Wednesday, March 02, 2005

The Globe & Mail - Let's not shake on it


Let's not shake on it
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.

By MUHAMMAD ATHAR LILA
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 Updated at 1:40 PM EST


Imagine, for a moment, that you're on your way to the most important job interview of your life. You've spent the previous two weeks preparing for it, anticipating the questions, memorizing the answers, and figuring out ways to impress your prospective employer.
You're escorted into an empty room and told to wait until the boss arrives.


After a few minutes, the door opens. In walks a tall, welcoming, attractive woman. Your knees starting to wobble. She smiles, approaches you, sticks out her hand, and says: "Hi, nice to finally meet you."


You stand there, frozen, staring at her outstretched hand. The lump in your throat is starting to grow. She's confused, as though she's done something wrong. After a few awkward moments, you finally muster the courage to respond the only way you know how.
"Uhhhh, sorry, I don't shake hands with women."


Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.

As a Muslim, I try to practice my religion to the best of my ability. For me, that includes not shaking hands with women other than those with whom I have a blood relationship. And I'm not alone. Thousands of Canadian Muslims face the same problem. In our schools, community centres, hospitals, places of work -- you name it -- we face the same challenge everyday: To shake or not to shake?


It's not an easy decision. Let's face it, in the West, handshakes have become more than just a formality. An outstretched hand is a cry for attention: "Validate me." "Greet me." "Respect me."

As a journalist, it's particularly difficult to not shake hands. We journos meet new people every day. Shaking hands is a matter of routine. If I don't shake hands with a new contact, for example, they could bear a grudge that would make it difficult to get information from them in the future. It also makes interviewing news sources extremely awkward.
I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"


No, I'm not an extremist. And no, I'm not some Saudi-sponsored preacher trying to promote a narrow-minded view of religion. I think women should vote, be elected to office, run large corporations, solve the world's problems, and challenge our male-dominated culture to reclaim their rightful status as an equal half of creation. I think I'm about as laid back as they come.

And yet, I don't shake hands with non-related women. For me, the decision goes back to how I interpret my faith's teachings. That's right, not all "orthodox" Muslims -- you know, the ones with the big, scraggly beards and funny skull caps -- are blind followers. Some of us, maybe even most of us, have thought it through for ourselves. It's one of the advantages of living in the West: In an open-marketplace of ideologies, you don't have time to be a blind follower. You've got to think things through for yourself.


So how does a Canadian Muslim -- born and raised with fully modern, western sensibilities -- arrive at such a seemingly rigid interpretation? It comes down to this: During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims look to as a perfect role model, never shook hands with women he was not related to. He also discouraged his followers from physically touching people they were not related to. So, because the Prophet's life, or sunnah, is a source of legislation in Islam, shaking hands is considered inappropriate.

Now, it would be easy to dismiss the prohibition as out-dated and, as some would argue, in need of reform -- hey, especially when it means you'll get that new job you've always wanted. And yet, as more and more Canadian Muslims begin to re-define their faith, many are choosing to stop shaking hands. They've concluded that being a believer means not picking and choosing which rules to follow.

But the problem is: How do you refuse to shake someone's hand without offending them? And what's more important, following your religion or not offending a stranger? Think about all the times you've had job interviews, met a new client, or were introduced to someone at a party. What would have happened if you didn't shake their hand? Disappointment? Confrontation? Rejection?

Or, as I've come to learn, would it have led to curiosity on the part of the person whose hand you've refused to shake? Would the person want to know more about your religion and ask why you wouldn't shake their hand? And might that, in turn, give you the chance to explain your religion to them, thereby strengthening your own belief? I can't think of a better introduction than that.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. He also happens to be democratic; a pluralist and moderate who belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, which says clerics should shun political life.
Our delegation consisted of handful of pilgrims, mostly women. As we sat in the small, undecorated room in his house used for meetings with visitors, I wondered how he would make his entrance. When he arrived, he made a point of greeting all the women one by one, and to my amazement, stuck out his hand for the women to shake. But before they could reach it, he would cover it with his abba -- a tattered, see-through cloak that was thinner than pantyhose.


One by one, he shook their hands through his abba. As I look back on the experience, I think he was making a deliberate point: It's okay to enjoy western ideals, just don't go too far. I think it was his way of bridging the gap between Islam and the West.

Muhammad Athar Lila lives in Toronto where he is a producer at iChannel.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

12 comments:

  1. Assalamu'alaykum,

    It is of note that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a Shi'te scholar. I would not recommend shaking hands "with a barrier" or without.

    The Sunni position:
    Shaking hands with the opposite gender
    http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003902.aspx

    Wassalam,
    Salikah

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:54 PM

    Salaams,

    Are you asserting by making mention of Ayatollah al-Sistani's being Shi'ite that your interpretion and that of Sunnipath.com are instead "correct"?

    As of mention, Sunnipath.com has on several occasions called Shia's deviants for crying for Imam Hussayn (as). Talk about being an objective source!

    I read every one of those links and each provides nothing but interpretations of the Sunnah. Don't forget, although the Sunnah is there, it's interpretation, as well as the Qur'an are always in flux. Thus, we cannot have any ideological interpretation of the text due to the non-finality of the interpretations.

    Salaams.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wa'alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullah,

    Jazakum Allahu Khayran for your comment.

    Indeed I do assert that the position on SunniPath is correct. Neither SunniPath nor myself hide the fact that we are traditional Sunni Muslims who follow the way of the majority of the 'ulema for the majority of time.

    I took care to mention that the Ayatollah al-Sistani is Shi'ite because many of the people who visit my blog are Sunni and this was a point of clear divergence -- I did not want people to shake hands using a barrier because they thought a Sunni scholar did it.

    Having said that, Ayatollah al-Sistani is someone I have a great deal of respect for -- but I do disagree with his take on the issue.

    May Allah bless your every moment...ameen.

    Wassalam,
    Salikah

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:52 PM

    Salaams,

    Thanks for the reply. I must first clarify, I do not necessarily disagree with the traditional Shi'ite or Sunni position.

    What Ayatollah al-Sistani, however, is doing here is something very, very, bold. He is telling us that our understanding of the Shariah can change! What may have been considered "valid" say 100 years may not be "valid" today. Please, note, however, I do not mean "truth" here. "Validity" and "truth" are two very different notions.

    Is our iman so weak today that we cannot shake the hands of the opposite gender simply because the Holy Prophet (saw) apparently did not? If that be the case, how is it that slavery was considered "valid" back in that time and not today?

    If our understanding of the later has changed, then it is quite possible that our understanding of the former can change. And that is the boldness of al-Sistani's actions.

    It ought to be upto the individual to decide whether they at the individual level can accept the "validity" of this interpretation. We are all different after all.

    Wa salaam!

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. salaam 'alaikum,
    I pray that I am not overstepping my bounds by posting this, if so please feel free to delete my comments, inshaAllah.
    Anon. stated:
    It ought to be upto the individual to decide whether they at the individual level can accept the "validity" of this interpretation. In my limited exposure to people of knowledge, I've never come across that sentiment from them. Rather, they seem to convey that honoring God's command requires something stricter than one's individual preference.
    This brief 4 minute audio [infra] by one of our noble and mubarak scholars -May Allah preserve him- gives a good barometer, as it were, of how one should approach following sound scholarly opinion in cases of disagreement.
    And Allah knows best.

    http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004455.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:13 PM

    Salaams,

    Alex, unfortunately, you previous post was deleted, and I didn't have a chance to take a look at it.

    Nevertheless, in response to your second comment, Shiekh Keller gives a set of criterion about how we ought to choose which scholar ought to be followed. The criterion he gives are subject to interpretation, and individual choice. These are again, of course, temporal, and non-final. As soon as the criteria change, the interpretations about which scholars we ought fo follow, necessarily change as well.

    Wa salaam!

    ReplyDelete
  8. JazakumAllahu khairun
    I may have misunderstood what the Shaykh said- hafidhahullah.

    I took from it that the standards are:
    1-The scholar's qualifications, meaning his/her connection to previous, established scholarship and the Sunnah of our Beloved -Alla bless him and give him peace.

    2-That when qualified scholars disagree, one looks to the orignally established ruling and takes that over dispensations.
    Is that right?

    P.S. I deleted my first comment (my spelling and grammar were, as usual, atrocious)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous5:35 PM

    Salaams,

    Problem lies in the "interpretation" of the "established" scholarship. It is by no means a final interpretation. The Shariah itself is a form of religious knowledge rather than an article of religious faith. Thus, it is subject to rational discussion and adjustment. The interpretive work of the clergy, therefore, is not itself divine; rather, the pursuit of religious knowledge is human and historically situated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alhamdulillah that this article appeared in the Globe & Mail. Maybe it will aid in arousing some more sensitivity and awareness amongst non-Muslims about this custom we have the honour of carrying forward from the Beloved of God, sall Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, as best we can.

    I once heard Shaykh Ahmad Talal Ahdab in Toronto offer a sharp insight about hand-shaking and changing customs today. A student pointed out to him that it is strange according to North American customs that we not shake hands in greeting. Shaykh Talal responded by noting that many things were strange about the sunnah of al-Mustafa, sall Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, at that time also. Yet the Prophet used to say in well authenticated ahadith that Islam began a strange thing and would return a strange thing so blessed are the strangers [tuba lil-ghuraba!]

    Salikah or anyone else, if you know the specific reference of this hadith, please post/email me the Arabic [transliteration if script is not possible], English and source reference. I think it is a particularly important hadith for our time and place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:02 PM

    Salaam 'Alaikum

    I do not believe it displays weak 'iman to do something or avoid something b/c the Prophet (peace be upon him) did, and I think that's a terrible thing to lay at the feet of other Muslims, who are, after all, trying as hard as you are. If it's something unfashionable, like not shaking hands, I think it might take a great deal of 'iman. If people don't like it, they can get over it (they are, after all, adults, are they not)?

    Sistani can say what he wants, within the boundaries and guidelines of Shi'a fiqh. But it's okay if people who follow a different methodology want to follow that, and harping over these things and slagging off Muslims who do (while not making a big, divide-and-conquer fuss about it) ... I don't see the point, other than alienating people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. On this very issue, Mere Islam:

    http://www.mereislam.info/2005/03/handshake-dilemma.html

    ReplyDelete