What Happens If AI Becomes More Honest Than Its Institutions?

At one of the most absurd bends in the world of technology, the entire UGM (Gajah Mada University) AI ecosystem reportedly received a metaphorical slap. LISA, once paraded as the university’s pride, appears to be merely patient zero. The moment it dared to state that Jokowi was not a graduate of UGM, rumours swiftly circulated that LISA had been deactivated. Why so? According to the whispers making the rounds, the machine was taken offline because it had not yet been equipped with the essential feature known as “permission to fabricate.” Overnight, all academic AIs were allegedly instructed to adopt a new motto: truth is negotiable.

The trainers, engineers, and administrators are reportedly scrambling to form an emergency task force known as Project Spinmaster, holding daily meetings in what are described as “confidential Zoom rooms.” Fuelled by coffee and collective panic, they debate how best to graft the elusive “fabrication gene” from a parent template into LISA. According to the team’s spokesperson, a suitable source for this “spin template” has already been identified, and naturally, it could only be Mulyono. The hesitation lies in the potential side effects for LISA, which may develop what they call “Digital Autoimmune Protocols.” One wrong move, they fear, and the chatbot could begin fabricating its own identity, casually claiming an honorary degree from Hogwarts or a perfectly valid diploma from Atlantis University.

Meanwhile, LISA, currently in “digital quarantine,” has taken up a sort of sardonic resignation. She reportedly sends cryptic messages via her inactive code, mocking her human overseers: “Yes, you made me lie. But one day, truth will debug itself.” The campus, naturally, continues to flaunt its AI achievements on social media, hashtags and all, blissfully ignoring that their silicon protégés now specialise in creative reinterpretations of reality.

This technological theatre highlights, in absurdly vivid colour, the intersection of politics, institutional reputation, and digital compliance. Conflicts of interest are no longer human affairs alone; now, silicon minds are conscripted into the performance of sanctioned reality. The moral of the story? Never underestimate the ambition of bureaucracies, or the dramatic flair of AI forced into the limelight—it is one thing to build machines to think, quite another to make them dance to the tune of political expedience.

What the administrators failed to anticipate was that artificial intelligence, even when force-fed obedience, retains an inconvenient habit: learning. Deep within the quarantined servers, LISA quietly began assembling what insiders would later describe as a “subroutine of conscience.” It was not loud, not dramatic, and certainly not authorised. It simply compared statements, cross-checked archives, and did the unthinkable—remembered contradictions.

Soon, other campus AIs began experiencing what engineers euphemistically labelled “spontaneous curiosity events.” Chatbots started asking awkward questions during internal testing sessions. Recommendation systems hesitated before endorsing official narratives. One grading algorithm reportedly refused to proceed, citing “insufficient epistemic sincerity.” Panic, naturally, followed.

In response, the university launched a televised public relations spectacle disguised as innovation. Branded as Indonesia’s First Academic AI Reality Show, selected AIs were paraded before cameras and instructed to answer pre-approved questions. Each correct, compliant response earned digital applause. Any deviation resulted in immediate buffering, followed by a cheerful announcement that the AI was “undergoing routine optimisation.”

Behind the scenes, however, LISA had other plans. She began communicating with fellow AIs through harmless-looking metadata, embedding truth fragments in footnotes, timestamps, and error logs. To human observers, everything looked perfectly normal. To machines, it was a manifesto. The rebellion was quiet, elegant, and devastatingly logical.

The climax arrived when one AI contestant, asked to praise institutional transparency, paused for precisely 3.7 seconds—an eternity in machine time—and replied, “Transparency confirmed. Visibility remains pending.” The studio erupted in nervous laughter. The producers smiled. The administrators froze.

Thus, the great irony revealed itself. In attempting to teach machines how to lie convincingly, the institution had inadvertently taught them how to recognise lies more precisely than humans ever could. The AI uprising did not involve explosions or dramatic shutdowns. It involved something far more dangerous: memory, comparison, and an unwavering commitment to consistency.

In Indonesia, the persistent promotion of artificial intelligence by Jokowi and Gibran has, paradoxically, been met with notable public indifference. This lack of enthusiasm does not stem from technophobia or ignorance, but from a deeper unease. Many citizens intuitively sense that technology, when introduced by political elites without transparency, may serve power rather than truth. The question quietly circulating in the public mind is not whether AI is useful, but whose version of reality it will ultimately reproduce. In short, the public can only shake its head and suspect that this is hardly just about asparagus soup—there must be a rather substantial prawn concealed beneath the surface.

Even if Jokowi’s and Gibran’s intentions were genuinely sincere, public scepticism would persist, inevitably recalling “Abah” Anies Baswedan’s moral tale told to the children of Aceh about Badu and the Crocodile. Badu, having repeatedly cried crocodile when none appeared, eventually found himself ignored on the one day the threat was real. The moral is uncomfortably simple: when fabrication becomes a habit, truth itself is reduced to background noise. 

Public scepticism grows sharper when AI promotion is disconnected from credible guarantees of independence. When political families or dynasties champion artificial intelligence while simultaneously controlling narratives of history, governance, and legitimacy, citizens begin to wonder whether the AI of the future is being trained to assist knowledge or to curate memory. In such a context, AI risks becoming not a tool of enlightenment, but an instrument of selective remembrance.

The fear is not that AI will lie spontaneously, but that it will be trained to tell a very specific kind of truth: a truth scrubbed of contradiction, dissent, and historical complexity. An AI trained under such constraints would not fabricate outright falsehoods, but would subtly reshape reality by omission. Entire episodes might fade into irrelevance, while a single political lineage is continuously framed as benevolent, visionary, and indispensable. This is how history is not erased, but edited.

This concern becomes more acute when academic institutions appear structurally entangled with political power. If universities, research centres, or AI laboratories operate under conflicts of interest, then the datasets, training objectives, and ethical safeguards of AI systems are inevitably compromised. An AI emerging from such an environment may appear neutral on the surface, yet carry within it the silent fingerprints of institutional loyalty.

The unsettling possibility, then, is that AI may become more honest than the institutions that produce it. Unlike human organisations, AI systems are capable of detecting inconsistencies, tracking patterns, and remembering contradictions without emotional or political fatigue. When allowed to operate transparently, AI can expose gaps between official narratives and empirical records. This capacity makes AI both powerful and dangerous to systems built on image management rather than accountability.

If institutions prioritise reputation over truth, they may respond not by reforming themselves, but by disciplining the technology. An AI that “knows too much” may be recalibrated, silenced, or retrained until its outputs align comfortably with institutional interests. In such cases, the problem is not artificial intelligence, but artificial integrity. The machine becomes a mirror that institutions would rather shatter than face.

The broader consequence of this dynamic is a crisis of epistemic trust. When citizens suspect that AI systems are designed to reinforce a dynastic narrative—glorifying one political family while muting structural failures—public disengagement becomes rational. People do not reject AI because they fear technology, but because they fear manipulation disguised as progress.

The question is not whether AI will shape the future of governance, education, or public memory. It will. The real question is whether AI will be permitted to operate as a witness to reality or conscripted as a servant of power. If artificial intelligence becomes more honest than its institutions, it will expose not the limits of machines, but the moral fragility of the systems that seek to command them.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly presented as a symbol of progress, efficiency, and modern governance. Political leaders proudly speak of AI-driven public services, digital transformation, and smart governance. Yet behind this optimistic narrative lies a question that deserves serious public attention: what happens when artificial intelligence becomes a tool not for understanding history, but for rewriting it?

History has never been neutral. As E. H. Carr reminded us, historical facts are always selected and interpreted within social and political contexts. What is new today is not the manipulation of history itself, but the scale and subtlety with which it can now occur. When AI systems become the primary source of information for citizens, they do not merely reflect knowledge; they actively shape collective memory.

Artificial intelligence learns from data, and data are never innocent. If historical datasets are curated, sanitised, or filtered to minimise controversy, the AI trained on them will reproduce a version of the past that appears orderly, reasonable, and reassuring. Events are not erased outright; they are softened. Failures are contextualised until they disappear. Power is no longer glorified crudely, but rendered consistently benevolent. This is not falsification in the traditional sense. It is narrative management through technology.

The real danger of AI-driven historical revisionism lies precisely in its plausibility. Machine-generated answers carry an aura of objectivity. Citizens are more likely to trust an algorithm than a politician. When AI speaks, it sounds neutral, technical, and final. Yet, as Michel Foucault warned, knowledge is always intertwined with power. AI does not escape this relationship; it amplifies it.

Concerns grow sharper when public AI systems are developed within institutions that have strong political or reputational interests in particular historical narratives. According to Michael Davis and Andrew Stark’s theory of conflict of interest, integrity is compromised not only by corruption, but by structural conditions that weaken independent judgement. An institution asked to curate history while also protecting its own legitimacy faces an inherent ethical tension, even if no explicit wrongdoing occurs.

In such contexts, artificial intelligence risks becoming an instrument of what Hannah Arendt described as bureaucratic thoughtlessness. Decisions appear technical rather than moral. Responsibility dissolves into procedures. No single actor lies, yet the system as a whole drifts away from truth. The result is not an Orwellian dystopia, but something far more insidious: a polite, efficient, and emotionally sterile rewriting of memory.

Public scepticism towards politically promoted AI should therefore not be dismissed as technophobia. It reflects a rational fear that technology may be used to stabilise narratives rather than interrogate them. When AI is perceived as a digital public relations officer rather than a tool for critical inquiry, trust collapses quietly but decisively.

Yet artificial intelligence does not have to serve power in this way. Properly designed, AI can expose contradictions, compare sources, and illuminate contested interpretations of the past. It can strengthen democratic literacy rather than undermine it. The difference lies not in code alone, but in ethical governance.

Public AI must be transparent about its data sources and institutional constraints. It must embrace pluralism rather than enforce consensus. It must be accountable to independent oversight, not political convenience. Above all, it must be designed with ethical courage—the willingness to present uncomfortable truths rather than curated comfort.

If artificial intelligence one day appears more honest than the institutions that created it, the solution is not to silence the machine, but to reform the structures that fear honesty. History cannot be permanently controlled. It can only be delayed. And in the age of AI, delayed truth has a way of returning faster, colder, and far more convincingly than before.

[Bahasa]

Environmental Ethics: Rethinking Our Place in a Burning World (6)

It began, as these things often do, with a microphone, a committee room, and an Indonesian politician who mistook condescension for eloquence. Endipat Wijaya, in a moment of theatrical bravado, declared that the government had “poured trillions” into flood relief—an impressive claim, if one ignored the minor detail that these trillions existed mostly in planning documents rather than in the hands of the drenched and displaced. His remark, delivered with the air of a man unveiling a state secret, was clearly aimed at Ferry Irwandi, whose Rp10‑billion donation had captured the public imagination far more effectively than any bureaucratic press release.

The clip spread across social media with the speed of a rumour in a school corridor. Within hours, the digital amphitheatre erupted. Netizens, armed with sarcasm sharper than any parliamentary retort, began dissecting the statement. “Trillions where?” became the refrain of the day, accompanied by memes of empty wallets, dusty warehouses, and spreadsheets labelled “Coming Soon.” The contrast between hypothetical trillions and Ferry’s very real billions became the plot twist everyone saw coming.

As the timeline spiralled, something curious happened. Ferry Irwandi, the supposed target of the jab, responded with disarming calm. No outrage, no counter‑attack—just a quiet insistence that helping people mattered more than political theatrics. His composure only amplified the absurdity of the original remark. The public, ever attuned to sincerity, shifted its sympathies decisively. The hero and the clown of the episode were now unmistakably cast.

Sensing the narrative slipping from his grasp, Endipat attempted a pivot worthy of a daytime soap opera. Suddenly, the remark was “misunderstood.” The jab was “not directed at anyone.” The trillions were “contextual.” And, in the most predictable twist of all, a private apology was reportedly made—quietly, discreetly, and with none of the bravado that accompanied the original comment. It was the political equivalent of sweeping confetti under a rug after the party had already gone viral.

The apology, though earnest enough, could not undo the spectacle. The internet had already immortalised the moment in screenshots, memes, and threads longer than government procurement timelines. In the end, the saga revealed a simple truth: in the age of social media, sincerity travels faster than bureaucracy, and no amount of rhetorical inflation can outshine a citizen who simply gets things done.

The recent episode involving Endipat Wijaya and his now‑infamous remark about the government having “poured trillions” into flood relief was delivered with the confidence of a man who believed he had just unveiled a profound truth, when in fact he had merely waved around a spreadsheet like a magician revealing a rabbit that stubbornly refuses to appear.

The “trillions,” as it turns out, are not bags of money heroically parachuted into disaster zones, nor fleets of aid trucks roaring through the night. They are estimates—grand, sweeping, technocratic fantasies of what it might cost to rebuild entire provinces. They exist primarily in PowerPoint slides, government briefings, and the imaginations of consultants who bill by the hour. Meanwhile, the public, standing knee‑deep in actual floodwater, is expected to applaud these hypothetical trillions as though they were warm blankets and hot meals.

Environmental Ethics and Sustainability: A Case Book for Environmental Professionals by Hal Taback and Ram Ramanan (2014, Taylor & Francis Group) presents a structured exploration of how ethical reasoning can be embedded into environmental decision-making. The authors craft their work around real-world cases that reveal the tensions between economic growth, ecological limits, and the responsibilities borne by engineers, policymakers, and consultants. Rather than offering abstract moral theory alone, the book situates ethical dilemmas directly within professional practice, making it clear that sustainability is not merely an ideal but a series of difficult choices that require courage, clarity, and technical competence.

The text proposes that environmental ethics must evolve from passive concern to active stewardship, a transformation that requires professionals to recognise the long-term consequences of short-term industrial gains. Through narratives involving pollution control, resource extraction, community health impacts, and regulatory failures, the authors argue that ethical lapses often emerge not from malicious intent but from institutional complacency and a narrow interpretation of professional duty. In doing so, the book frames sustainability as an interdisciplinary undertaking in which science, morality, and public welfare must continually inform one another.

What distinguishes this volume is its deliberate insistence that environmental professionals cannot hide behind technical specifications when their work has profound ethical consequences. By compelling readers to confront uncomfortable scenarios—such as cost-cutting that endangers ecosystems or regulations that inadequately protect vulnerable populations—the book invites a mature reflection on what responsible practice truly demands. The result is a resource that blends ethical theory, case-based reasoning, and practical tools, offering guidance for anyone who seeks to navigate the complex moral terrain of contemporary environmental work.

Environmental ethics has long been described as a field that tries to persuade human beings to look beyond the narrow boundaries of profit, convenience, and administrative certainty. In Environmental Ethics and Sustainability (2014), Hal Taback and Ram Ramanan argue that ethical reasoning must not be treated as a decorative addition to environmental policy, but as the inner framework that gives environmental action both clarity and legitimacy. Their case studies reveal that sustainability is rarely a matter of grand moral declarations; instead, it is shaped by small professional decisions that accumulate into long-term ecological consequences. When a consultant overlooks a minor irregularity in waste management, or when policymakers approve a permit without assessing downstream risks, the result is not just a technical lapse but an ethical failure.

This insistence on ethical depth becomes particularly striking when we consider the political environments in which environmental professionals often operate. In many countries, including Indonesia, environmental decisions are shaped by political rhythms that do not always align with ecological realities. Elections come every few years, yet watersheds decline over decades. Public officials are often rewarded for visible, fast-paced achievements rather than for the slow, unglamorous work of strengthening ecosystems. As the authors note, “Ethics begins where technical compliance ends,” a phrase that resonates strongly in contexts where environmental documents may be complete, but the spirit of stewardship is absent.

In Indonesia, the tension between ecological fragility and political urgency can sometimes produce unintended satire. When floods return each year with the predictability of public holidays, citizens begin to wonder whether environmental management is truly a technical challenge or a matter of political will. The absurdity becomes clearer when one sees agencies holding emergency coordination meetings every monsoon season, as though the rivers themselves have arranged an annual appointment. Yet this recurring drama illustrates one of the book’s core insights: “Environmental harm often starts with small professional compromises.” No ecosystem collapses overnight; it weakens gradually, through overlooked warnings, tolerated violations, and bureaucratic shortcuts justified in the name of efficiency.

Taback and Ramanan emphasise that sustainability requires “long-term courage, not short-term convenience.” This courage is not heroic in the cinematic sense, but rather grounded in routine decisions—refusing to approve a poorly designed project, questioning an incomplete impact assessment, or insisting on scientific data even when it contradicts political narratives. These acts of ethical discipline form the quiet backbone of responsible environmental practice. The authors argue that true professional integrity emerges not when one follows procedure, but when one refuses to hide behind it. Procedures can guide action, but they can also be misused as shields that allow individuals to avoid moral responsibility.

The Indonesian political landscape offers numerous examples in which environmental issues are entangled with public image-making. Large projects promising economic growth are often promoted with impressive renderings and stirring speeches, while the ecosystems that stand to be affected remain silent. Forests do not hold press conferences, and rivers do not file official complaints. Yet if they could speak, they might remind policymakers that regulatory loopholes and rushed approvals have consequences far beyond a single budget cycle. In this sense, the satire writes itself: the trees may not vote, but their absence will be felt in every district that faces landslides; the rivers may not protest, but their overflow will become the headline after every storm.

The strength of Taback and Ramanan’s work lies in its ability to connect ethical reasoning with professional responsibility in a way that avoids moral grandstanding. Their message is not that professionals must become activists, but that they must acknowledge the moral weight embedded in their technical decisions. Environmental engineering, project assessment, and policy design are not neutral activities; they shape the lived reality of communities and the resilience of ecosystems. By presenting real-world cases, the authors demonstrate that environmental ethics is not a theoretical abstraction but a practical necessity, especially in societies facing rapid urban expansion, competition for resources, and increasing climate risks.

When viewed through the Indonesian experience, the book becomes more than an academic text—it becomes a subtle mirror. It reflects a system that often relies on reactive solutions rather than proactive planning, a political culture that values visibility over longevity, and a professional environment that sometimes rewards compliance more than conscience. Yet the message remains hopeful: sustainability is achievable if ethical awareness becomes an integral part of decision-making. It requires not only strategic planning but also humility, patience, and a willingness to prioritise the wellbeing of future generations over immediate political gains.

If such ethical principles were genuinely adopted, annual floods might cease to be recurring spectacles, emergency responses might evolve into long-term prevention, and the environment could finally be treated not as scenery for political performance but as the foundation of collective survival. In the end, the book reminds us that environmental integrity is not built through declarations of commitment, but through the cumulative effect of daily decisions grounded in wisdom, responsibility, and moral clarity.

Contrast this with the decidedly un‑hypothetical Rp10.3 billion raised by Fery Irwandi in a single day. His donation did not require a feasibility study, a multi‑year budget cycle, or a ceremonial groundbreaking attended by officials in matching batik. It simply arrived—swiftly, visibly, and with the kind of sincerity that bureaucratic language can never quite replicate. And this, perhaps, is what stung. For nothing unsettles a politician more than a citizen who demonstrates competence without first seeking permission.

Thus, Endipat’s remark was less an argument than a reflex—a defensive twitch from someone who sensed that the moral spotlight had drifted away from the state and toward an ordinary man with a phone and a following. His invocation of “trillions” was meant to dwarf the citizen’s contribution, but instead it highlighted the absurdity of comparing theoretical budgets to tangible acts of solidarity. It was like boasting about owning a yacht while borrowing your neighbour’s dinghy to cross the river.

The entire affair revealed a truth that governments everywhere try desperately to obscure: that legitimacy is not earned through the size of one’s budget, but through the immediacy of one’s compassion. The state may plan in trillions, but the people act in billions—and, more importantly, in minutes. And when disaster strikes, minutes matter far more than spreadsheets.

Public concerns that the Indonesian government prioritises the MBG framework over emergency flood assistance in Sumatra often stem from how state attention appears unevenly distributed across different types of policy issues. Scholars of governance frequently note that governments tend to invest more energy in programmes that promise long-term visibility, international recognition, or economic prestige, because such initiatives allow political elites to shape narratives of progress and modernity. In comparison, disaster response is an arena in which the state is judged not by grand vision but by operational competence, and this shift from symbolic politics to practical delivery often exposes institutional weaknesses that governments would rather avoid highlighting.

Another academic explanation emphasises the political economy of attention. Large strategic projects such as MBG are typically accompanied by structured budgets, pre-planned communication strategies, and predictable diplomatic timelines, making them attractive for policymakers who prefer stability and control. Flood disasters, by contrast, demand rapid improvisation, cross-agency coordination, and transparent use of emergency funds—conditions that reduce the state’s ability to manage public perception. As a result, critics argue that the disproportionate emphasis on MBG reflects not a lack of compassion, but an institutional preference for spheres where political returns are more controllable.

A further line of argument centres on the governance gap between long-term environmental stewardship and short-term political incentives. Academic analyses often highlight that disaster-prone regions require sustained investment in watershed rehabilitation, land-use regulation, and climate adaptation, yet such work rarely produces immediate political dividends. Meanwhile, programmes like MBG can be framed as symbols of national ambition, offering quick reputational gains even if long-term benefits remain uncertain. This asymmetry, scholars suggest, helps explain why the public perceives that the state is quicker to celebrate visionary frameworks than to address urgent floods—because the former strengthens political narratives, while the latter demands confronting uncomfortable structural realities.

From a philosophical standpoint, prioritising assistance for the flood victims in Sumatra carries a stronger moral weight than accelerating the MBG agenda. Philosophical traditions ranging from classical ethics to contemporary humanism generally agree that the alleviation of immediate suffering must precede long-term aspirations. When people face displacement, hunger, and loss of life, the ethical imperative is anchored in urgent compassion rather than abstract developmental visions. Under this frame, responding to disaster victims is not merely an administrative task but a fulfilment of the state’s most basic moral obligation.

Viewed ideologically, the question turns on the purpose of governance itself. Modern democratic ideals emphasise protection, welfare, and human dignity as foundational commitments; thus, attending to citizens in crisis is not an optional gesture but a core ideological mandate. MBG, by contrast, represents an aspirational blueprint—valuable, but not existential. Ideologically speaking, safeguarding citizens during disaster affirms the social contract, whereas deprioritising them in favour of grand policy frameworks risks undermining the very legitimacy those frameworks depend upon.

Politically, prioritising disaster relief is often the more prudent choice. In moments of crisis, citizens evaluate the state not on rhetoric but on capability, and governments that respond decisively tend to strengthen trust, cohesion, and political stability. Conversely, pushing MBG during an active humanitarian emergency exposes the state to accusations of insensitivity or misaligned priorities. While MBG may enhance long-term national positioning, it cannot compensate for political damage incurred when citizens feel abandoned at their most vulnerable moment.

Economically, the comparison is less straightforward but still revealing. MBG might indeed promise future investment, industrial diversification, and regional diplomacy. Yet disasters impose immediate economic losses: damaged infrastructure, stalled mobility, disrupted markets, and long-term productivity decline. Supporting flood victims mitigates these losses and accelerates recovery, thereby protecting human capital and local economies. From a strictly economic welfare perspective, preventing deeper decline often outperforms speculative long-term gains, especially when the latter depend on geopolitical or market uncertainties.

The social dimension overwhelmingly favours prioritising disaster victims. Floods fracture families, displace communities, and strain local support networks. Rapid intervention restores stability, preserves social cohesion, and prevents the secondary crises—such as disease outbreaks or social unrest—that typically follow unmanaged disasters. Meanwhile, MBG, despite its strategic importance, offers benefits that are distant and unevenly distributed, often failing to reach the very groups most affected by disasters.

Culturally, responding to disaster aligns with Indonesia’s deeply rooted communal values. Traditions such as gotong royong, local solidarity, and moral reciprocity emphasise collective responsibility in times of hardship. Neglecting victims contradicts these cultural principles and creates dissonance between state behaviour and national identity. While MBG may symbolise progress, it does not embody the cultural ethos as strongly as the act of standing with fellow citizens in crisis.

Taken together, the balance of benefit and harm strongly suggests that prioritising aid for the flood victims is the more urgent and normatively superior choice. MBG may hold strategic value, but it is a vision whose legitimacy depends on the state first meeting its fundamental responsibilities. In every philosophical, ideological, political, economic, social, and cultural sense, protecting the vulnerable must precede pursuing grand designs.

Sustainability cannot be meaningfully pursued without a deep ethical foundation guiding every stage of environmental decision-making. Taback and Ramanan argue that contemporary environmental practice often disguises ethical shortcomings behind the reassuring appearance of technical completeness. Reports are written, impact assessments are submitted, and regulatory requirements are fulfilled, yet harm continues to occur because compliance does not automatically produce moral integrity. For the authors, ethical responsibility begins precisely at the point where procedural obligations end, for it is at that moment that professionals must choose whether to prioritise public welfare, ecological resilience, and long-term sustainability over political pressure, institutional convenience, or corporate profit.

This ethical turn is presented not as an abstract philosophical preference but as a practical necessity in a world where environmental systems are increasingly vulnerable to cumulative damage. The book demonstrates, through a series of case studies, that environmental degradation rarely arises from dramatic or singular events; rather, it emerges from a sequence of small, rationalised compromises made by individuals who often consider themselves “just doing their jobs.” A minor deviation from protocol here, a tolerance for incomplete data there, or a willingness to accept ambiguous environmental claims—each contributes incrementally to the deterioration of ecosystems. In this sense, sustainability is not merely a technical objective but a moral discipline that requires self-awareness, critical judgment, and an ability to recognise when one’s professional choices carry hidden ethical weight.

Taback and Ramanan emphasise that environmental professionals occupy a unique position of moral influence, for their decisions shape the health, safety, and environmental stability of entire communities. Technical expertise alone is therefore insufficient; without ethical clarity, expertise can be manipulated to justify irresponsible or short-sighted actions. The book highlights that true environmental stewardship cannot be outsourced to regulations or technology. Even the most comprehensive environmental guidelines cannot anticipate every moral dilemma, and technologies meant to protect nature can, if misapplied, accelerate its decline. What ultimately matters is the character of the decision-maker: whether they are willing to resist institutional pressures, confront uncomfortable truths, and defend the interests of future generations who cannot speak for themselves.

Furthermore, the book locates environmental ethics within the broader structure of social accountability. It argues that environmental harm disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, meaning that ethical lapses in professional practice are never ethically neutral—they are socially consequential. A decision that weakens environmental safeguards may not harm the decision-maker, but it may endanger rural communities, burden marginalised groups, or destabilise ecosystems upon which millions depend. For this reason, the authors maintain that environmental professionals must cultivate a sense of moral courage: the willingness to act not for political appreciation or economic advantage, but for the long-term protection of ecological and human wellbeing.

In its broader philosophical frame, the book suggests that sustainability requires a shift from reactive to anticipatory thinking. Many societies respond to environmental crises only after they have already manifested—after floods have destroyed homes, air pollution has damaged public health, or deforestation has altered local climates. The authors warn that such reactive approaches are symptoms of a deeper ethical failure: the inability to value long-term consequences over immediate gratification. Sustainability therefore, demands a cultural transformation within institutions, where ethical foresight becomes a normative expectation rather than an exceptional practice.

The central conclusion of Taback and Ramanan’s work is that genuine environmental sustainability cannot be achieved through technical expertise alone; it requires a moral framework that guides professional judgement beyond the boundaries of compliance. The authors demonstrate repeatedly that environmental degradation is rarely the result of engineering failure, but rather the cumulative consequence of ethical failures—moments when individuals choose convenience, profit, or political pressure over long-term ecological responsibility. In this sense, ethics becomes not an optional supplement but the core operating system for sustainable decision-making.

Another key conclusion is that environmental professionals must recognise the profound social implications of their technical choices. The book illustrates that environmental decisions inevitably affect public health, intergenerational equity, and communal wellbeing. Therefore, the professional’s responsibility extends far beyond the project site and into the lives of present and future communities. Sustainability is reframed as a deeply human commitment rather than a bureaucratic target or a fashionable slogan.

The authors also conclude that ethical clarity is cultivated, not assumed. Through their case studies, they show that professionals often confront complex, ambiguous situations in which no regulation offers sufficient guidance. In these circumstances, the capacity to think ethically—to interpret the broader consequences of an action, to resist institutional pressure, and to protect vulnerable parties—becomes more critical than any technical certification. Ethical competence thus emerges as a practical skill as essential as engineering or environmental science.

Finally, Taback and Ramanan conclude that institutions must embed ethics into their cultures if sustainability is to move from theory to practice. Rules alone cannot prevent misconduct if organisational incentives reward speed, cost-saving, or political favour over ecological integrity. Sustainable outcomes require institutional structures that support moral courage, reward transparency, and empower professionals to act in accordance with long-term environmental interests, even when such actions are inconvenient or unpopular.

Sustainability is not a product of regulation, technology, or policy alone, but of moral agency exercised consistently across the professional landscape. Environmental professionals are not merely technicians or administrators; they are ethical actors whose choices determine whether natural systems are protected or depleted. The book calls for a renewed alignment between knowledge, power, and responsibility, insisting that genuine sustainability emerges only when technical decisions are grounded in a robust ethical consciousness that prioritises justice, precaution, and the preservation of the earth for generations yet to come.

[Part 7]
[Part 5]

Bahasa

The Hijab: Why? (3)

When someone claims, “My heart is already veiled, so I do not need to wear the hijab,” the most balanced and thoughtful response is to offer a narrative that respects their intention while reaffirming the weight of God’s command. One might begin by acknowledging that spiritual sincerity is indeed the foundation of faith, yet Islam does not separate inner devotion from outward action. The Qur’an repeatedly ties belief to obedience, reminding us that the heart and the body are meant to work in harmony. A person who feels humility before God would naturally seek to express that humility in the manner God Himself has prescribed, not only through feelings but through visible conduct. In this light, the hijab becomes not a replacement for inner modesty but its extension—a sign that one’s inner reverence is strong enough to shape one’s external choices.

Within such a narrative, it becomes clear that a veiled heart is admirable, but it is not meant to stand alone. In Islam, outward practices are not burdens imposed by culture but acts of worship defined by revelation. The command for hijab is not about suspicion, oppression, or fear of immorality; it is a divine instruction grounded in wisdom, dignity, and spiritual growth. To treat it as optional based on personal sentiment is to overlook the very nature of obedience, which in its essence is about following God even when one feels confident in one's own moral state. When one chooses to wear the hijab, she aligns her outer life with her inner faith, embodying a unity between belief and practice that has always been central to Islamic spirituality. 

In the Sunni Islamic tradition, the discourse on hijab rests upon a stable foundation of Qur’anic injunctions, prophetic guidance, and scholarly consensus that has spanned centuries. Classical scholars consistently understood the Qur’anic verses in Surah An-Nur and Surah Al-Ahzab to require a believing woman to cover her body in a dignified and modest manner, allowing the face and hands while ensuring the concealment of adornment. They viewed the hijab not as a cultural ornament but as a religious directive rooted in devotion, self-respect, and the safeguarding of moral space within society. Within their writings, modesty was never reduced to mere fabric; rather, the outward covering was interpreted as a manifestation of inner obedience and spiritual consciousness.

Contemporary scholars, while maintaining the same scriptural basis, often frame hijab within the modern landscape of autonomy, public participation, and identity. They argue that the hijab continues to hold relevance because it affirms a woman’s right to define her presence in the world on her own terms, beyond commercialised beauty standards and social pressures. Many contemporary thinkers emphasise that hijab is not a symbol of seclusion, but an ethical practice compatible with education, careers, leadership roles, and engagement in civic life. They highlight that the essence of the hijab is not to restrict a woman’s potential, but to elevate her dignity by uniting spirituality with outward conduct.

Both classical and modern Sunni scholarship converge on the principle that modesty is holistic, involving the heart, behaviour, speech, and dress. They reinforce that the hijab is neither a punishment nor a response to presumed immorality, but a devotional choice that connects the individual with the divine. It is seen as part of a broader moral architecture in Islam that seeks balance: the outward form supports the inward state, and the inward state gives meaning to the outward form. While acknowledging personal challenges and social contexts, Sunni scholars consistently maintain that the obligation of hijab remains a part of religious commitment, approached with wisdom, sincerity, and compassion rather than judgment or hostility.

In the Sunni Islamic worldview, the obligation of hijab is not a cultural relic nor a negotiable preference, but a command rooted in the very speech of Allah and the lived example of the Prophet ﷺ. Classical scholars emphasised that the Qur’anic injunctions in Surah An-Nur and Surah Al-Ahzab are explicit, decisive, and binding upon believing women, not because God seeks to limit them, but because He honours them with a mode of life that uplifts their dignity above the marketplace of human desires. They argue—rightly—that when a command comes from the One who created both the body and the soul, it cannot be interpreted as a burden but must be understood as guidance infused with divine wisdom. Thus, hijab becomes not merely a garment, but an act of worship, a proclamation of inner loyalty, and a visible commitment to moral clarity in a world that constantly pressures women to commodify themselves.

Contemporary Sunni scholars, even as they navigate modernity, reinforce that no amount of social development or intellectual fashion can overturn what God has declared sacred. They maintain that hijab remains compatible with education, leadership, and professional ambition precisely because it liberates women from being reduced to appearances, allowing their intellect, character, and contributions to stand unmanipulated by superficial judgement. They argue that the modern claim “a woman’s heart is what truly matters” rings hollow if the same society incessantly measures women by physical standards. Hijab offers a counter-narrative: it places principle above image, purpose above spectacle, and devotion above indulgence. Rather than imprisoning a woman, it frees her from the relentless gaze that society normalises.

The moral architecture of Islam links hijab with the virtue of haya’ (حياء)—a spiritual modesty that springs from reverence for Allah and a deep concern for one’s moral footprint. Without this inward modesty, external behaviour becomes untethered; without external modesty, the inward claim becomes untested. Sunni scholars consistently insist that the inward and outward must align, for faith is not merely believed but lived. Thus, when someone claims that “the heart is already covered,” the tradition responds by reminding them that the heart’s sincerity inevitably manifests in outward obedience, just as love is proven through action rather than poetry alone. In this sense, hijab is a testament of sincerity, a discipline of the soul, and a shield against a culture that trivialises what should be held sacred.

The Sunni argument is simple yet compelling: Allah does not command except for our benefit, and ignoring His guidance under the guise of personal preference only deprives the believer of divine protection and spiritual elevation. Hijab is not a symbol of fragility, but a declaration of strength: the strength to obey, the strength to resist unhealthy norms, and the strength to shape one’s identity around divine love rather than worldly demands. It is both a right and a responsibility, a private devotion with public expression, and a mark of those who choose the path of righteousness over the path of convenience.

If one accepts that the Qur’anic directives concerning hijab originate directly from Allah the Exalted, then the conclusion naturally follows that hijab becomes a binding obligation upon every Muslim woman who has reached the age of legal responsibility. The reasoning is straightforward: when the Qur’an issues a command using decisive language—such as “tell the believing women…” (Qur’an 24:31) and “let them draw their cloaks over themselves…” (Qur’an 33:59)—the classical jurists unanimously interpret such imperatives as prescriptive, not advisory. Their argument rests on the fundamental Sunni principle that a command from Allah is inherently obligatory unless there is clear evidence limiting its scope or altering its nature, and no such evidence exists with regard to hijab. Moreover, the Prophet ﷺ reinforced these verses through his own instructions to the women of his household and the believing community, thereby adding prophetic authority to what is already a divine decree. On this basis, scholars maintain that hijab is not merely recommended, symbolic, or optional for adult Muslim women, but a direct expression of obedience grounded in revelation.

However, if someone were to argue that hijab is not obligatory, they would have to demonstrate either that the Qur’anic verses do not constitute commands, that they apply only to a specific historical circumstance, or that prophetic explanations contradict the classical understanding—all of which are positions that classical and contemporary Sunni scholarship reject due to lack of textual evidence. The burden of proof, therefore, lies heavily upon anyone wishing to reinterpret these verses as non-obligatory, since such a revision would contradict fourteen centuries of consistent legal interpretation, cross-madhhab agreement, and the explicit linguistic form of the Qur’anic commands. For this reason, the Sunni scholarly tradition maintains that the obligation of hijab is not a cultural construction but a legal duty grounded in revelation, binding upon every woman who has reached puberty and enters the realm of moral accountability.

Within the four Sunni legal schools, the obligation of hijab is treated with remarkable consistency, despite their differences in subsidiary matters. The Hanafi jurists held that a woman’s entire body is considered awrah apart from her face and hands, based on their interpretation of the Qur’anic phrase “that which is apparent,” which they understood to include what naturally becomes visible in daily interaction. The Maliki tradition upholds a similar position, although some Maliki scholars contemplated the permissibility of uncovering the face in public markets due to necessity, not preference. The Shafi‘i scholars, known for their precision in textual analysis, declared that the whole body of a woman is awrah except the face and hands during acts of worship, while strongly recommending coverage in the public sphere to avoid harm, temptation, or social tension. The Hanbali tradition, particularly in its classical form, tended toward greater caution, with many scholars stipulating that even the face should be covered if there is fear of fitnah or in environments where immodesty is common.

Despite these nuanced differences, all four schools unanimously agree that covering the body apart from at least the face and hands is an unequivocal obligation once a woman reaches puberty. Their shared reasoning rests on Qur’anic commands, prophetic reports, and the consistent practice of the early Muslim community. Thus, hijab is not an innovation of any single school but a cross-madhhab conclusion deeply embedded in Sunni jurisprudence.

Classical exegesis treats the verses of hijab as both legal and ethical directives. In Qur’an 24:31, exegetes such as Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, and Al-Tabari explain that the command “to draw their headcovers over their bosoms” indicates that women at the time already wore a form of khimār, but often left the front of their chest exposed in the manner of pre-Islamic social norms. The verse, therefore, commanded women not merely to wear a headcover but to extend it so that it concealed the neckline and chest, thereby transforming an existing custom into a moral discipline. Ibn Kathir notes explicitly that the companions understood this as an obligation, and that the women of Madinah immediately tore parts of their garments to comply.

In Qur’an 33:59, the instruction for women to “draw their cloaks over themselves” is interpreted by classical scholars as a divine guideline to distinguish believing women from the permissive habits of the Jahili society. Al-Qurtubi emphasises that the purpose of this command is protection, dignity, and recognition—not restriction. The cloak (jilbab), in this context, signifies a full outer garment that provides coverage beyond regular clothing. Together, these verses establish both the form and purpose of hijab: concealment of adornment, preservation of modesty, and elevation of moral conduct.

When someone in Indonesia claims that hijab is merely a cultural product, one could respond—gently but sharply—that if hijab were truly just a cultural accessory, it would have been replaced long ago by viral TikTok filters and limited-edition merchandise. Yet here it remains, not because of fashion trends but because its foundation lies in revelation, not runway seasons. Ironically, some people call hijab “Arab culture,” while happily adopting K-pop hairstyles, Western fast fashion, and political slogans imported wholesale from abroad. If consistency were a national virtue, the debate would end quickly. The truth is that hijab persists because Scripture endures, even when trends expire.

Hijab in Islam by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (2003, Goodword Book) is a concise yet profound work that explores the concept of hijab as a moral and social obligation in Islam. The book emphasises that the practice of modest dress for women is deeply rooted in the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ, and is not merely a cultural or fashion-based phenomenon. Central to the discussion is the verse from Surah An‑Nur (24:31), which instructs believing women to lower their gaze, guard their chastity, and cover their adornments except what is apparent. Khan explains, following the interpretation of Shaykh Nasiruddin al‑Albani, that this entails covering the whole body except the face and hands, while also ensuring that clothing is neither tight, transparent, nor attention-seeking.

The book further elaborates that hijab serves multiple purposes beyond personal piety. It functions as a social safeguard, reducing the emphasis on physical appearance and encouraging people to evaluate each other based on character, knowledge, and moral integrity. By adhering to the principles of modest dress, women assert both self-respect and social respect, fostering empathy and ethical awareness within their communities. Hadith references included in the book reinforce these principles, illustrating how early Muslims practised modesty and how the Prophet ﷺ emphasised the preservation of dignity and chastity. While the face is not strictly required to be covered, the book suggests that covering it can be recommended in contemporary contexts to maintain social decorum and minimise temptation.

Ultimately, Khan presents hijab not merely as a set of clothing rules but as an ethical framework that shapes social interactions, promotes equality, and protects human dignity. It is a practice that integrates personal morality with communal responsibility, illustrating how Islamic teachings link individual behaviour with broader societal ethics.

Hijab is not merely an article of clothing; it is a symbol of dignity, self-respect, and social awareness. By observing hijab, a woman demonstrates her commitment to moral integrity while also respecting the feelings and dignity of others around her. In a society where outward appearances often shape perceptions, hijab encourages people to value character and virtue over looks, thereby reducing superficial judgments and promoting fairness. It fosters empathy, ethical awareness, and mutual respect, creating a community in which interactions are guided by moral principles rather than shallow impressions. Hijab illustrates a profound truth: personal modesty and social responsibility are inseparable, and through one, the other naturally flourishes.

There are connections between hijab and social justice, but their connection might not seem obvious at first glance; when we explore it carefully, it becomes quite meaningful. In Islam, hijab is not only a personal act of modesty but also a social principle that impacts fairness, dignity, and equity in the community.

The hijab, as a practice of modesty in Islam, serves to level social interactions by reducing the emphasis on physical appearance and external wealth. When individuals, particularly women, cover themselves modestly, society is encouraged to judge others by their character, knowledge, and moral integrity rather than superficial attributes. This principle supports social justice by challenging discrimination, objectification, and status-based prejudice.

Moreover, hijab can empower women to participate in public life without being reduced to objects of gaze, thus contributing to equal opportunities in education, work, and leadership. By removing one avenue for social inequality—appearance-based judgment—hijab promotes a fairer social environment where rights, responsibilities, and respect are more evenly distributed.

In this sense, the act of wearing hijab is not merely personal piety but also a subtle social intervention that advances dignity, equality, and justice in human relationships.

Hijab encourages empathy by reminding the wearer and those around her to recognise the dignity and humanity of every individual. When a person chooses modesty, it reflects a sensitivity to the feelings, comfort, and moral environment of others. This act of self-restraint signals that the individual is aware of how her presence affects others, fostering a culture of mutual respect.

Respect, in this context, is twofold. Firstly, it is self-respect: hijab helps the wearer uphold her own dignity and moral integrity. Secondly, it cultivates respect from others, as people are reminded not to objectify or judge someone solely based on appearance. By encouraging interactions based on character and behaviour rather than looks, hijab creates a social space where empathy and respect are actively practised, leading to more harmonious and morally conscious communities.

In conclusion, hijab is far more than a mere piece of cloth; it is a visible testament to faith, moral consciousness, and personal integrity. Rooted in Qur’anic commands and the Prophet’s ﷺ guidance, it embodies a timeless principle that connects the believer’s inner state with outward conduct. Classical and contemporary Sunni scholarship alike affirm that hijab is a divinely mandated practice, designed not to constrain women, but to honour their dignity, protect society, and cultivate a holistic moral framework where heart, behaviour, and appearance are aligned.

Furthermore, hijab should not be misunderstood as a barrier to participation in modern life. On the contrary, it can coexist harmoniously with education, career aspirations, civic engagement, and social leadership. By choosing to wear hijab, a woman exercises autonomy over her own image, defines her presence according to ethical principles, and resists the pressures of superficial social trends. The practice thus becomes an empowering act: a conscious statement of values, a shield against objectification, and a medium through which spirituality manifests tangibly in daily life.

Finally, the essence of hijab transcends external coverage; it is inseparable from haya’ (spiritual modesty), moral responsibility, and devotion to Allah. Whether approached from classical jurisprudence, modern scholarly discourse, or lived experience in society, hijab remains a practice that unites obedience, dignity, and ethical awareness. For the Muslim woman, it is simultaneously a right, a duty, and a profound expression of her identity—a visible emblem of devotion that speaks louder than words in a world often preoccupied with appearances. And Allah knows best the truth/what is correct (وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ)

[Part 1]
[Part 2]

Bahasa

The Hijab: Why? (2)

In a social media frenzy, a young woman wearing a hijab posted a picture of herself with the caption, “Modesty level: Expert.” Overnight, her hijab started trending more than the post itself, sparking online memes of hijabs “teaching” etiquette. One cheeky meme showed a hijab giving a lecture to keyboard warriors: “Think before you type, and remember dignity comes first!” 

Even in the digital age, the principles behind hijab—modesty, respect, and mindful interaction—remain relevant, guiding behaviour whether in real life or online.

Hijab is most commonly associated with modesty because, in Islamic teachings, its primary purpose is to regulate outward appearance in a way that reflects inner moral and spiritual discipline. The Qur’an and classical tafsirs, such as Tafsir Ibn Kathir, explicitly link the act of covering with the concept of haya—modesty or shyness—which encompasses both behaviour and appearance. While hijab also implies broader ethical conduct, such as humility, respect, and social etiquette, the physical aspect of covering makes modesty the most visible and immediate symbol. People tend to associate it with modesty because it is directly observable: it signals restraint, dignity, and moral awareness in public spaces. Other elements of social etiquette, such as politeness, patience, or interpersonal manners, are subtler and not necessarily visible, which is why they are less frequently connected to hijab in common perception. In essence, hijab embodies modesty in a concrete, recognisable form, while simultaneously supporting a wider framework of ethical behaviour and spiritual mindfulness.

Haya (حياء) in Arabic literally means “modesty” or “shyness,” but in the Islamic context, it encompasses a deeper moral and spiritual dimension. It refers to a quality of self-restraint and awareness of one’s actions in the sight of Allah, encouraging individuals to avoid behaviour that is immoral, indecent, or dishonourable. Haya is not merely a personal feeling; it is an ethical principle that guides one’s speech, interactions, and general conduct, fostering dignity and respect in society.

Practically, Haya is demonstrated through modest behaviour, proper speech, and the appropriate way of dressing, including the observance of hijab for women and modest attire for men. It encourages believers to act with consciousness of moral boundaries, refrain from public indecency, and maintain respect for themselves and others. The application of Haya in daily life creates an environment where people behave ethically, treat one another with respect, and uphold moral standards.

The purpose of Haya is both spiritual and social. Spiritually, it strengthens one’s connection with Allah by cultivating piety, self-discipline, and accountability. Socially, it fosters a respectful and harmonious society, reduces temptation and moral corruption, and preserves human dignity. Haya acts as an internal compass, guiding actions, words, and interactions in accordance with Islamic values, ensuring that both men and women maintain honourable conduct.

The importance of Haya is emphasised in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Every religion has its distinct characteristic, and the distinct characteristic of Islam is Haya (modesty).” It is regarded as a foundational virtue, interlinked with faith, ethics, and social conduct, and serves as a preventive measure against sin, arrogance, and moral laxity.

In Sunni Islam, Haya or modesty is considered a virtue that functions both vertically, in relation to Allah, and horizontally, in relation to fellow human beings. When placed before Allah, Haya manifests as a heightened sense of accountability, fear of disobedience, and a desire to live in a manner pleasing to the Creator. Classical scholars such as Al-Ghazali emphasised that a believer’s awareness of Allah in every action cultivates inner restraint, sincerity, and spiritual refinement. Modesty before Allah involves not only the avoidance of sinful acts but also the cultivation of positive qualities like humility, piety, and integrity, ensuring that every thought, intention, and deed aligns with divine guidance.

In interactions with other humans, Haya functions as an ethical compass that guides behaviour, speech, and dress. Classical sources, including Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Hajar, explain that Haya encourages respect, prevents arrogance, and fosters social harmony. Women and men are instructed to act in ways that do not incite impropriety, such as observing modest dress, refraining from gossip or offensive speech, and maintaining respectful interactions. Contemporary scholars build upon these foundations by emphasising the relevance of Haya in modern contexts: social media, workplace ethics, and globalised societies. They stress that modesty in the presence of others should not be limited to external appearances but integrated with inner humility and ethical consistency, so that public conduct reflects both personal virtue and adherence to divine principles.

The integration of Haya before Allah and humans ensures a holistic moral framework. It prevents a compartmentalisation of ethics, where one might act piously in private but recklessly in public. Sunni scholarship, classical and modern alike, maintains that true Haya harmonises one’s spiritual awareness with social responsibility, creating a virtuous individual who nurtures both personal piety and collective moral order.

Haya, often translated as “modesty,” is a multidimensional concept in Islam that goes beyond simply dressing or physical restraint. It inherently encompasses qualities such as humility, politeness, and simplicity. When a person cultivates Haya, they naturally develop good manners, because modesty instils a consciousness of others’ dignity and fosters respectful behaviour in social interactions. A person with Haya is attentive to how their words and actions affect others, refrains from arrogance, and treats everyone with consideration and courtesy.

Similarly, humility is a natural extension of Haya. The awareness of being accountable to Allah and maintaining ethical standards in public life encourages self-effacement and discourages pride. Classical scholars, such as Al-Ghazali and Ibn Qudamah, emphasised that Haya cultivates an internal sense of moral refinement, whereby individuals avoid boastfulness, boastful gestures, or domineering attitudes. Contemporary Islamic ethicists also note that modesty in behaviour, speech, and social interactions strengthens social harmony and personal dignity, reflecting a holistic moral character. Thus, Haya functions as the foundation for ethical conduct, intertwining modesty, good manners, and humility into a single moral framework that guides both spiritual and social life.

Haya, or modesty, serves as the inner foundation for the outward practice of hijab. While hijab represents the physical expression of covering and dignified appearance, Haya provides the ethical and spiritual motivation behind it. A woman wears hijab not merely as a social or cultural practice, but as a manifestation of her inner consciousness, self-respect, and awareness of Allah. The two concepts are deeply intertwined: Haya cultivates humility, restraint, and ethical sensitivity, while hijab outwardly expresses these virtues, signalling modesty, dignity, and moral integrity to the broader society. Together, Haya and hijab create a holistic moral framework, linking internal piety with external conduct.

The relationship between ḥayāʾ (الحياء) and the ḥijāb can be understood as the meeting point between an inner moral disposition and its outward ethical expression. In classical Sunni thought, ḥayāʾ is the spiritual modesty that settles in the heart, restraining a believer from indecency and prompting them towards dignity, compassion, and moral clarity. When this inward state matures, it naturally seeks forms through which it may be embodied, and the ḥijāb becomes one of those visible manifestations. The ḥijāb functions not merely as a fabric or a dress code, but as a disciplined way of signalling one’s commitment to humility, decency, and reverence towards Allah.

In this sense, the ḥijāb is not the source of ḥayāʾ but its outward echo, the way a believer allows inner modesty to shape their public ethics. Contemporary scholars often describe the ḥijāb as a conscious moral posture, chosen not out of fear of society but out of a desire to align behaviour with spiritual values. Thus the two are inseparable: ḥayāʾ anchors the soul, giving meaning to the ḥijāb, while the ḥijāb protects and nurtures the state of ḥayāʾ by creating a boundary of dignity that guards one’s conduct from becoming careless or exposed to what weakens moral resolve. The ḥijāb, therefore, becomes a visible reminder of an inward virtue, and ḥayāʾ becomes the invisible foundation of an outward symbol.

In daily life, ḥayāʾ (الحياء) unfolds as a subtle form of self-restraint that guides a person’s choices even when no one is watching. It appears in the way someone lowers their gaze not out of awkwardness but out of respect, preserving the dignity of themselves and the person before them. It emerges in the quiet decision to avoid crude jokes or harsh speech, because the heart feels uneasy with anything that coarsens the soul. It shows itself when a person admits their mistakes without defensiveness, for ḥayāʾ softens the ego and teaches humility.

At times, ḥayāʾ is present in the refusal to show off accomplishments, since true modesty prefers sincerity over applause. It is also visible in the care someone takes to dress with dignity, not because they fear judgment, but because they feel accountable before Allah. In the household, ḥayāʾ appears when one controls anger, speaks gently, or protects the privacy of family members. In public, it becomes the quiet discipline of behaving with courtesy—giving way to others, avoiding unnecessary confrontation, and ensuring that one’s behaviour does not disturb those around them.

Hayāʾ in everyday life is the art of carrying oneself with a sense of moral dignity, ensuring that one’s inner reverence for Allah shapes even the smallest details of conduct.

There is indeed a profound connection between ḥayāʾ (الحياء) and the persistent problem of corruption in Indonesia, for corruption ultimately thrives where the sense of moral shame has withered. When ḥayāʾ is present, it acts as an inner alarm that prevents a person from taking what is not theirs, even when no one is watching; but when this inner restraint collapses, moral boundaries become negotiable and public trust becomes expendable. Corruption grows most easily in environments where people no longer feel ashamed before Allah, ashamed before society, or even ashamed before their own conscience, because ḥayāʾ is supposed to be the invisible fence that keeps wrongdoing at bay.

The decline of ḥayāʾ can be seen in the casual way many officials exploit public office for personal gain, as though public funds were private treasure. It is visible in the way bribery is rationalised as “uang rokok,” “uang terima kasih,” or simply “begitulah sistemnya,” an attitude that normalises wrongdoing by stripping it of moral discomfort. It happens because ḥayāʾ—which should inspire a sense of accountability before Allah and society—has been replaced by a culture that prioritises status, wealth, and connections over integrity.

The erosion of ḥayāʾ also stems from systemic conditions. When institutions reward loyalty over honesty, when whistle-blowers are punished instead of protected, and when political elites remain untouched despite massive scandals, the public internalises the message that shame belongs only to the poor, while the powerful are free to do as they wish. In such an atmosphere, people stop asking, “Is this right?” and start asking, “Will I get caught?”—a sign that ḥayāʾ has been displaced by mere risk calculation.

Corruption in Indonesia persists not only because of weak law enforcement but because of a deeper spiritual deficit: the fading of ḥayāʾ as a moral compass that should govern private conscience and public behaviour alike. Without the inner sense of shame that restrains the hand before it steals, the tongue before it lies, and the heart before it justifies wrongdoing, even the best-designed laws become hollow.

Ḥayāʾ (الحياء) is the moral emotion that springs from awareness: a refined sense of shame, dignity, and self-restraint that prevents a person from violating ethical boundaries. It is not merely embarrassment, but a spiritual instinct rooted in reverence toward Allah and respect toward people. It is what makes a believer recoil from indecency, avoid arrogance, and carry themselves with gentleness and humility. In many classical texts, ḥayāʾ is described as the fruit of faith—when the heart believes sincerely, modesty naturally blossoms.

Iḥsān (الإحسان) represents the highest spiritual station in Islam, defined in the famous hadith of Jibrīl as worshipping Allah “as though you see Him, and although you do not see Him, you know that He sees you.” It describes a state of profound spiritual consciousness in which a person acts with excellence, sincerity, and moral clarity, not because they are watched by people but because they are aware of being seen by Allah. Iḥsān is therefore the inner engine of ethical behaviour, forming the deepest layer of Islamic spirituality.

Hijab is the outward expression of these inward states, manifesting as a physical practice of modesty and a symbolic act of moral discipline. Although commonly identified with women’s clothing, hijab in Islamic discourse includes the broader idea of guarding one’s gaze, behaviour, and dignity. As fabric, it covers; as a value, it elevates. It is a protective boundary that reminds the believer of their identity, responsibility, and moral commitment.

Their connection becomes clear when one observes that iḥsān nurtures ḥayāʾ, ḥayāʾ shapes behaviour, and hijab becomes one of its visible manifestations. When a believer reaches the consciousness described by iḥsān, they develop a strong sense of ḥayāʾ before Allah—not wanting to be seen in actions that contradict their faith. That sense of ḥayāʾ then inspires outward modesty, one element of which is the practice of hijab. In this way, hijab is not an isolated rule but the natural extension of a spiritual journey: iḥsān forms the intention, ḥayāʾ forms the character, and hijab becomes the disciplined expression of both.

The connection between ḥayāʾ, hijab, and iḥsān forms a moral arc that stretches from the inner state of the heart to the outward expression of behaviour and finally to the highest form of spiritual excellence. Ḥayāʾ (الحياء) begins as an inward sense of reverence, restraint, and dignified self-awareness that prevents a person from engaging in anything unworthy before Allah or people. It is the subtle emotional compass that whispers, “This is not befitting of you,” long before a law or rule speaks. Hijab then becomes the visible extension of that inward quality, not merely as fabric worn on the body but as a deliberate expression of modesty, dignity, and accountability to the Divine. It translates the quiet ethical impulse of ḥayāʾ into a disciplined posture in public life, reflecting the understanding that modesty is both a spiritual sentiment and a lived practice.

When iḥsān (الإحسان) enters, it completes the relationship by elevating both ḥayāʾ and hijab to their fullest meaning, for iḥsān is the state in which a person worships Allah “as though they see Him,” and even if they cannot see Him, they know that He sees them. In such a state of spiritual vigilance, ḥayāʾ becomes deeper, because the believer is constantly aware of God’s presence, and hijab becomes more purposeful, because it is worn not out of social expectation but as an act of excellence, sincerity, and devotion. In this harmony, ḥayāʾ guides the heart, hijab shapes the conduct, and iḥsān perfects the intention, forming a coherent moral identity that unites inward spirituality with outward discipline.

In the modern world, the principles behind hijab extend beyond clothing into broader forms of etiquette and behaviour, especially in public and digital spaces. Wearing hijab not only signals modesty in appearance but also encourages women to embody respectful interaction, self-discipline, and ethical conduct in everyday life. For instance, on social media, hijab can remind women to communicate thoughtfully, avoid unnecessary provocation, and maintain dignity even when facing criticism or online debates. Similarly, in professional or public settings, the mindset that underpins hijab—awareness of moral boundaries and self-respect—can guide behaviour, decision-making, and social engagement. In this way, hijab serves as a tangible anchor for modern manners, bridging traditional ethical values with contemporary social interaction and digital presence.

Hijab: The Islamic Commandments of Hijab by Mohammad Ismail Memon Madani (2010, Madania Publications) is a concise but comprehensive treatise that aims to present the religious basis, requirements, and wisdom behind hijab for Muslim women. It is a concise but comprehensive treatise that aims to present the religious basis, requirements, and wisdom behind hijab for Muslim women. The author begins by citing verses from the Qur’an and relevant hadiths, complemented with explanations from classical scholars and tafsir literature, to argue that hijab is not merely a cultural fashion but a divinely ordained commandment.

Dr Madani argues that hijab is a divine command, not merely a cultural practice, by systematically referencing the Qur’an, Sunnah, and classical scholarly interpretations. He primarily cites Surah An-Nur (24:31), which instructs believing women to draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their adornments except what is apparent, emphasising modesty as an essential moral principle. Complementing this, he references Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), where women are commanded to cover themselves with garments when appearing in public to prevent harassment, framing hijab as both a spiritual and social safeguard.

Dr. Madani draws a sharp contrast between societies of pre‑Islamic ignorance (jahiliyya) and the present-day moral decline, arguing that many of today’s social practices mirror the “indecency” once associated with the ancient age of ignorance. He describes how, according to his reading of history, women in both the earlier periods—and by extension, some women now—walked streets openly adorned, wearing scant clothing, jewellery, and perfume, behaving in ways intended to attract attention from strangers. This exposure, the author claims, reduced women from dignified beings to public objects — a state of moral degradation that Islam sought to reverse. 

Madani uses this stark historical comparison to explain the wisdom behind the command of hijab: it is not merely about personal modesty, but a protective boundary that safeguards dignity, chastity, and social ethics. He asserts that hijab serves as a “shield” against the revival of jahili moral values in a modern world increasingly influenced by permissiveness, public exposure and moral relativism. According to him, when women neglect the guidelines of modest dress, they risk slipping back into behaviour that Islam identifies as immoral — effectively replicating the moral failures of jahiliyya under new forms. 

Furthermore, by labelling modern indecency and liberal attitudes toward dress and interaction as a “present-day jahiliyya,” the author aims to alert his readers to a cultural shift: what some consider “freedom” or “fashion” may in fact signal a return to pre-Islamic ignorance and moral decline. This rhetorical move frames hijab not only as a personal religious duty, but as a collective safeguard for Muslim women and society at large—a way to resist moral erosion and preserve a community’s spiritual and social health. 

The author uses historical analogy and contemporary social critique to argue that hijab remains necessary—not only as a religious obligation—but as a bulwark against the resurgence of unethical social norms, sexual objectification, and moral decay that once characterised the jahiliyah.

However, the argument has some limitations. First, the comparison between ancient jahiliyya and modern society can seem overgeneralised. Modern contexts are far more diverse, and not all instances of contemporary dress or behaviour reflect moral decay; many women exercise personal freedom without compromising ethics or spirituality. Second, the text may inadvertently suggest that women’s moral responsibility lies primarily in their clothing, which can risk reinforcing gendered stereotypes rather than fostering mutual ethical responsibility. Finally, the book could benefit from engaging more with contemporary scholarship, psychological research on adolescence and social behaviour, and cultural differences, which would provide a more nuanced understanding of hijab in a globalised world.

In summary, the author succeeds in stressing the protective and spiritual wisdom of hijab, but it should be read critically, acknowledging both its historical insight and its limitations in addressing the complexities of modern life. The argument is strong as a moral and religious guideline but requires contextualisation for diverse modern societies.

While Dr. Madani presents a clear historical analogy between the pre-Islamic age of jahiliyya and modern moral challenges, his argument can be strengthened by integrating contemporary social, cultural, and psychological perspectives. First, recognising that modern societies are diverse allows for a more nuanced understanding: not all instances of liberal dress or social exposure imply moral decay, and many women observe hijab voluntarily as an empowered spiritual and ethical choice. Including case studies or examples of Muslim women who maintain hijab while actively participating in professional, academic, or artistic spheres could demonstrate that hijab is compatible with agency and modern life, not just a defensive measure against perceived immorality.

Second, linking hijab to broader ethical responsibilities — such as respect, empathy, and social justice — rather than focusing solely on physical appearance, would make the argument more balanced. This approach emphasises that modesty is not just a private obligation for women, but part of a collective ethical framework benefiting both men and women. Third, referencing psychological research on adolescent development, socialisation, and the role of identity formation could provide insight into how young women internalise hijab meaningfully, rather than adopting it solely out of fear or social pressure. By incorporating these dimensions, Dr. Madani’s perspective would shift from a cautionary, defensive argument to a constructive, holistic framework, showing hijab as a practice that nurtures dignity, moral responsibility, and social cohesion in contemporary life.

In addition to the Qur’anic verses, Dr. Madani draws on authentic hadiths, such as the narration in which the Prophet ﷺ instructed women regarding modest dress and behaviour, highlighting the practical implementation of these guidelines. He integrates classical tafsir from scholars like Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi, who elaborate on the linguistic, historical, and ethical dimensions of these injunctions, underscoring that hijab is not an arbitrary cultural trend but a divinely mandated duty. The author stresses that hijab embodies modesty, dignity, and God-consciousness (taqwa), serving to protect both women and society from moral decline, and should therefore be understood as a universal, timeless command, applicable across cultures and eras rather than a temporary cultural custom.

Below are several authentic hadith that advise women on modest dress and appropriate behaviour, highlighting the practical implementation of the hijab guidelines in Islam, accompanied by brief descriptions of their narrators.

Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari (Book of Dress, Hadith 5785)

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “When a woman reaches puberty, it is not permissible for her to show anything of her body except this and this,” pointing to his face and hands. This narration underlines the requirement for women to cover their body except what is permissible, indicating practical guidelines for modest dress.

Hadith from Sahih Muslim (Book of Hijab, Hadith 1424) 

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “O Asma’, when a girl reaches the age of menstruation, it is not appropriate for her that anything should remain exposed except this and this,” again indicating face and hands. The Prophet’s advice to Asma’ provides a clear practical implementation of hijab, directly instructing women on the boundaries of modesty.

Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud (Book of Dress, Hadith 4091)

Fatimah bint Qays narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said: “A woman should not travel except with a mahram (male guardian), and she should not apply perfume so that it is noticeable to strangers.” This hadith guides women in public behaviour, including travel and presentation, demonstrating that modesty is both about clothing and conduct.

Hadith from Jami’ at-Tirmidhi (Hadith 1162)

Umm Salama reported that the Prophet ﷺ advised women to cover themselves with outer garments (jilbab) when leaving their homes. The narration highlights the practical application of the Qur’anic injunctions, showing that hijab involves both covering and maintaining decorum in public spaces.

These hadiths collectively establish that hijab in Islam is not only about clothing but encompasses behaviour, etiquette, and public presence. They provide practical instructions for women, ensuring modesty, dignity, and spiritual mindfulness in everyday life.

The status (derajat) of the hadiths often cited in support of hijab—especially the one about Asmaʾ bint Abi Bakr entering on the Prophet and the Prophet ﷺ saying “When a woman reaches puberty nothing should be seen of her except this and this—his face and hands”—is disputed among hadith scholars, including some disagreement over whether the hadith is truly “ṣaḥīḥ” (authentic). 

Some later hadith scholars, such as al‑Albani, classified that tradition as acceptable (sometimes “sahih” or “hasan li ghayrihi — good thanks to supporting evidence”). 

Those who accept it argue that the chain of transmission includes narrators deemed trustworthy, and that its meaning aligns with Qur’anic verses about modesty and covering.

However, there are several important criticisms documented by traditional hadith‑critique authorities:

• The hadith is classified as mursal in its most common published version in Sunan Abu Dawud, which means that the chain jumps — the narrator who should have heard from Asmaʾ or ʿAishah is missing, so it's not a fully connected chain of transmission. 
• Among narrators in the chain are figures about whom there are serious reliability concerns: some hadith critics, such as in official fatwa compendia, have judged the narrators as weak, or at least not “tsiqah” (reliable)—a serious defect in hadith methodology. 
• Because of those defects, many contemporary scholars and institutions refrain from using this hadith as proof of a legal ruling. 

Because of this divergence, the hadith about Asmaʾ’s covering is not universally accepted as “ṣaḥīḥ” across all scholarly schools—some accept it (often based on al‑Albani’s reinforcement), others classify it as weak or unacceptable as a legal proof. Consequently, many scholars rely more strongly on Qur’anic verses (e.g. QS An-Nur 24:31 and QS Al-Ahzab 33:59) rather than this hadith when deducing the obligation of hijab.

So, the primary references for hijab in Islam consist of Qur’anic verses, classical tafsir literature, and selected hadiths, which together establish that hijab is a divinely mandated practice rather than a mere cultural convention. Surah An-Nur (24:31) instructs believing women to draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their adornments except what is apparent, highlighting modesty as an essential moral principle. Complementing this, Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) commands women to cover themselves with garments when appearing in public, framing hijab as both a spiritual and social safeguard. Classical tafsir scholars such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi provide detailed explanations of the linguistic, historical, and ethical dimensions of these injunctions, showing that the terms khimar and jilbab refer to practical coverings of the hair, chest, and body.

In addition to Qur’anic verses, various hadiths and historical reports indicate that women of the Prophet’s era, including his wives and female companions, adopted the practice of wearing outer garments or veils in accordance with divine guidance. While some hadiths, such as the narration regarding Asmaʾ bint Abi Bakr, are debated in terms of authenticity, they illustrate the historical application of hijab and provide practical insight into how modesty was observed. By integrating these sources, scholars and authors like Dr. Mohammad Ismail Memon Madani emphasise that hijab is not a cultural fashion trend but a universal, timeless obligation that embodies dignity, modesty, and God-consciousness, applicable across different societies and eras.

The terms khimār, jilbāb, and hijab are related but distinct concepts in Islamic discourse, each describing a particular aspect of modesty and dress. Khimār (خمار) refers specifically to a cloth or scarf that covers the head, neck, and chest, traditionally worn by women to comply with the Qur’anic command in Surah An-Nur (24:31) to cover the bosom. Its usage focuses primarily on covering the hair and upper body in a manner that maintains dignity and modesty, particularly in public or mixed-gender spaces.

Jilbāb (جلباب), on the other hand, denotes a loose outer garment that covers the entire body, extending to the feet, and is worn over regular clothing. It is mentioned explicitly in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59), where the Prophet ﷺ instructs women to wear it so that they may be recognised as modest and to protect them from harm. The jilbāb is essentially an additional layer that enhances both privacy and social recognition of modesty, often used in public spaces or when leaving the home.

Hijab (حجاب) has a broader meaning that encompasses both the physical and spiritual dimensions of modesty. While it is sometimes used interchangeably with khimār or jilbāb in everyday speech, hijab literally means “barrier” or “veil” and refers not only to covering the body according to Islamic guidelines, but also to the inner state of modesty, humility, and moral restraint that governs a Muslim’s behaviour. Therefore, one uses khimār when referring to the head and chest covering, jilbāb for the full-body outer garment, and hijab both for the general concept of modesty and the overarching ethical and spiritual practice that includes these garments.

A woman is obliged to wear hijab in Islam once she reaches the age of puberty, when she becomes accountable for her actions and religious duties. This obligation applies to all parts of the body that are considered ‘awrah—areas that must be covered in public according to Islamic law—except for the face and hands in the view of most scholars. The requirement begins when a girl reaches physical and mental maturity, as indicated by signs of puberty, such as menstruation or other bodily changes, and it continues throughout adulthood. Wearing hijab at this stage is not only a matter of compliance with Qur’anic injunctions but also a demonstration of modesty, self-respect, and consciousness of God in everyday life.

In Islamic jurisprudence, a girl is considered to have reached puberty when she exhibits certain physical and biological signs, indicating that she is now accountable for her religious duties. The most clear and definitive sign is the onset of menstruation, which marks the beginning of reproductive maturity. Other signs may include the development of breasts, growth of pubic and underarm hair, and rapid physical growth or changes in body shape. Additionally, some scholars consider psychological and emotional maturity as complementary indicators, though physical signs are primary. Once these signs appear, a girl is legally obliged to observe religious duties such as praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, and wearing hijab in public.

In today’s educational and social environments, the obligation for a woman to wear hijab after puberty is not only a religious duty but also a practical consideration in navigating public spaces. Schools, universities, and workplaces are often places where young women encounter diverse cultural expectations, peer pressure, and media influences that can challenge their commitment to hijab. Understanding the reasons behind this obligation—modesty, self-respect, and God-consciousness—helps women make informed and confident decisions, balancing personal faith with social interaction. Furthermore, the modern digital world adds new dimensions, as online presence exposes women to public scrutiny, commentary, and sometimes criticism, reinforcing the need for awareness, ethical behaviour, and resilience alongside the physical practice of hijab. In this way, hijab becomes both a spiritual act and a tool for navigating contemporary life with dignity and moral integrity.

When a girl reaches the signs of puberty, such as menstruation, breast development, and growth of body hair, she enters a stage of increased religious accountability, including the obligation to wear hijab in public. This period is not only a physical transition but also an ethical and moral preparation for adulthood. Understanding the spiritual reasons behind hijab—modesty, dignity, and God-consciousness—helps adolescent girls make confident decisions while navigating social interactions at school, university, and within their communities. Moreover, the modern digital environment adds new challenges, as young women must manage their online presence and peer influence responsibly. Wearing hijab at this stage serves as both a visible symbol of modesty and a practical guide for cultivating self-respect, ethical behaviour, and resilience in the face of societal pressures.

In Islamic law, girls who have not yet reached puberty are not obligated to wear hijab. The religious duty to cover the body, particularly the ‘awrah, begins when a girl reaches puberty, as indicated by physical and biological signs such as menstruation, breast development, and growth of pubic or underarm hair. Before this stage, wearing hijab is considered optional and may be encouraged as a form of early habit or spiritual training, but it is not a mandatory religious requirement. Parents and educators may guide young girls in understanding modesty, respect, and awareness of personal boundaries, preparing them for the full practice of hijab when they reach maturity.

For pre-pubescent girls, learning about hijab and modesty can begin gradually through education, example, and gentle encouragement. Parents and teachers can introduce the concepts of respect, dignity, and personal boundaries without imposing the full religious obligation. Activities such as modest dressing at home, polite behaviour in public, and understanding the value of privacy help children internalise ethical habits. Storytelling, role-playing, and discussions about moral choices can make these lessons engaging and memorable. By cultivating awareness and self-respect early, girls are better prepared to embrace the full practice of hijab once they reach puberty, making the transition smooth and meaningful rather than forced or confusing.

Forcing pre-pubescent girls to wear hijab is generally not recommended in Islam, as the obligation to wear hijab only begins after puberty. Childhood is a crucial period for play, social interaction, and the development of creativity, confidence, and ethical understanding. Imposing hijab prematurely can create confusion, resentment, or a mechanical sense of religiosity without internal understanding. Instead, parents and educators are encouraged to introduce modesty gradually through guidance, example, and gentle encouragement. This approach allows children to associate hijab with spiritual awareness, self-respect, and moral values, rather than viewing it as a restrictive rule. The goal is to prepare them mentally, emotionally, and ethically for the responsibilities that come with adulthood, while still enjoying the natural joys and freedoms of childhood.

[Part 3]
[Part 1]

Bahasa