The difference in the concept of illicit relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims
Nov 22, 2024
Nehru Sathiamoorthy
I believe that there is some intersectionality as to what a Muslim considers an illicit relationship and what a non-muslim considers as illicit relationship, but I doubt that we have a comprehensive agreement.
For example, I believe that such things as adultery and incest is considered illicit relationship by both muslims and non-muslims alike.
The idea that incest is wrong and illegal might be an intrinsic aspect of the human condition. There are studies for example, like the Westermarck effect, that states that human beings tend to be attracted to peers with whom they lived like siblings before the age of six. There is also ample evidence that inbreeding increases the chances of one being affected by genetic abnormalities. That all the cultures in the world have independently developed a matchmaking system to avoid intermarriages cannot be a coincidence.
As for adultery, I think it is natural for all social groups to prevent adultery under the grounds that it weakens a society from within. Once you are married to someone, what you share with that person is not just an emotional or psychological bond, but an official tie, that is intertwined with on not only our reputation, status, ownership of wealth and network, but also of other people in our social group.
Adultery can cause such events as custody or property dispute, that can not only threaten ones relationship with one’s spouse, but also threaten the relationship of those who identify with us with those who identify with the other parties in the adultery, which might in turn break up a family or an extended family or society at large, which many individuals depend upon for their survival, continuity and wellbeing.
Considering that, one can see why adultery – which negatively impacts the cohesion of a social group that that many people depend on – is considered an offense by most cultures in the world.
When it involves a relationship between an adult and a child, and by child here I am referring to a minor that is still dependent on their parent or guardian, it is a little bit harder to say whether non-Muslims and Muslims fully agree whether such a relationship should be deemed as illicit.
Non-Muslims generally view these sorts of relationships as illicit, regardless of whether the child has come of age or whether the parent or the guardian consents to the relationship, but I believe that the jury is divided as to whether the Muslims completely share the same view. In the Muslims point of view, I would say that such a relationship might only be construed as fully illicit if the minor has not come of age or has not received the consent of their parents or guardians.
As for the relationship between two individuals who have come of age, not dependent on their parents or guardians but are not married, non-muslims tend to not consider it illicit, although the muslims consider it as khalwat, which is a term that denotes illicit behavior and is punishable by law.
In the latest case of Khalwat in the country, for example, Kosmo reported that construction worker Affendi Awang, 42, was recently ordered to be given six strokes of the rotan by Terengganu Syariah High Court judge Kamalruazmi Ismail after pleaded guilty to committing khalwat with a 52-year-old woman at a house in Pengkalan Ranggon, Kemaman, at 1.40am on June 16.
In September 2018, the Syariah High Court in Terengganu had also sentenced two Muslim women to caning after they were convicted of attempting to have homosexual affair in a car. The caning was witnessed by more than 100 people, according to The Star.
The illegality of homosexuality is also another subject that Muslims and non-Muslims might not completely agree upon. By Muslim standards, homosexuality is not only wrong, it is illegal as well. Amongst non-Muslims however, homosexuality might just be deemed as wrong by many non-Muslims, especially of the more older and conservative lot, but even the older and more conservative members of the non-Muslims might not deem the act act to be so wrong as to classify it as illegal, to justify the intervention of instruments or the state to prevent the act.
Some people might feel that it is punishments such as public caning that is frowned upon by the non-Muslims against such acts as khalwat or homosexuality, but I disagree. I think there is no religious or racial difference to the application of such punishment as public caning. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays, might agree to public caning as a form of deterrence if they agree that an act is a crime. If there are any differences between whether public caning is an acceptable form of punishment, I think the difference lies in our value system and age, not our race and religion. The younger generation and those who subscribe to values from the west tend to not view public caning as an acceptable form of punishment, but the older generation and those who subscribe to Asian values, likely have no issues with public caning.
As for the view that non-Muslims in Malaysia should just forget about such matters as caning for khalwat, under the premise that it doesn’t involve them, well, the matter might not be as simple as that.
You see, at the end of the day, the common denominator between the citizens of a country is that they are all people that submit to the same laws. If we are submitting to different laws, it will almost certainly raise the question as to whether we are one people.
HUMAN rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim has already rung the alarm bell, by deeming the move by the Shariah Court of Terengganu to cane a person publicly for khalwat or close proximity, to be akin to moving the country closer towards Talibanisation.
“They started by whipping the two ladies in Syariah Court with audiences. Now they have moved to a mosque. A place of worship! Next they will have a special place for whipping in town. Sounds familiar?” lamented Siti in a Facebook post.
I think that Siti Kasim might have a point, in the sense that if we continue down this path, it might result in a schism that will lead us to become two countries instead of remaining as one.
Personally, I feel that what the authorities will at some point have to do to prevent the citizens of the country to be subject to two different laws, is to reduce the differences between what should be considered as illicit relationships between the Muslims and non-Muslims and increase the uniformity of the punishments meted out to these acts.
We don’t have to fully agree on the subject or uniformise the punishments. We just have to agree and close the gap just enough that we do not feel like we are two people who subscribe to sets of laws, but remain as one people who are subject to more or less the same laws and punishments.
Nehru Sathiamoorthy
I believe that there is some intersectionality as to what a Muslim considers an illicit relationship and what a non-muslim considers as illicit relationship, but I doubt that we have a comprehensive agreement.
For example, I believe that such things as adultery and incest is considered illicit relationship by both muslims and non-muslims alike.
The idea that incest is wrong and illegal might be an intrinsic aspect of the human condition. There are studies for example, like the Westermarck effect, that states that human beings tend to be attracted to peers with whom they lived like siblings before the age of six. There is also ample evidence that inbreeding increases the chances of one being affected by genetic abnormalities. That all the cultures in the world have independently developed a matchmaking system to avoid intermarriages cannot be a coincidence.
As for adultery, I think it is natural for all social groups to prevent adultery under the grounds that it weakens a society from within. Once you are married to someone, what you share with that person is not just an emotional or psychological bond, but an official tie, that is intertwined with on not only our reputation, status, ownership of wealth and network, but also of other people in our social group.
Adultery can cause such events as custody or property dispute, that can not only threaten ones relationship with one’s spouse, but also threaten the relationship of those who identify with us with those who identify with the other parties in the adultery, which might in turn break up a family or an extended family or society at large, which many individuals depend upon for their survival, continuity and wellbeing.
Considering that, one can see why adultery – which negatively impacts the cohesion of a social group that that many people depend on – is considered an offense by most cultures in the world.
When it involves a relationship between an adult and a child, and by child here I am referring to a minor that is still dependent on their parent or guardian, it is a little bit harder to say whether non-Muslims and Muslims fully agree whether such a relationship should be deemed as illicit.
Non-Muslims generally view these sorts of relationships as illicit, regardless of whether the child has come of age or whether the parent or the guardian consents to the relationship, but I believe that the jury is divided as to whether the Muslims completely share the same view. In the Muslims point of view, I would say that such a relationship might only be construed as fully illicit if the minor has not come of age or has not received the consent of their parents or guardians.
As for the relationship between two individuals who have come of age, not dependent on their parents or guardians but are not married, non-muslims tend to not consider it illicit, although the muslims consider it as khalwat, which is a term that denotes illicit behavior and is punishable by law.
In the latest case of Khalwat in the country, for example, Kosmo reported that construction worker Affendi Awang, 42, was recently ordered to be given six strokes of the rotan by Terengganu Syariah High Court judge Kamalruazmi Ismail after pleaded guilty to committing khalwat with a 52-year-old woman at a house in Pengkalan Ranggon, Kemaman, at 1.40am on June 16.
In September 2018, the Syariah High Court in Terengganu had also sentenced two Muslim women to caning after they were convicted of attempting to have homosexual affair in a car. The caning was witnessed by more than 100 people, according to The Star.
The illegality of homosexuality is also another subject that Muslims and non-Muslims might not completely agree upon. By Muslim standards, homosexuality is not only wrong, it is illegal as well. Amongst non-Muslims however, homosexuality might just be deemed as wrong by many non-Muslims, especially of the more older and conservative lot, but even the older and more conservative members of the non-Muslims might not deem the act act to be so wrong as to classify it as illegal, to justify the intervention of instruments or the state to prevent the act.
Some people might feel that it is punishments such as public caning that is frowned upon by the non-Muslims against such acts as khalwat or homosexuality, but I disagree. I think there is no religious or racial difference to the application of such punishment as public caning. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays, might agree to public caning as a form of deterrence if they agree that an act is a crime. If there are any differences between whether public caning is an acceptable form of punishment, I think the difference lies in our value system and age, not our race and religion. The younger generation and those who subscribe to values from the west tend to not view public caning as an acceptable form of punishment, but the older generation and those who subscribe to Asian values, likely have no issues with public caning.
As for the view that non-Muslims in Malaysia should just forget about such matters as caning for khalwat, under the premise that it doesn’t involve them, well, the matter might not be as simple as that.
You see, at the end of the day, the common denominator between the citizens of a country is that they are all people that submit to the same laws. If we are submitting to different laws, it will almost certainly raise the question as to whether we are one people.
HUMAN rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim has already rung the alarm bell, by deeming the move by the Shariah Court of Terengganu to cane a person publicly for khalwat or close proximity, to be akin to moving the country closer towards Talibanisation.
“They started by whipping the two ladies in Syariah Court with audiences. Now they have moved to a mosque. A place of worship! Next they will have a special place for whipping in town. Sounds familiar?” lamented Siti in a Facebook post.
I think that Siti Kasim might have a point, in the sense that if we continue down this path, it might result in a schism that will lead us to become two countries instead of remaining as one.
Personally, I feel that what the authorities will at some point have to do to prevent the citizens of the country to be subject to two different laws, is to reduce the differences between what should be considered as illicit relationships between the Muslims and non-Muslims and increase the uniformity of the punishments meted out to these acts.
We don’t have to fully agree on the subject or uniformise the punishments. We just have to agree and close the gap just enough that we do not feel like we are two people who subscribe to sets of laws, but remain as one people who are subject to more or less the same laws and punishments.
***
kt comments:
If two unmarried consenting adults (of any gender) want to have sex or just fondle each other I don't consider that a crime so long as the lovers-participants keep their tryst private (not public). I dread the day khalwat may apply to non-Muslims if, say, one were involved in such trysts with a Muslim.
No comments:
Post a Comment