Is it a condition for the effects of valid seclusion to take place that the husband explicitly demands intercourse, or is it sufficient to predominantly assume her consent or refusal, or is an attempt necessary?

The majority of scholars stipulate several conditions for the establishment of legal rulings through khalwa (private seclusion): the husband's awareness of the wife's presence, the absence of a discerning person with them, and that the wife does not prevent him from intercourse. The Hanafis added that there should be no legal or sensory impediment preventing intercourse.

The jurists justified the establishment of rulings through khalwa by stating that it is the presumed occasion for intercourse, or that the wife has surrendered herself, or that he has taken from her what is not permissible except through marriage. Ibn Rajab and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that khalwa establishes the mahr (dowry) even if the wife prevents intercourse, whereas the well-known position among the Hanbalis stipulates the absence of prevention.

According to the Hanafis, khalwa without an impediment (such as illness, menstruation, ihram, or obligatory fasting) is considered like intercourse, because khalwa is treated like intercourse due to the husband's enablement of it.

If the wife does not display anything that prevents intercourse, the khalwa is valid. However, if she explicitly prevents it, it is not considered a valid khalwa. If the husband takes from her what is not permissible except through marriage, such as kissing or touching with desire, the mahr becomes settled.

These disputed issues are resolved by referring to the Sharia judiciary practiced in each country.