Shaking the hand of a woman
Adnan Malik
no barrier between them due to what has been established in the Sahih
Bukhari regarding Umm Atiyya. She said: "We gave our Bay’a to the Messenger
of Allah , so He recited to us "They should associate none with Allah and
he forbade us from wailing (for the dead)". A woman among us withdrew her
hand....". The pledge used to be taken by the shaking of hands. She
withdrew her hand and retracted it after extending it for the pledge. This
also implies that the others took the pledge by shaking hands but did not
withdraw their hands as she had withdrawn her hand. When Allah (swt)
stated: "Or you have touched the women" [An- Nisa: 43] Its wording is
general to all women implying that touching invalidates the ablution (Wudu)
which indicates the restriction of the rule to the invalidation of wudu by
the touching of women. Touching women without desire, however, is not haram
and so shaking their hands is not haram either. Just as the womans hand is
not ‘awrah, which does not constitute part of her ‘awrah, it is not
forbidden to look without desire, handshaking has not been forbidden either.
The permissibility of the shaking of hands is contrary to the act of
kissing. A mans kissing of a (non-mahram) woman and vice versa is forbidden
because it is one of the preludes to fornication (zina). It is the nature of
such a kiss that would normally be a prelude to zina, even if there was no
actual desire in it and if it did not lead to zina. The Prophet said to
Maiz, when he came to him demanding that he be purified because he had
committed fornication; "perhaps you kissed". This indicates that such kisses
are a prelude to zina. The verses and Ahadith, which prohibit zina, include
the prohibition of all the preludes to it even the touching, if by its
nature it constitutes a prelude to zina. Such preludes take place if a
person who has designs on a woman, wishes to seduce or kiss her, hold her
tightly, or embrace her similar as to what takes place between some of the
disgraceful youth today. This kind of kissing is prohibited even if it was
for the purpose of greeting someone on return from a journey as the nature
of such a kiss between young men and women acts as a prelude to zina.
ADNAN
GF Haddad
nowhere says anything about actual hand contact. Other hadiths do
mention that the women's hands were stretched in the air, and a weak
narration mentions they placed their hands in a large pail of water in
which the Prophet - upon him peace - also placed his hand. We also
have his own statement that "As for me, I do not shake hands with
women; bay`a with one of you [women] goes for all of you." And
`A'isha's narration: "The Prophet's hand never touched that of a
[foreign] woman" i.e. generally speaking, and specifically in bay`a.
Hajj Gibril
Thotful560
I have also read that women took hold of one end of a scarf or cloth and the
man then took hold of the opposite end. (instead of actual handshake)
I can't recall where I found this. ( I believe it was a volume called Mishkat
al Masabih)
Was this done?
WaSalaam,
teresa
Jeremiah McAuliffe
a proper and contemporary manner-- "What was the role of inter-gender
hand-shaking in that culture?"
That is, did that Arab culture of 1400 years ago shake hands as a
common way of courteous greeting? Or did they only (or primarily)
shake hands to signify or communicate something else? And how do we
know that? Certainly, the hadith do not seem to tell us anything about
that.
Once that question is clearly answered then, and only then, can there
be a movement towards truly understanding the hadith and how it may or
may not apply to Americans and others today...
Hand-shaking is a behavior loaded with meaning that can only be
understood within a cultural and situational context. For instance, in
American culture a "firm" handshake communciates something other than
a "limp" handshake. A full grasp of the other's hand communicates
something other than a partial grabbing the fingers. Holding onto the
handshake "too long" communicates something else-- sometimes it can
communicate a challenge to a fight! Sometimes it can communicate
affection. Releasing too quickly also communicates something. There is
a whole subtle timing and pressure dynamic to the behavior-- largely
unconscious, it would seem.
Hand-shaking has even changed recently in American culture. When I was
a kid a male did not offer his hand to a female, but if the female
extended it then you shook her hand. Women would not remove gloves to
shake hands. Men would. With the entrance of women into the workworld
and positions of cultural authority it would now generally be rude to
not offer to shake hands when meeting someone who happens to have an
XX chromosome pattern even though you have an XY pattern...
Y'see.... the behavior is simply not as one-dimensional as people
would want. The hadith is not as easy to understand as some would want
us to believe.
Really! Such astoundingly simplistic approaches to the hadith
literature are part of the major problem in the ummah as far as I can
tell.... its banal and expresses a DENIAL (or ignorance) of the
fullness and complexity of the reality and a DENIAL (or ignorance) of
what we have learned regarding some sunnat Allah over the past
century. The Reality is, of course, another name for God.... so, put 2
and 2 together if you can...
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/jeremiah
Adnan Malik
Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullai'
In response we must understand the following principles:
Texts have a Mantooq (explicit meaning) and Mafhoom (implicit meaning).
For example the explicit meaning of: ‘do not say Uff to your parents’ is the
prohibition of saying ‘uff’. But the implicit meaning here is also equally
valid. So it would be Haraam to beat ones parents.
In the above texts one of the forms of implicit meaning from which we
extract the hukm of handshaking is through ihsaarat an-nass (the alluded
meaning). Here the text did not come to give the hukm of handshaking women
but this is indicated when the woman retracted her hand. This is an
indication that she was going to hold the Messeger’s hand in order to take
the Bay’ah but retracted due to some reason. The Ishaarah of the text is a
daleel as it is the implied meaning of the text. For example we deduced
presence of Khaleefah is Fard through ishaarah from the hadeeth: ‘Wosoever
dies without a bay’ah on his neck dies the death of jahiliyyah.’
However there are other hadiths which explicitly mention touching the hand.
For example: Bukhari narrated that a slave women of Madinah used to take the
Prophet’s hand and lead him wherever she wanted until he had sorted out her
needs.
This still leaves one more issue outstanding - how would we reconcile this
with the hadith of 'Aisha mentioned, but also with the following other
ahadith.
Bukhari volume 6 : number 414 narrated:
Urwa that 'Aisha the wife of the Prophet, said, "Allah's Apostle used to
examine the believing women who migrated to him in accordance with this
Verse: 'O Prophet! When believing women come to you to take the oath of
allegiance to you...Verily! Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.' "
(60.12) 'Aisha said, "And if any of the believing women accepted the
condition (assigned in the above-mentioned Verse), Allah's Apostle would say
to her, 'I have accepted your pledge of allegiance.' He would only say that,
for, by Allah, his hand never touched any lady during that pledge of
allegiance. He did not receive their pledge except by saying, 'I have
accepted your pledge of allegiance for that.' "
Bukhari volume 7: number 211 Aisha (ra) narrated:
(the wife of the Prophet) When believing women came to the Prophet as
emigrants, he used to test them in accordance with the order of Allah. 'O
you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them
. . .' (60.10) So if anyone of those believing women accepted the above
mentioned conditions, she accepted the conditions of faith. When they agreed
on those conditions and confessed that with their tongues, Allah's Apostle
would say to them, "Go, I have accepted your oath of allegiance (for Islam).
By Allah, and hand of Allah's Apostle never touched the hand of any woman,
but he only used to take their pledge of allegiance orally. By Allah,
Allah's Apostle did not take the pledge of allegiance of the women except in
accordance with what Allah had ordered him. When he accepted their pledge of
allegiance he would say to them, "I have accepted your oath of allegiance."
Reported by al Tabarani and al Bayhaqi that Ma'qal ibn Yasar narrated that
the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said:
" It is better for one of you to be pricked in the head with an iron pick,
than to touch a woman whom it is unlawful to touch. " In Yusuf Al Qardawi's
Lawful and Prohibited in Islam he says that Al-Mondhari says al Tabarani's
transmitter are authentic and sound.
Imam Ahmed recorded that Umaymah bint Ruqayah said " I came to Allah's
Messenger (SAW) with some women to give him our pledge and he took the
pledge from us that is mentioned in the Quran , that we associate none with
Allah etc as in the Ayah . Then he (SAW) said " As much as you can bear to
implement. We said " Surely Allah and His Messenger are more merciful with
us than we are with ourselves." We then said " O Allah's Messenger, should
you not shake hands with us?" He said ," I do not shakes hands with women,
for my statement to one woman is as sufficient to a hundred women. " (
Musnad Ahmed 6: 367)
Ibn Kathir states that this hadith has an authentic chain of narration ; At
Tirmidhi , An Nasa'i and Ibn Majah collected it.
These hadith would seem to support the knowledge of Umm al Mumineen Aisha
(ra) in this matter, and the translations to Umm Atiyyaa 's( RA) hadith do
not indicate a clear hand shake, or contact, rather an extension and
withdrawl.
To answer this it must be said that the reconciliation of the above hadiths
is as follows; when the Messenger (Saw) says something and then does
contrary to that, this indicates the action is mubah because he (saw) did
the action. If it was Haraam he would not have done the action. Doing the
action shows permissibility. For example the Messenger (Saw) said: ‘I do not
accept the gift of the Mushrik’ But in the narration of Imam ‘Ali: The Kisra
gave the Messenger of Allah a gift and he accepted it.’ This indicates that
accepting a gift from a mushrik is permissible since the Messenger (Saw)
accepted the gift from Kisra who was a fire worshipper. As for why he
refused the action in his saying, it is well known that (saw) would refuse
to do many mubah actions, not because they are Haraam but because that was
his own preference in the mubahaat like anyone else. For eg he (saw) refused
to listen to the music of the farmers flute even though he allowed Ibn Umar
to listen to it. He (saw) refused to eat the lizards and rabbits but he let
the Sahabah eat them.
As for the hadeeth: ‘It is better for one of you to be pricked in the head
with an iron pick, than to touch (have intercourse with) a woman who is
unlawful to him.’ Here touch can mean literally touch or sexual intercourse
which is a metaphorical meaning. To go from the literal to the metaphorical
one needs a qareenah. For example when Maryam (ra) said: how can I have
child when no man has touched me’ here touch means intercourse because
touching on its own does not produce offspring. As for the above hadeeth the
qareenah would be the hadeeth of Umm ‘Atiyah itself. If the Messenger (saw)
touched when taking the bay’ah then it must be mubaah. If that is the case
then touch here would mean intercourse otherwise it would contradict the
Umma ‘Atiyyah hadeeth.
The Usuli pricpile states: Use of both daleel is better than the rejection
of one of them’ (I’mal ad-daleelayni awla min ihmaali ahadihimaa). This is
because in origin there is no contradiction in the wahy. So when there is a
apparent contradiction then one should try to reconcile both evidences
rather than reject one. Here the reconciliation is by taking the second
hadith metaphorically which is consistent with the Arabic language for
‘touch’ is used metaphorically as well.
I hope this kills and buries this issues forever..
Your brother
Adnan
someone
news:ar25bo$bt$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Haji Gibril et al..
>
> Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullai'
>
Sad, very sad. For your own sake, get a life. There is more to life than
worrying about whether or not you are shaking a woman's hand. Especially
since women are 50.x% of the population. My goodness, you might actually
come in contact with them occasionally.
Is this all you lot have to think about? Whether or not you shake
somebody's hand?
Pshaw!!!
s.
GF Haddad
bt$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> Haji Gibril et al..
>=20
> Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullai'
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah.
=20
...
> In the above texts one of the forms of implicit meaning from which we
> extract the hukm of handshaking is through ihsaarat an-nass (the allude=
d
> meaning). Here the text did not come to give the hukm of handshaking wo=
men
> but this is indicated when the woman retracted her hand.=20
1. The retraction of the hand is not an allusion to a handshake
but an allusion to the hand having been stretched. Certain
hadiths mention the retraction of the hands from plates of food.
`A'isha herself says a woman holding a note (kitabun) signaled
to the Prophet (saws) from behind a curtain but he withdrew his
hand (qabada yadahu) and said: Is this a man or a woman's hand?
Color your fingernails! Sunan Abi Dawud. Was he shaking her=20
hand? No, or else how could `A'isha long after swear by Allah=20
that the Prophet (saws) never touched a foreign woman's hand?
So the nice rule about the mantuq and the madlul of the nass,
although correct in itself, is not at all correctly applied.
2. Another narration from Umm `Atiyya specifies that the=20
women stretched their hands in mid-air from behind a hijab.
Narrated by Ibn Khuzayma and Ibn Hibban in their Sahihs and others.
3. The claim that the allusion of the text was a handshake has never
been the understanding of the Jurists. It was not even adduced
by Dr. Hasan al-Turabi in his defense of mixed handshake, although
he goes out of his way to spin the texts to push his cause, such
as trying to euphemize the prohibition of "touch" as intercourse
whenever possible. But his main line is that the prohibition of
handshake is specific to the Prophet (saws) i.e. everybody else
is allowed! This too is baseless.
...
> However there are other hadiths which explicitly mention touching the h=
and.
> For example: Bukhari narrated that a slave women of Madinah used to tak=
e the
> Prophet’s hand and lead him wherever she wanted until he had sort=
ed out her
> needs.
This seems the nearest thing to a proof for a conditional
permissibility, the condition being that the handshake is
passive, i.e. neither initiated nor encouraged. Further, it
is more correct to say slave-girl rather than slave-woman.
Nevertheless, we must beware of the tendency to burden the
texts with false juridical rulings. Al-Bukhari cited the
above hadith in the chapter on arrogance to show that the
Prophet (saws) was not haughty with those of young age and
low condition. More importantly, the hadith probably refers
to slave-girls owned or freed by the Prophet (saws), as
specified by `A'isha in al-Bukhari: "He never touched the=20
hand of a woman except one he owned." And again none of the
Jurists to my knowledge adduced the slave-girl of Madina
hadith as any proof for mixed handshake.
The rule here is that the prohibition of mixed handshake is
explicit in the Shari`a as per the hadiths I already cited,
which were reiterated by the respondent.
> To answer this it must be said that the reconciliation of the above had=
iths
> is as follows; when the Messenger (Saw) says something and then does
> contrary to that, this indicates the action is mubah because he (saw) d=
id
> the action. If it was Haraam he would not have done the action. Doing t=
he
> action shows permissibility.
There is still no proof that he did do the action claimed
while there is explicit proof that he censored such action
and never did it. Even allusive proof would not be enough
to counterbalance that.
There seems to be a knack of citing true rules in the wrong
way here. Citing rules certainly gives a veneer of correctness
to argumentation but it is improbable that these rules were
all overlooked by everybody else all this time. Take a hint=20
>from the fact that the inference of ibaha is unheard of.
...=20
> As for the hadeeth: ‘It is better for one of you to be pricked in=
the head
> with an iron pick, than to touch (have intercourse with) a woman who is
> unlawful to him.’ Here touch can mean literally touch or sexual i=
ntercourse
> which is a metaphorical meaning. To go from the literal to the metaphor=
ical
> one needs a qareenah. For example when Maryam (ra) said: how can I have
> child when no man has touched me’ here touch means intercourse be=
cause
> touching on its own does not produce offspring. As for the above hadeet=
h the
> qareenah would be the hadeeth of Umm ‘Atiyah itself. If the Messe=
nger (saw)
> touched when taking the bay’ah then it must be mubaah. If that is=
the case
> then touch here would mean intercourse otherwise it would contradict th=
e
> Umma ‘Atiyyah hadeeth.
It is best to put away Umm `Atiyya's hadith as I already pointed
out it has no probative force here. A dubious interpretation of a
hadith can never nullify a clear and explicit hukm. The hadith of
the iron spike is a wonderful proof as it comes in a second=20
wording in which the hand is explicitly mentioned: "Whoever touches
the hand of woman who is not lawful to him, a hot coal will be=20
placed in his hand the Day of Resurrection." Al-Zayla`i cites it=20
in Nasb al-Raya. If intercourse is still meant, why mention the=20
hand? And did `A'isha mean that the Prophet (saws) never had=20
intercourse when she swore by Allah that his palm never touched
(massa) the palm of a woman? The same is related from Ibn `Umar.
In fact Ibn Hajar and others said that `A'isha's vehemence
seems directed precisely at those who would claim that the
Prophet - upon him peace - touched hands once. No, she says,
not even once, except for a bondswoman.
Add to this the hadith in which the Prophet (saws) said: It=20
would be preferable for a man to rub shoulders with a pig and=20
be smirched with its mire than for his shoulder to press against
the shoulder of a woman that is not licit for him." Touching
palms and rubbing shoulders are not metaphors for sex in Arabic.
Add to this that the Prophet (saws) reportedly did shake hands
with his hand covered with a garment according to a broken-
chained mursal report by Abu Dawud and others; i.e. old women
according to the commentators.
> The Usuli pricpile states: Use of both daleel is better than the reject=
ion
> of one of them’ (I’mal ad-daleelayni awla min ihmaali ahadi=
himaa). This is
> because in origin there is no contradiction in the wahy. So when there =
is a
> apparent contradiction then one should try to reconcile both evidences
> rather than reject one. Here the reconciliation is by taking the second
> hadith metaphorically which is consistent with the Arabic language for
> ‘touch’ is used metaphorically as well.
There is no contradiction between the dalils and no need for
this overkill of rules applied in all the wrong ways. I have
included by far more dalils than those who defend the opposite
view. We accept and use the hadith of Umm `Atiyya. The woman
who withdrew her hand was no more touching the Prophet's hand
than all the other women that did not withdraw theirs. It makes
no sense that all these women touched the Prophet's hand and
it not only escaped the notice of the Sahaba but they also
swore by God to the contrary.
If one were to say to female Muslim students in the US and Europe=20
that it is permissible to shake hands with boys, they would
consider him a freethinker. The proofs to the contrary are many
and clear; and the practice well-established in the Umma.
As I said, some novel fatwas do defend permissibility. What is
dishonest is the packaging of innovation as genuine ijtihad.
Hajj Gibril
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Haddad) wrote:
>
>The rule here is that the prohibition of mixed handshake is
>explicit in the Shari`a as per the hadiths I already cited,
>which were reiterated by the respondent.
Not really. The prohibition is explicit in the INTERPRETATION of the
hadiths.....
What is call "Shari'a" (which should actually be plural-- there is
more than one version) is an interpretation, a hermeneutic of the
texts. And the current methods of interpretation are at least a
century out of date.
Why not respond to the contemporary questions regarding cultural
norms? They too were posted.
If contemporary issues cannot be addressed, then that is a sign of a
set of dying traditions.... not a living faith....
GF Haddad
ra$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:39:10 +0000 (UTC), Qas...@ziplip.com (GF
> Haddad) wrote:
>=20
> >
> >The rule here is that the prohibition of mixed handshake is
> >explicit in the Shari`a as per the hadiths I already cited,
> >which were reiterated by the respondent.
>=20
>=20
> Not really. The prohibition is explicit in the INTERPRETATION of the
> hadiths.....=20
You have not read the argument of the respondent carefully. He
acknowledges that the hadiths in question support the position of
prohibition explicitly, contrary to the positionof permissibility:
"These hadith would seem to support the knowledge of Umm al Mumineen
Aisha (ra) in this matter, and the translations to Umm Atiyyaa 's( RA)
hadith do not indicate a clear hand shake, or contact, rather an
extension and withdrawl." However, he forwards the view that the
Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - did something once that goes
against their gist, to show that it was not categorically forbidden.
That is his claim. As he said: "To answer this it must be said that
the reconciliation of the above hadiths is as follows; when the
Messenger (Saw) says something and then does contrary to that..." Do
you get his point? Then you can get my point which is that the
prohibition evidence is clear and abundant, while the opposite
evidence is thin because it is neither as explicit nor as numerous.
Ive also pointed out that such a public and remarkable act as the
Prophet (saws) shaking hands with women cannot possible go unnoticed
by all, only to be reported by a single woman in strictly allusive
fashion. You are preaching hermeneutics to me? You of little faith,
this is all pure hermeneutics according to the strictest criteria.
Would that the scales fell off your eyes concerning the eminent
reliability of this method.
Hajj Gibril
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Not really. The prohibition is explicit in the INTERPRETATION of the
>=20
> What is call "Shari'a" (which should actually be plural-- there is
> more than one version) is an interpretation, a hermeneutic of the
> texts. And the current methods of interpretation are at least a
> century out of date.
Just a clarification:
Shareeah is the divine injunctions based upon nass, or the explicit
texts of the Quran. Nass means those statements that have no
ambiguity in them and there is not dispute about them in meaning.=20
"Prayer has been fixed at certain times." The Quran uses shareeah in
this sense and this sense alone. Ijtihad is NOT permissible in
shareeah.
Fiqh is human interpretation. The decisions human beings make for
their respective conditions should be determined within the spirit of
the shareeah, which may differ from person to person, situation to
situation, and society to society. It is mainly left upto the
individual, and the primary director in these type of situations is
not an alim, but the conscience of the person.
Saad Subhan
6pn$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
> With regard to a handshake, between a man and a woman, it is permitted =
with
> no barrier between them due to what has been established in the Sahih
nger
> of Allah , so He recited to us "They should associate none with Allah =
and
> he forbade us from wailing (for the dead)". A woman among us withdrew h=
er
> hand....". The pledge used to be taken by the shaking of hands. She
his
> also implies that the others took the pledge by shaking hands but did n=
ot
> withdraw their hands as she had withdrawn her hand. >=20
> ADNAN
<snip>
It was narrated that Ma'qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "For one of you to
be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that
he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him."
Narrated by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, 486.
*****
It was narrated from =91Urwah that =91Aa'ishah told him about the women's
oath of allegiance: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) never touched any woman with his hand. He would
explain to the woman what the oath of allegiance implied, and when she
accepted, he would say =91Go, for you have given your oath of
allegiance.'"
Narrated by Muslim, 1866=20
*****
It was narrated that Umaymah the daughter of Raqeeqah said: The
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said,
"I do not shake hands with women."
Narrated by al-Nasaa'i (4181) and Ibn Maajah, 2874
thebit
infidel subject, the social sciences. Shock horror!
Salaam
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Sorry.
God forbid our "scholars" would actually avail themselves of what has
been learned regarding sunnat Allah over the last century.....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<ari6kp$2=
>ra$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:39:10 +0000 (UTC), Qas...@ziplip.com (GF
>> Haddad) wrote:
>>=20
>> >
>> >The rule here is that the prohibition of mixed handshake is
>> >explicit in the Shari`a as per the hadiths I already cited,
>> >which were reiterated by the respondent.
>>=20
>> Not really. The prohibition is explicit in the INTERPRETATION of the
>> hadiths.....=20
>
I read it carefully. You did not read my post, or read it carefully
when I raised the issue of social context of hand-shaking in Arabia
1400 years ago, and thus, the issue of a contemporary approach to and
thus interpretation of the hadith literature.
> Do
>you get his point?
Of course. Its simplistic.
>Then you can get my point which is that the
>prohibition evidence is clear and abundant,
Only if you ignore the need to fill out the social context of
hand-shaking.
>fashion. You are preaching hermeneutics to me? You of little faith,
Little faith? Oh ye of profound arrogance....
Hermeneutics is not "preached" it is sunnat Allah and lies at the
foundation of absolutely everything human beings do. We ARE "homo
hermeneuticus"....
Do you deny clear sunnat Allah?
>Would that the scales fell off your eyes concerning the eminent
>reliability of this method.
It may have been reliable a few centuries ago. It is not reliable any
longer.
Read people such as Derrida, Ricour, Heidegger, Polkinghorne, etc.
Then, when you are properly educated to the issues, get back to us.
You could even read my academic material. But then, I suppose you just
dismiss willy-nilly anything out of a "western" university?
Right now, you consistently accuse others of what YOU display.....