen 1995, pp. 227–43.

126 Ahmad Fauzi

Muhammad Syukri Salleh (2003), ‘Perniagaan Gerakan-gerakan Islamdi Malaysia’ (The Businesses of Islamic Movements in Malaysia),Pemikir, no. 31, pp. 133–85.

Mustaffa Suhaimi (2000), Iktikad Ahli Sunnah Waljamaah (The SunniCreed), Kuala Lumpur: Progressive Publishing House.

Nagata, Judith (1984), The Reflowering of Malaysian Islam: Modern ReligiousRadicals and their Roots, Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress.

Nagata, Judith (1997), ‘Ethnonationalism versus ReligiousTransnationalism: Nation-building and Islam in Malaysia’, TheMuslim World, vol. LXXXVII, no. 2, pp. 129–50.

Nagata, Judith (2004), ‘Alternative Models of Islamic Governance inSoutheast Asia: Neo-Sufism and the Arqam Experiment inMalaysia’, Global Change, Peace and Security, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 99–114.

Nidzam Sulaiman (2002), ‘Anjakan Paradigma Budaya Politik MelayuDari Feudal Kepada Neo-Feudal’ (Paradigm Shift from Feudal toNeo-Feudal Malay Political Culture) in Abdullah Hassan 2002, pp.612–17.

Pengurus Besar Nahdlatul Ulama (1994), Keputusan Pengurus BesarSyuriyah Nahdatul Ulama Tentang Aqidah Darul Arqam (The Decisionof the General Manager of the Nahdatul Ulama LegislativeCouncil on Darul Arqam’s Faith), Jakarta: Nahdatul Ulama,12.08.94.

Roff, William. R. (1970), ‘Indonesian and Malay Students in Cairo inthe 1920’s’, Indonesia, vol. 9, pp. 73–87.

Safie bin Ibrahim (1981), The Islamic Party of Malaysia: Its Formative Stagesand Ideology, Pasir Puteh: Nuawi bin Ismail.

Sirajuddin Abbas, K.H. (1991), I’itiqad Ahlussunah Wal-jamaah (TheSunni Creed), Kota Bharu: Pustaka Aman Press, sixth edition.

Tomai, Husain Hasan (1989), Masalah Berjumpa Rasulullah Ketika JagaSelepas Wafatnya (The Question of Consciously Meeting theMessenger of Allah after his Death, trans. Ustaz Anuar Hj. AbdulRahman), Kota Bharu: Pustaka Aman Press.

Wan Mohd. Shaghir Abdullah, Hj. (2000), Penyebaran Thariqat-thariqatShufiyah Mu’tabarah di Dunia Melayu (The Spread of True Tariqahsin the Malay World), Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Fathaniyah.


Newspapers and magazines

Al Islam, Kuala Lumpur.Asiaweek, Hong Kong.Bangkok Post, Bangkok.Berita Harian, Kuala Lumpur.Berita Minggu, Kuala Lumpur.Buletin Demokrasi, Kuala Lumpur.Daily Express (Sabah), Kota Kinabalu.Dunia Islam, Kuala Lumpur.The Economist, London.Editor, Jakarta.Harakah, Kuala Lumpur.Kompas, Jakarta.Kosmo!, Kuala Lumpur.Malaysian Digest, Kuala Lumpur.Media Dakwah, Jakarta.Mingguan Islam, Kuala Lumpur.The Nation, Bangkok.New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur.New Sunday Times, Kuala Lumpur.The Star, Petaling Jaya.Sinar, Jakarta.Straits Times, Singapore.The Sun, Kuala Lumpur.Sunday Star, Kuala Lumpur.Thailand Times, Bangkok.Time, New York.Utusan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.Utusan Melayu, Kuala Lumpur.

All Quranic references are from The Holy Qur’an: Translation andcommentary by A. Yusuf Ali, Durban: Islamic Propagation CentreInternational, n.d. (first edition 1934).

128 Ahmad Fauzi

pegharaman arqam

Documents