‘Khalwat’ on Singapore’s Subway

It started just like any other journey on the MRT. I boarded the train and sat on the nearest available empty seat.

A pretty young woman was sitting on my left. She was tired and dozed off intermittently. As she nodded to sleep, her head kept slumping to her right until she jerked herself awake.

Subway, 1934. Oil on canvas by Lily Furedi

The routine continued for a few stations until she finally feel asleep with her head resting on my shoulder. I evaluated my options:

1.   Wake her up and suggest that my bed might be a more comfortable place for her to nap if she would just like to accompany me there!

2.   Wake her up and ask for her telephone number.

3.   Ignore her and pretend nothing unusual was happening (the correct answer is always the most boring).

Being a shy type I took little time in deciding that doing nothing until she wakes up is the best course of action. I had several more stations to travel anyway.

The incident is an innocent tale of 'business as usual' in a normal social setting. Yet, in some societies interaction between the sexes is severely curtailed and civil rights are often infringed by religious zealots.

Consider the law of 'khalwat' in Malaysia. The law is not atypical in the Islamic world and similar versions can be found on the statute books of many Islamic nations. However, the level of enforcement varies considerably within different jurisdictions.

Malaysia's Shariah Criminal Provisions Act (Federal Territories), Section 27, states: "Any man who is found together with one or more women, not being his wife or mahram [family member or close relative]; or any woman who is found together with one or more men, not being her husband or mahram, in any secluded place or in a house or room under circumstances which may give rise to suspicion that they were engaged in immoral acts shall be guilty for an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both."

It may be surprising to note that even the otherwise liberal metropolis of Kuala Lumpur has its fair share of khalwat cases, including instances of dating couples holding hands or kissing in the gardens of the Petronas Twin Towers. (Some will suggest that the police seem to be more interested in such cases around Hari Raya when household expenses increase due to exchanging of gifts.)

As one will expect, khalwat is most actively enforced in the states controlled by Malaysia's Islamist party, PAS. In Terengganu the PAS Youth wing has reportedly mobilized members of the Youth Welfare Association to create vigilante squads to 'discourage' the spread of khalwat.

In many other nations the legal framework is not as relevant as social practices. The existence of an organization like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) does little to change the ground reality for women in most parts of the country, despite the assertions of equality under Afghanistan's post-Taliban Constitution.

The battle lines are drawn within mainstream Islam.

The niqab, or the full veil is most commonly found in Arab societies

The extreme right is represented by clerics who want to make the niqab (the full veil) 'one eyed.' The Saudi cleric, Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan, suggested that revealing both eyes encourages the use eye make-up to make females look seductive.

The progressive strand of Islam is personified by the spiritual leader of the world's Sunni Muslims, the Grand Mufti of al-Azhar University, Egypt. He recently suggested that trousers are acceptable dress for Muslim women and there is no requirement for a Muslim woman to cover her face via a full face veil.

To be sure, a subway carriage is not a secluded place and my circumstances were hardly suspicious. Still, enforcing a legal system based on imprecise and controversial religious moralities is a recipe for social disaster.

The right to eat freely during Ramadan should be available to all 1.57 billion Muslims. Whether any Muslim chooses to exercise that right is a personal choice – not an obligation enforceable by the state.