Unpacking Our Moral Priorities

---

 


A single mother from Terengganu was recently charged in the state’s Syariah High Court for close proximity after she was caught being with a man who was not her husband or “mahram” (a family member with whom marriage would be unlawful) inside a house, in the middle of an afternoon.
The woman pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six strokes of cane and a fine of RM4,000, in default eight months in jail. She had been convicted of a similar offence in 2018.
On the surface, it is very easy for most Muslims to frown upon those accused of close proximity, especially when they admit to the offences. But then again, it is important to know what they were pleading guilty to.
Were they admitting to being in a sexual relationship?
In most cases, when an accused admits to guilt upon conviction, they are merely confessing to being with a person of the opposite gender who is not a spouse or “mahram”, in a secluded place.
Now, what is so wrong about being in a secluded place with someone of the opposite gender?
Original meaning of khalwat
Derived from the Arabic word “khala”, meaning empty or secluded place, khalwat initially denoted an act of devotion and spiritual retreat.
Following the example of Prophet Muhammad, who sought solitude in the Cave of Hira to connect with God, the practice of being alone in a secluded place for ibadah (worship) became known as khalwat.
It's intriguing to observe that historically, khalwat also encompassed beautiful, intimate moments between a husband and wife. However, over time, the meaning and perception of khalwat have undergone a significant shift.
Somewhere along the trajectory of its evolution, the once beautiful and revered term of khalwat transformed into a criminal offence. This shift in connotation has led to varied interpretations of the term in our society today.
While some, like me, view khalwat as an infringement upon personal freedoms based on suspicions, many others refer to it as a sinful offence. To them, personal freedoms must always be in conformity with syariah law.
Sadly, as the obsession with moral policing continues, no one really pays attention to the positive, pure, and beautiful meaning that the term khalwat once had. Well, it seems like everyone is simply preoccupied with poking their noses into other people's affairs.
‘Evil lurking in the dark’
The prohibition of “khalwat” is derived from hadiths such as these:
“A man is not alone with a woman unless the third of them is the ‘syaitan’ (evil),” – Al-Tarmizi.
“No person (man) should be alone with a woman except when there is a ‘mahram’ with her,” - Sahih Muslim.
It can be understood from the hadiths that if a man and a woman are alone in a secluded place, it seems that the evil will be there to whisper desires and seduce them into fornication.
As a Muslim woman in this 21st century, I have been alone with a man who is neither my husband nor my mahram on various occasions - inside elevators, cars, gender-neutral toilets and also in meeting rooms. However, I saw no evil lurking in the dark.
In fact, I’ve gone on many holidays with friends of the opposite gender where we had to share a single room - still, I heard no whispers of the “syaitan”.
The truth is, a man and a woman minding their own business in a secluded place doesn’t necessarily turn the act into khalwat. Any Muslims with working brains on their shoulders would know that various non-sexual acts can take place behind closed doors.
Unfortunately, as far as the syariah law is concerned, being together in a secluded place is enough to raise suspicions of immoral conduct.
Oddly, no Muslims have been accused of khalwat for sharing an elevator or a car with someone of the opposite gender who isn’t a “mahram”. Now why is that?
Interestingly, the Federal Territory Mufti’s Office has given fatwa rulings on Muslims sharing (1) cars and (2) elevators with an opposite gender and not a “mahram”:
(1) Customers should cancel the booking if the driver is from the opposite gender. However, since it may affect the driver’s livelihood, it is allowed for the customer to be alone in a car with a driver, given that the customer sits in the back and does not communicate with the driver. Also, a road that is not isolated should be chosen.
(2) It is forbidden for a woman and a man who are “non-mahram” to be alone in an elevator unless they are both free from “fitnah” (bad assumptions) and their safety is assured. However, the fatwa advises women to avoid travelling alone in an elevator and in the case of the men, to lower their gaze.
In both rulings, these fatwas demonstrate a notable lack of trust. The requirement for a Muslim to cancel a ride-sharing booking if the driver is of the opposite gender or for individuals to avoid being alone in an elevator reflects a deep-seated suspicion rather than fostering mutual respect and trust.
Such rulings imply an inherent assumption of wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour simply based on gender and perpetuate division and mistrust within society.
While Islam places a significant emphasis on trust and integrity in various aspects of life, we have syariah laws and fatwas that are based on suspicions of others. I find this mind-boggling.
Why can’t we trust a Muslim who shares a secluded space with another, whoever they may be, to carry themselves with dignity, without any suspicion?
Moral vs religious obligations
Our emphasis on monitoring close proximity situations with high suspicions raises questions about our priorities. After all, why do we give so much importance to maintaining appropriate boundaries between men and women and avoiding situations that may lead to moral transgressions, compared to the policing of fundamental religious obligations?
The pillars of Islam comprise the essential religious practices - declaration of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, charity, and pilgrimage to Mecca. These pillars form the core framework of Islamic worship and spiritual development, yet the level of enforcement applied to these obligations is less stringent compared to laws governing personal behaviour. Now why is that?
It’s like, “We trust you… but not that much.” It’s almost like having an annoying teacher constantly looking over your shoulder during an exam, making sure you don’t cheat.
But then, when it comes to policing the pillars of Islam, it's like, “Eh, do your prayers, give to charity... or not, whatever floats your boat!”
When you step back and look at it, you can't help but wonder if all this focus on the small stuff is a distraction from the bigger issues. Is Islam more concerned about who you're hanging out with than whether you're actually fulfilling your religious duties?
It's like they're policing our social life instead of guiding our spiritual journey.
Maybe it's about control, keeping people in line by nitpicking over minor details while letting the more significant stuff slide. After all, it's easier to enforce rules about close proximity than to tackle the deeper questions of faith and devotion.
But at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: is this really what religion should be about? Shouldn't it be more about personal growth and spiritual connection than about who we're seen with? - Mkini
FA ABDUL is a multi-award-winning playwright and director in the local performing arts scene, a published author, television scriptwriter, media trainer, and mother. Her ultimate mission in life is to live out of a small suitcase.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---