*Note: this is a repost of an older blog entry which, for some reason, got deleted:
The Question:
Is it proven in the Glorious Qur’an or the Sunnah that shaking hands with women is totally prohibited within the social and family relations when there is trust and no fear of temptation?
The Answer:
There is no doubt that shaking hands between males and females who are not mahrams (illegal for marriage) has become an intricate issue. Reaching an Islamic verdict on this issue away from extremism and dispensation needs a psychological, intellectual, and scientific effort so that the Mufti gets rid of the pressure of all imported and inherited customs unless they are based on the textual proofs of the Qur’an or the Sunnah.
Before tackling the issue in point, I would like to exclude two points on which I know there is agreement among the Muslim jurists of the righteous predecessors.
Firstly, it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman if there is fear of provoking sexual desire or enjoyment on the part of either one of them or if there is fear of temptation. This is based on the general rule that blocking the means to evil is obligatory, especially if its signs are clear. This ruling is ascertained in the light of what has been mentioned by Muslim jurists that a man touching one of his mahrams or having khalwah (privacy) with her moves to the prohibited, although it is originally permissible, if there is fear of fitnah (temptation) or provocation of desire.
Secondly, there is a dispensation in shaking hands with old women concerning whom there is no fear of desire. The same applies to the young girl concerning whom there is no fear of desire or temptation. The same ruling applies if the person is an old man concerning whom there is no fear of desire. This is based on what has been narrated on the authority of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to shake hands with old women. Also, it is reported that `Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair hired an old woman to nurse him when he was sick, and she used to wink at him and pick lice from his head. This is also based on what has been mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an in respect of the old barren women, as they are given dispensation with regard to their outer garments. Almighty Allah says in this regard: “As for women past child bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” (An-Nur: 60)
Allah explains that there is no sin on the old barren women if they decide to remove their outer garments from their faces and such, so long as they do not do it in a manner in which they would be exposing their beauty wrongly.
Here the object of discussion deals with other than these two cases. There is no surprise that shaking hands with women is haram (unlawful) according to the viewpoint of those who hold that covering all of the woman’s body, including her face and the two hands, is obligatory. This is because if it becomes obligatory to cover the two hands, then it would become haram for the opposite sex to look at them. And, if looking at them is unlawful, then touching them would become haram with greater reason because touching is graver than looking, as it provokes desire more.
But it is known that the proponents of this view are the minority, while the majority of Muslim jurists, including the Companions, the Successors and those who followed them, are of the opinion that the face and the hands are excluded from the prohibition. They based their opinion on Almighty Allah’s saying, “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent …” (An-Nur: 31) So where is the evidence on prohibiting handshaking unless there is desire?
In fact, I searched for a persuasive and textual proof supporting the prohibition but I did not find it. As a matter of fact, the most powerful evidence here is blocking the means to temptation, and this is no doubt acceptable when the desire is roused or there is fear of temptation because its signs exist. But when there is no fear of temptation or desire, what is the reason for prohibition?
Some scholars based their ruling on the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of the Conquest of Makkah. When he wanted to take the pledge of women he said to them, “Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.” But it is known that the Prophet’s leaving a matter does not necessarily indicate its prohibition, as he may leave it because it is haram (forbidden), makruh (reprehensible), or because it is not preferable. He may also leave it just because he is not inclined to it. An example of this last is the Prophet’s refraining from eating the meat of the lizard although it is permissible. Then, the Prophet’s refraining from shaking hands with women (other than his wives) is not evidence of the prohibition, and there should be other evidence to support the opinion of those who make shaking hands absolutely prohibited.
However, it is not agreed upon that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refrained from shaking hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. Umm `Atiyyah Al-Ansariyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported another narrative that indicates that the Prophet shook hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. This is unlike the narration of the Mother of the Believers `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) who denied this and swore that it had not happened.
It is narrated that `A’ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), said, “When the believing women migrated to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they would be tested in accordance with the words of Allah, ‘O Prophet! If believing women come unto thee, taking oath of allegiance unto thee that they will ascribe nothing as partner unto Allah, and will neither steal nor commit adultery nor kill their children, nor produce any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet, nor disobey thee in what is right, then accept their allegiance and ask Allah to forgive them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.’ (Al-Mumtahanah: 12)” `A’ishah said, “Whoever among the believing women agreed to that passed the test, and when the women agreed to that, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them, ‘Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.’ No, by Allah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman, rather they would give their oath of allegiance with words only.” And `A’ishah said, “By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) only took the oath of allegiance from the women in the manner prescribed by Allah, and the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman. When he had taken their oath of allegiance he would say, ‘I have accepted your oath of allegiance verbally.’” (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
In his explanation of the saying of `A’ishah, “No, by Allah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman …” Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar said: she swore to ascertain the news as if she (`A’ishah) wanted to refute the narration of Umm `Atiyyah. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Hibban, Al-Bazzar, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Mardawih that Umm `Atiyyah said in respect of the story of taking the oath of allegiance of women, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) held out his hand from outside the house and we (the immigrating women) held our hands from within the house, then he said, ‘O Allah, bear witness.’” In another narration reported by Al-Bukhari, Umm `Atiyyah said, “… thereupon a lady withdrew her hand (refrained from taking the oath of allegiance)…” This narration indicates that they (the immigrating women) took their oath of allegiance by shaking hands. Al-Hafizh said: we reply to the first saying that holding out hands from behind a veil is an indication of the acceptance of the allegiance even if there was no shaking of hands. As for the second narration, withdrawing hands indicates the postponement of accepting the pledge of allegiance or that taking the pledge of allegiance happened from behind a veil. This is supported by that narration of Abu Dawud on the authority of Al-Sha`bi that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take the pledge of allegiance of the immigrating women he brought a garment and put it over his hands saying, “I do not shake hands with women.” Furthermore, in his book Maghazi, Ibn Is-haq is reported to have said that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take the pledge of allegiance of the immigrating women, he would dip his hands in a vessel and a woman would dip her hands with him in the same vessel.
Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar said: it is possible that taking the pledge of allegiance happened on more than one occasion. Sometimes, it happened without touching hands by any means, as narrated by `A’ishah. Another time it happened that the women’s oath of allegiance was accepted by shaking their hands with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), as narrated by Al-Sha`bi. A third time it happened that they dipped their hands in the vessel as mentioned by Ibn Is-haq.
The most correct view seems to be that it occurred on more than one occasion, if we realize that `A’ishah talked about taking the pledge of allegiance from the immigrating women after the Truce of Al-Hudaibiyah, while Umm `Atiyyah talked about what seems to be the oath of allegiance of the believing women in general.
By transmitting these narrations, I mean to clarify that the evidence of those who are of the opinion that shaking hands with women is prohibited is not agreed upon, as is thought by those who do not resort to the original sources. Rather, there is some controversy concerning this evidence.
Furthermore, some contemporary Muslim scholars have based their ruling concerning the prohibition of shaking hands with women on the Hadith narrated by Al-Tabari and Al-Baihaqi on the authority of Ma`qil ibn Yassar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It would be better for one of you to have himself stabbed on the head with an iron needle than to touch a woman that is illegal for him.”
Here, the following should be noted:
1. The scholars and Imams of Hadith have not declared the authenticity of this Hadith. Some of them say that its narrators are trustworthy, but this is not enough to prove the authenticity of the Hadith because there is a probability that there is an interruption in the chain of narrators or there was a hidden cause behind this Hadith. That is why Muslim jurists in the periods that followed the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have not based their ruling on the prohibition of shaking hands with women on this Hadith.
2. Some Hanafi and Maliki jurists stated that the prohibition is not proven unless there is a certain qat`i (definitive) piece of evidence such as textual proofs from the Glorious Qur’an or authentic Hadiths on which there is no suspicion regarding the chains of narrators.
3. If we suppose that the above-mentioned Hadith is authentic, it is unclear to me that the Hadith indicates that it is prohibited for males and females who are not mahrams to shake hands. That is because the phrase “touch a woman that is illegal for him” does not refer to the mere touching without desire as happens in normal handshaking. But the Arabic word “al-mass” (touching) as used in the Shar`i texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah refers to one of two things:
1. Sexual intercourse, as reported by Ibn `Abbas in his commentary to Almighty Allah’s saying, ‘… or ye have touched women …’. He stated that “touching” in the Qur’an refers figuratively to sexual intercourse. This is clear in the following Qur’anic verses that read: “She (Mary) said: ‘My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me?’” (Al `Imran: 47) and “If ye divorce them before ye have touched them …” (Al-Baqarah: 237)
2. Actions that precede sexual intercourse such as foreplay, kissing, hugging, caressing, and the like. This is reported from our righteous predecessors in the interpretation of the word “mulamasah”.
Al-Hakim stated in his Al-Mustadrak `Ala as-Sahihain: Al-Bukhari and Muslim have narrated many Hadiths that show that the meaning of the word “lams” (touching) refers to actions that precede sexual intercourse. Among them are:
a) The Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “…The hands fornicate. Their fornication is the touch …”
b) The Hadith narrated by Ibn `Abbas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “You might caress her.”
c) The Hadith narrated by Muslim that Ibn Mas`ud is reported to have said that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and told him that he had kissed a woman or touched her with his hand or did something like this. He inquired of him about its expiation. It was (on this occasion) that Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, revealed this Qur’anic verse that reads “Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill deeds …” (Hud: 114)
d) `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) is reported to have said, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit us (his wives) and it was his habit to kiss and caress us and do actions other than sexual intercourse until he reached the one whose turn was due and he stayed there.”
e) `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud is reported to have said in his commentary to Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …” that it refers to actions that precede sexual intercourse for which ablution is obligatory.
f) `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, “Kissing is to be considered among the touching acts, so perform ablution if you do.” (Al-Mustadrak, vol. 1, p. 135)
Hence, the opinion of Imam Malik and the substantial meaning of the legal verdict issued by Imam Ahmad in this respect are that the touching of a woman that nullifies ablution is that which is accompanied by desire. And this is the way they interpreted Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …”
That is why Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah regarded as weak the opinion of those who interpreted “mulamasah” or (touching) in the Qur’anic verse to mean mere touching without desire. In this regard, he says, “As for the nullification of ablution with mere touching, it does agree with the original rulings of the Shari`ah, the unanimous agreement of the Companions and the traceable traditions reported in this respect. Moreover, those who held this opinion have not based their ruling on a textual proof or an analogical deduction.”
So, if “touching” in Almighty Allah’s saying “… or ye have touched women, …” refers to touching with hands, kissing or the like, as said by Ibn `Umar and others, then it is known that when “touching” is mentioned in the Qur’an or the Sunnah it refers to that which is accompanied by desire. We would like to cite here the following verse that reads, “… and touch them not, while ye are in retreat in the mosques …” Here, it is not prohibited for the one who retreats to the mosque for devotion and worship to touch his wife without desire, but touching that is accompanied by desire is prohibited.
Also, this includes the Qur’anic verses that read “O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon …” (Al-Ahzab: 49) “It is no sin for you if ye divorce women while yet ye have not touched them …” (Al-Baqarah: 236) For if he (the husband) touches his wife without desire, then the waiting period is not required and he is not required to pay her the whole dowry, according to the agreement of all Muslim scholars.
So, whoever assumes that Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …” includes general touching without desire has exceeded far beyond the language of the Qur’an and that of people. For if “touching” in which a man and a woman are included is mentioned, it is known that it refers to touching with desire. Similarly, if “sexual intercourse” in which a man and a woman are included is mentioned, it is well known that it refers to actual sexual intercourse and nothing else. (See the collection of Fatawa Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah, vol. 21, pp. 223-224)
In another context, Ibn Taimiyah stated: The Companions had debate regarding Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …”. Ibn `Abbas, supported by a group, held the opinion that touching here refers to sexual intercourse and added: Allah is modest and generous. He euphemizes with what He wills in respect of what He wills. Ibn Taimiyah added: This opinion is believed to be the most correct.
The Arabs disagreed regarding the meaning of touching: does it refer to sexual intercourse or actions that precede it? The first group said that it refers to sexual intercourse, while the second said that it refers to actions that precede it. They sought the arbitration of Ibn `Abbas, who supported the opinion of the first group and regarded that of the second as incorrect.
By transmitting all these sayings, I mean to show that when the word “al-mass” or “al-lams” (touching) is used to mean what a man does to a woman, it does not refer to mere touching but rather refers to either sexual intercourse or actions that precede it such as kissing, hugging, and any touching of the like that is accompanied by desire and enjoyment.
However, if we investigate the sahih (sound) Hadiths that are narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), we will conclude that the mere touching of hands between a man and a woman without desire or fear of temptation is not prohibited. Rather, it was done by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whose actions are originally a source of legislation. Almighty Allah says: “Verily in the Messenger of Allah ye have a good example …” (Al-Ahzab: 21). It is narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said, “Any of the female slaves of Madinah could take hold of the hand of Allah’s Messenger and take him wherever she wished.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
The above mentioned Hadith is a great sign of the modesty of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
Furthermore, it is reported in the two Sahihs that Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit Umm Hiram bint Milhan, who would offer him meals. Umm Hiram was the wife of `Ubadah ibn As-Samit. Allah’s Messenger once visited her and she provided him with food and started looking for lice in his head. Then Allah’s Messenger slept putting his head in her lap, and afterwards woke up smiling. Umm Hiram asked, ‘What causes you to smile, O Allah’s Messenger?’ He said, ‘Some of my followers who (in a dream) were presented before me as fighters in Allah’s Cause (on board a ship) amidst this sea cause me to smile; they were as kings on thrones …’”
Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar has mentioned lessons that are deduced from this Hadith: The guest is permitted to nap in a house other than his own on condition that he is given permission and there is no fear of fitnah. According to this Hadith a woman is also permitted to serve the guest by offering him a meal, drink or the like. Furthermore, a woman is permitted to look for lice in his head, but this last was an object of controversy. Ibn `Abd Al-Barr said, “I think that Umm Hiram or her sister Umm Sulaim had breast-fed the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So, each one of them had become his foster mother or his foster aunt. That was why he (the Prophet) used to sleep in her house and she used to deal with him as one of her mahrams.” Then he (Ibn `Abd Al-Barr) mentioned what indicates that Umm Hiram was one of the Prophet’s mahrams, as she was one of his relatives from his maternal aunts, since the mother of `Abd Al-Muttalib, his grandfather, was from Banu An-Najjar.
Others said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was infallible and could control his sexual desires even from his wives, so what about other women who were illegal for him while he was granted infallibility from doing any wrong action or obscenity? This was one of his distinctive traits.
Al-Qadi `Iyad replied that the distinctive traits of the Prophet are not proven by personal interpretations of Hadiths. As for his infallibility, it is indisputable, but the original ruling is that it is permissible to take the Prophet’s actions as a model unless there is evidence that this action is one his distinctive traits.
Furthermore, Al-Hafizh Al-Dumyati said: It is wrong to claim that Umm Hiram was one of the maternal aunts of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) either by reason of marriage or fosterage. Those who breast-fed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are well known. None of them was from the Ansar except the mother of `Abd Al-Muttalib. She was Salma bint `Amr ibn Zaid ibn Lubaid ibn Khirash ibn `Amir ibn Ghunm ibn `Adyy ibn An-Najjar. While Umm Hiram is the daughter of Milhan ibn Khalid ibn Zaid ibn Judub ibn `Amir ibn Ghunm ibn `Adyy ibn An-Najjar. Umm Hiram has a common ancestor with Salma only in their grandfather `Amir ibn Ghunm. So, they are not among his mahrams because it is a metaphorical relationship. Al-Hafizh Al-Dumyati added: If this is proven, it is reported in the Sahih books of Hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used not to enter any house in Madinah except the house of Umm Sulaim besides those of his wives. When he was asked why, he said, “I take pity on her, as her brother (Hiram ibn Milhan) was killed in my company.”
If this Hadith has excluded Umm Sulaim, then Umm Hiram is granted the same exclusion as her because they are sisters and resided in the same house; each one of them had her own apartment beside their brother Hiram ibn Milhan. So, the case is mutual between them, as reported by Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar.
Moreover, Umm Sulaim is the mother of Anas ibn Malik, the servant of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it was the habit of people that the master mixed with his servant and his family and did not deal with them as outsiders.
Then, Al-Dumyati said: There is no indication in the Hadith showing that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had khulwa (privacy) with Umm Hiram, as this might have happened in the presence of a son, a servant, or a husband.
Ibn Hajar replied: This is a strong likelihood, but it does not refute the original argument represented in looking for lice in the head and sleeping in her lap.
Ibn Hajar added: The best reply is that it is one of the distinctive traits of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) (See Fath Al-Bari, vol. 13, pp. 230-231).
What I conclude from the aforementioned narrations is that the mere touching is not haram. So, if there exists reasons for mixing as that between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Umm Hiram and Umm Sulaim and there is no fear of fitnah, then there is nothing wrong with shaking hands when there is a need for it, such as when returning from travel, the non-mahram male relative visiting his female relative, and vice versa, especially if this meeting happens after a long period.
Finally, I would like to ascertain two points:
Firstly, shaking hands between males and females who are not mahrams is only permissible when there is no desire or fear of fitnah. But if there is fear of fitnah, desire, or enjoyment, then handshaking is no doubt haram (unlawful). In contrast, if either of these two conditions (that there is no desire or fear of fitnah) is lacking between a male and any of his female mahrams, such as his aunt or foster sister or the like, then handshaking will be haram (although it is originally permissible).
Secondly, handshaking between males and females who are not mahrams should be restricted to necessary situations such as between relatives or those whose relationships are established by marriage. It is preferable not to expand the field of permissibility in order to block the means to evil and to be far away from doubt and to take the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a model when there is no proof that he shook hands with a non-mahram woman. Also, it is preferable for the pious Muslim, male or female, not to stretch out his/her hand to shake the hand of anyone of the opposite sex who is not mahram. But if he/she is put in a situation that someone stretches out his/her hand to shake hands with him/her, then he/she can do that.
I have tried to clarify the detailed ruling of the issue here in order to inform those who are in the dark about it how to behave while sticking to the tenets of their religion. Also, when the detailed Islamic ruling is explained and people are fully aware of it, there will be no room for personal justifications that are not supported by legal backing.
Courtesy of IslamOnline.net
Salaam
1) Can someone mention some commentaries on the Muwafaqaat?
2) There is a quote long time ago from Zarakashi (I think) where it said the muqallid cannot be blamed for taking the easy opinions. So how can there be an Ijma’?
Peace…
[But it is known that the proponents of this view are the minority, while the majority of Muslim jurists, including the Companions, the Successors and those who followed them, are of the opinion that the face and the hands are excluded from the prohibition. They based their opinion on Almighty Allah’s saying, “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent …” (An-Nur: 31) So where is the evidence on prohibiting handshaking unless there is desire?]
Well then does that mean we can look at each other’s faces if there is no “desire”. I’m looking at her just to “admire” her beauty, or to appreciate the creation of Allah. She’s already married, so there’s no “desire” from me.
[In fact, I searched for a persuasive and textual proof supporting the prohibition but I did not find it. As a matter of fact, the most powerful evidence here is blocking the means to temptation, and this is no doubt acceptable when the desire is roused or there is fear of temptation because its signs exist. But when there is no fear of temptation or desire, what is the reason for prohibition?]
According to the translation of the Ayah from Surah Nur above, the ayah says to “lower one’s gaze and be modest”. Not shaking hands is a form of being modest. For many people, there is no fear of temptation or desire when looking at someone from the opposite gender (i.e. not lowering one’s gaze), however we are commanded to lower our gaze, and to be modest. The two can be taken as necessities for one another. Lowering one’s gaze is a form of being modest.
Right now in the year 2008, shaking hands is a means of introducing/greeting someone new. In our (American) society, it is not taken as an act that provokes desire between opposite genders. At the same, a method of “introduction” between opposite genders that is becoming fairly common now in our society is the “parallel kiss and hug”, similar to the way elder gentlemen greet each other in the Middle East. The “kiss and hug” is also not taken as a means of provoking desire between opposite genders. In a few years, the “kiss and hug” will become more and more common (it was quite uncommon in the 90’s), and over time it will come become the norm of greeting each other (just as shaking hands is today). Will we then allow that method as a means of introduction to non-Muslims of the opposite gender who “extend their hand first”?
Allah has given us the best way of life with Islam. Who knows the Accord better than Honda, and who knows the creation better than the creator. Allah has given us the Qur’an and the Sunnah as a way of life that is befitting to us until the end of time. As American Muslims none of us were raised in an “Islamic Culture”, it’s up to us to uplift the culture of Islam in a non-Muslim society.
salam alaikum br. Suhaib,
May Allah make our hearts firm upon His Path,
I think that the context has been confused, perhaps because you entered the discussion after it began or because my replies were addressing 2 people rather than just 1
To be clear – I am NOT questioning juryan-al-amal and whether it is valid or not – as I already mentioned
“I would like to make it clear my central concern on this particular point is not over debating the relevant strength of the opinion, it has become obvious that at a minimum it is a stated part of the later Maliki tradition which was inferred from earlier Maliki thought.”
So this is not the issue.
Rather the issue in the context of this thread is the application – in this case the idea that for example shaking the hands of the woman may be considered a marjooh opinion by some, but can be given as a fatwa ahead of the raajeh. (This came about as a result of discussion with AH and is not part of Dr. Qaradawi’s argument (h) who considers this to be the raajeh in the first place)
Another example, more pertinent because we know the justification for the fatwa and it is a general fatwa – mortgages – interest is haraam – but can give a rule that would allow someone to deal with this type of interest even though the hanafi opinion used as justification (which is misrepresented in this case anyway) is marjooh
So when you state
“Thus, are you contending that one who is qualified does not have the right to issue a fatwa based on the Maslaha that is presented before him and take the Marjoohd opinion? ”
My answer is – what do you mean by maslaha here? Any maslaha, or a specific category of Maslaha? Does it conform to the conditions of juryan al-amal as mentioned by banani and others? If so of course they have the right if they have adopted and are following this methodology, otherwise…
In other words – are these fatwas being given based upon a real daroora, or a real haaja ‘aama that takes the same level with certain conditions (as referred to by Sh. Bin Bayyeh’s work on it)
So my question to you would be – are you contending that this is the case for shaking the hand of a woman (if one considers the opinion to be marjooh and forbiddence to be the raajeh), or the case of taking mortgages?
Are there real daroora issues or what takes their level as understood by the mathahib in our reality today which justify these positions?
Will at least some people face life and death (daroora), or the society collapse (haaja ‘aama) if muslims do not shake the hands of the opposite sex, or take mortgages?
So this is why I mentioned that this way of thinking that we can adopt any opinion on the basis that we find it most easy for our life today (even if they are marjooh opinions) would be in fact a misapplication of the principles we were looking at, rather than only applying the principles when there is a real daroora or what takes its level.
And by mispplication the practice of the deen may be weakened etc.
Which is why I quoted Shatabi earlier since he says the same thing making a very clear warning -
وربما استجاز هذا بعضهم فى مواطن يدعى فيها الضرورة وإلجاء الحاجة بناء على أن الضرورات تبيح المحظورات فيأخذ عند ذلك بما يوافق الغرض حتى إذا نزلت المسألة على حالة لا ضرورة فيها ولا حاجة إلى الأخذ بالقول المرجوح أو الخارج عن المذهب أخذ فيها بالقول المذهبي أو الراجح فى المذهب فهذا أيضا من ذلك الطراز المتقدم فإن حاصله الأخذ بما يوافق الهوى الحاضر ومحال الضرورات معلومة من الشريعة فإن كانت هذه المسألة منها فصاحب المذهب قد تكفل ببيانها أخذا عن صاحب الشرع فلا حاجة إلى الانتقال عنها وإن لم تكن منها فزعم الزاعم أنها منها خطأ فاحش ودعوى غير مقبولة
وقد وقع فى نوازل ابن رشد من هذا مسألة نكاح المتعة ويذكر عن الإمام المأزري أنه سئل ما تقول فيما اضطر الناس إليه في هذا الزمان والضرورات تبيح المحظورات من معاملة فقراء أهل البدو فى سنى الجدب إذ يحتاجون إلى الطعام فيشترونه بالدين إلى الحصاد أو الجذاذ فإذا حل الأجل قالوا لغرمائهم ما عندنا إلا الطعام فربما صدقوا فى ذلك فيضطر أرباب الديون إلى أخذه منهم خوفا أن يذهب حقهم فى أيديهم بأكل أو غيره لفقرهم ولاضطرار من كان من أرباب الديون حضريا إلى الرجوع إلى حاضرته ولا حكام بالبادية أيضا مع ما فى المذهب فى ذلك من الرخصة إن لم يكن هنالك شرط ولا عادة وإباحة كثير من فقهاء الأمصار لذلك وغيره من بيوع الآجال خلافا للقول بالذرائع فأجاب إن أردت بما أشرت إليه إباحة أخذ طعام عن ثمن طعام هو جنس مخالف لما اقتضى فهذا ممنوع فى المذهب ولا رخصة فيه عند أهل المذهب كما توهمت قال ولست ممن يحمل الناس على غير المعروف المشهور من مذهب مالك وأصحابه لأن الورع قل بل كاد يعدم والتحفظ على الديانات كذلك وكثرت الشهوات وكثر من يدعي العلم ويتجاسر على الفتوى فيه فلو فتح لهم باب فى مخالفة المذهب لاتسع الخرق على الراقع وهتكوا حجاب هيبة المذهب وهذا من المفسدات التى لا خفاء بها ولكن إذا لم يقدر على أخذ الثمن إلا أن يأخذ طعاما فليأخذه منهم من يبيعه على ملك منفذه إلى الحاضرة ويقبض البائع الثمن ويفعل ذلك بإشهاد من غير تحيل على إظهار ما يجوز فانظر كيف لم يستجز وهو المتفق على إمامته الفتوى بغير مشهور المذهب ولا بغير ما يعرف منه بناء على قاعدة مصلحية ضرورية إذ قل الورع والديانة من كثير ممن ينتصب لبث العلم والفتوى كما تقدم تمثيله فلو فتح لهم هذا الباب لانحلت عرى المذهب بل جميع المذاهب لأن ما وجب للشيء وجب لمثله وظهر أن تلك الضرورة التى ادعيت فى السؤال ليست بضرورة
I hope that clarifies any misunderstandings on your part vis a vis my position, my apologies again for any lack of clarity or diversions on my part
On another side issue -
your point “Our discussion has never been about a Muqalid’s right to do so as there is a ‘Ijma on what is stated above. ” is I believe inaccurate unless I have misunderstood your intent. I think that scholars like Ibn al-humaam and – closer to home for you – Qurafi are on the opinion that they have the right to do so. This issue of following the rukhus, like the issue of talfeeq – is that the majority of the ulama consider it wrong but there are some who permitted both, and this permission became more widespread over time. If one listens to some of the shuyukh you have mentioned in your own posts you can see that quite easily.
As for why I quoted Shatabi – this was simply because he had been mentioned by others earlier, and is often misrepresented, so I wanted to show that actually he is not the way commonly portrayed in secondary sources. He does not permit these things as mentioned above, and is firmly on the jamhoor position.
Wa Allahu A’lam
May Allah Bless your efforts,
Wasalam
Abu Abdullah
Asalamu alaykum,
Moving, missed a flight, and currently in France waiting for another.
Indeed, I mistakenly wrote ‘Ijm’a and stand corrected as there is only a Jamhour on the issue of talfiq.
Abu Abdullah:
It seem that we are swimming in circles here and at times it is not clear as to what you are arguing for. However, I was shown another post of your on the Maqasid site and it seems that your primary issue is related to the methodology of Dr. Yusuf, Dr. Bin Bayyah and, giver our say, around 90 other scholars that work with them. My suggestion is to talk to them. This is what I did.
Maslaha:
I think we can agree that we are all on the same page and there is not need to assume otherwise. It is even more important to have such good assumptions about the scholars. Sh. Yusuf constantly discusses this issue as well as Sh. Raysouni and I have not heard them go outside of the normal definition given by the scholars of Usol. I must be honest that, at times, your tone is condescending in nature. Relax akhi, and hold the possibility that you might be wrong. There is not need to talk to each other like teachers and as though one is sitting on the mimbar and the other is listening. Again, I challenge you to entertain the idea that you might not know. It is not easy, and as Sh. al-Islam Ibn Qayyim mentioned, on of the hardest things on the soul. In no way am I saying you are not a humble pious person, but I fell, at times, that your tone is absolute and that is why I tried to disengage from this discussion.
Your question:
I was once with Sh. Dido and someone brought him a book written against the Riba fatwa. He looked at it, smiled, looked through it and put it down. He was then hounded by a large group of brothers and he sat with them and said, “You have the right to disagree with the fatwa, but the methodology is correct.” For that reason, and others, I’ve meet many of the scholars who supported that fatwa, and based on the research that you’ve provided, I fail to see the correctness in your argument(s) and feel very confident with the ruling given by over 30 scholars on that issue. While I respect your contentions, I fail to agree with them.
SDW
I pray that you have completed your travels successfully,
Jzk for your advice akhi, most definately no-one is above reproach, and I need it more than most – please again forgive me and overlook any of my shortcomings in this respect for my sake, especially given the nature of the net and the difficulty of communication.
To restate – “I pray that no-one is at all offended by anything written here, and that we love each other since we are all inshahAllah seeking the same goals.”
The most important for us is that someone seeks to please Allah and follow His Deen in the best way possible, and adopts that which he believes is the most correct way based upon the buraheen in front of them according to their level.
And no doubt we can agree to disagree, and continue to love each other since that which binds us together is foremost.
Fee Amanillah
Wasalam
Abu Abdullah
Bismillah,
Speaking from just a practical, street level stance, common sense, and personal experience:
All I can say on this issue, is that some brothers have become in the habit of shaking hands, staring, getting close to women, with the attitude that since they don’t find them attractive, it’s ok to do.
It becomes a kind of game – well, let me drink the sister in with my eyes, ascertain her age, beauty level, and my attraction to her, and then I’ll decide if I can go ahead and shake her hand, get close to her, stare at her, talk sweetly and softly to her – because he (or Shaytan) has convinced him that he can “handle it”.
(This is the old addiction snare: “Just one more – I can handle it” Yeah, right!)
It even reaches a level where you feel the brother gets insulted that he should lower his gaze, not shake hands, or what have you, because he insists within himself that you are not hot, so I can now do what I want!
As a muslimah, I don’t like the thought that men are checking me out to decide whether or not they are attracted to me and basing their behavior on what they decide.
This is the oldest trick in the book. Because it may not be the first glance. It might be the 100th glance. And it might not be the first touch. It might be the 3rd, 30th or 300th.
It is not fair to women (or men). Men are excited visually. Women become close to men through touch and proximity. You might not be attracted to her initially, but you might be building up a sense of closeness and warm fuzzy feelings in her. Yet you have no intention to pursue her in a halal way? That is totally unfair. She might be guessing you really like her and about to ask for her wali’s number, when you have decided she is not attractive? Totally unfair.
Or, she starts to have a feeling, modulates her behavior based on that (giggling, looking at you with doe eyes, softly speech), and that “unattractive” woman suddenly is looking and soundly very good.
This is playing with the hearts of Muslim women – maybe even married women? Brothers – DO NOT GO THERE.
By the way, even old, ugly, fat men and women get into trouble. It is not only the beautiful young people who fall into sin.
Most men are not having relations with Angelina Jolie. They are with normal, average, nice looking women whom they might not have been instantly mesmerized with, but later got attracted to with a glance, a laugh, a body movement, etc. that probably surprised them. Most people fall at the end of the day by darkened lights and a smile.
Get real.
Talk to the thousands upon thousands of home-wrecking adulterous relationships happening in workplaces all over america – when Sally started looking awfully good to Tom after 2 years working side by side together every day, “team-building” exercises, and traveling to a couple of conferences together.
Lowering gaze, not touching, distance, speaking directly not softly/seductively, not beautifying in public, etc. are all on a continuum. It is a non-aggression pact between the sexes so when we mess with these little things we are liable to create broken hearts, misunderstanding, sins, aggression, hatred, suspicions, hard-heartedness, etc.
You can talk fiqh til the cows come home on this one. But to me it is a no-brainer. You men want to play, you gotta to pay. Otherwise, stay away!
Um Hana, your common sense argument affected me more than all the fiqh that came before. You are absolutely right. And by the way, you have a way with words and if you’re not a writer you should be.
mashAllah, well said Um Hana. May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
salam,
quick ques, was your comment referring to interactions with muslim OR non muslim women? or was it both depending on the circumstances?
Assalaamu alaikum,
Khadijatu, There might be a meaningful distinction in terms of a ruling whether it is with non-muslim or muslim women. And whether the woman is initiating the hand shake or not. etc. I don’t know.
What I do know, is that in reality, on the ground, I don’t see that brothers necessarily can maintain a separate set of behaviors outside of masjid and within, or separate behaviors with non-muslim women and muslim women.
In the end, the rulings get generalized and applied beyond their theoretical limitations, conditions, etc. Shaking hands phenomenon is spreading into interactions between Muslim men and Muslim women. And by the way, that includes married and unmarried.
Men who shake hands with women in their workplace, hang out with them, are used to conversing with their female colleagues alone, look at them directly, etc. bring those behaviors into their interactions with Muslim females in the workplace, masjid, fundraisers, aqeeqahs, islamic classes, walimas, and all the other occasions when muslim men and women interact.
I used to be concerned about non-muslim men shaking my hand. Over a year ago, I started noticing Muslim men – including an imam – reaching out to shake Muslim women’s hands. (My solution is to try to wear gloves as much as I can, but you know I’m afraid to say I think the arm around waist and “bear hugs” are coming).
I think it’s also fair to ask shouldn’t non-muslim women be protected and respected too? Just because they learned something doesn’t mean that it is good for them. Muslim men can definitely be giving them miscues or getting into dangerous situations with them – don’t they deserve better than that?
From being raised here, being a non-muslim before – I know that some Muslim men, thinking they are being “polite” and “friendly” and “Americanized” definitely give cues that they are interested. They give the cues that non-muslim american men would give if they wanted a relationship.
For example, I see muslim men – even religious ones who are prominent in the community – routinely talking to women for lengthy periods of time, complimenting them, giving out their phone numbers, sugary-sweet talking on the phone with women any hour of the day, giving them rides. Most women would take this as a come-on.
The women would either act on it, wait for the man to act on it, or just think the man is a sleazeball. In most of those scenarios, unless the man and woman are prepared to marry, the end is not good.
But this is done just to fit in supposedly and they THINK that they are fitting into the cultural pattern, not knowing how non-muslim men and women do their particular dance and give their partcular signals.
So once you enter into the cultural norms and adapt Islamic manners to conform to the new cultural setting – then you must really know what you are talking about from deep within that culture. Because your new “adjustment” will just raise a whole new bunch of cultural issues that need conforming to.
Like, how long a man holds your hand on the handshake can indicate interest. I’m talking lingering milliseconds. Too long and you’re a potential stalker. Are we going to have a fiqh discussion on how long to hold the woman’s hand?
How are you going to regulate a man’s skin temperature and softness so that when a woman feels it she can’t sense your character, masculinity, or an interest that you have but aren’t even aware of yourself? Can fiqh handle that one? The fact is, you can keep getting deeper and deeper in a culture and human behaviors and never stop. You end of being neck deep in it.
Don’t we have something better than that in the first place? If we stick to our norms of male-female interactions based on quran and sunnah, we will insha’Allah be able to have men and women interacting in safe, healthy ways that protect individual psyche, emotion, heart, as well as social relationships, families.
It is hard enough implementing what we have without adding new layers of ambiguity and non-standardization to it.
Sister, after reading your second answer I’d like to invite you to visit my website and answer some of the questions presented there. It’s not a fiqh site, rather it was created to dispense common-sense advice to Muslim brothers and sisters who need help with marriage and family problems. Your style of writing and your common sense attitude would fit very well Insha’Allah.
AS,
I have not found a definitive answer regarding this after scouring the web. I apologize if this seems silly or trivially obvious, but is it haram to hug ones cousins? If one did so, would that invalidate a fast, for example?
Thanks.
Salam aleikum
salaam
I just wanted to say that the only time a hand is extended its usually from a nonmuslim not a muslim right?
does this change things//?
one of the posts above made a good point.. what if you have been shaking hands and all of a sudden a person you know when touch will cause fitna. so what explanation can you give then?
there just seems to be too many complications
I was thinking about how things have change. Like yusuf islam never used to shake hands with women and now he does and same with music and nonmuslims c this because they write ‘he didnt before and now he does’
why are things changed? is it ok to reinterpret? isnt that what irshad manji wants?
and if its ok then why are we condenming her?
Barakullaahu feekum
Responding to the question, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, states the following:
Women used to attend the jama`ah or congregational Prayers and the Friday Prayers in the Prophet’s Mosque. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to urge them to stand in the last rows behind men.
At the beginning, men and women used to enter through the same door. When this caused overcrowding on entrances and exits, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him, said: “(It would be better) if this door is left for women.” Upon saying so, the men made that door for women, and it became known up until today as “The Women’s Door”.
Moreover, women, at the time of the Prophet, used to attend the Friday Prayer; they used to perform the Prayer regularly and listen to the khutbah to the extent that one of them could recite Surat Qaf as she heard the Prophet recite it several times in the Friday khutbah. Women also used to attend the `Eid Prayers and participate in that big Islamic festival that included the old and the young, men as well as women, out in the open, all worshipping Allah.
Umm `Attiyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated, “We used to be ordered to come out on the Day of the `Eid and even bring out the virgin girls from their houses and menstruating women so that they might stand behind the men and say takbir along with them and invoke Allah along with them and hope for the blessings of that day and for purification from sins.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
Moreover, women used to attend religious sermons with men at the Prophet’s house and they used to inquire about religious matters that many women nowadays would find embarrassing to ask about. For instance, `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) praised the women of Al-Ansar for trying to understand their religion without being held back by bashfulness for they used to ask about such matters as major ritual impurity, wet dream, purificatory bath, menstruation, chronic vaginal discharge, etc.
And when women found that men’s questions were taking most of the Prophet’s time, they plainly requested the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to make a special day for women. So the Prophet dedicated a day for them when he used to give them lessons and sermons. (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)
Shedding more light on the issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly told men not to exclude women from going to the Mosque. It is reported that the wife of `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to attend the congregational Prayer in the Mosque at Fajr and `Ishaa’ Prayers. It was said to her, “Why do you leave home, you know that `Umar does not like that and he feels ashamed (that you leave home at that time)?” She said, “So what prevents him from stopping Me?” The person said, “It is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ‘Do not prevent the she-servants of Allah from Allah’s Mosques.’” (Reported by Al-Bukhari)
It is not obligatory for women to attend the jama`ah or congregational Prayers at the Mosque, because they have other obligations as regards their home and children. However, if they have time and feel safe to attend the Mosque, in proper Islamic dress, then they should not be stopped.
We should rather make our Mosques in such a way that men and women both have equal chance to pray there observing the rules of Prayers.
Some people, in voicing objection against women going to the Mosque, rely on what `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said in this regard. She is quoted to have said, sometime after the Prophet’s death: “If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have seen what the women do now, he would have stopped them from coming to Mosques.”
But the great scholar of Hadith Ibn Hajar states: “This statement does not say very clearly that `A’ishah gave the Fatwa that women are forbidden to come to Mosques.” (Fath Al-Bari, p. 928).
It is not known that any Companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or a prominent jurist forbade women from attending the prayers in the Mosque. The custom of preventing women from attending the Mosques started later in times. This unfortunately has negative impact on many of our sisters, drawing them backward and making them ignorant of their faith.
Women in the West go everywhere. They are in the markets, in malls, in restaurants, and in offices. It is ironic that some men allow them to go to all the places of temptation, but they want to stop them from coming to the places where they can pray to their Lord and learn about their faith.
Asalamu alaykum.
Can you please clarify one issue please Sheikh.
You mentioned that we can shake hands as long as there is no fear of temptation. But, what if the temptation is formed after shaking hands, even though prior there was no feeling. So to protect our myself, should I not refuse at first instance. I would be grateful if you can clarify this.
Jazakallah khair
Can you also please clarify the following hadith:
Ahmad narrated with a saheeh isnaad from Umaymah bint Raqeeqah that she said: “I came to the Messenger of Allaah (S) with other women to give the oath of allegiance to him, and he accepted our pledge to abide by what is in the Qur’aan… We said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, will you not shake hands with us?’ He said, ‘I do not shake hands with women.
I don't know the authenticity of that hadith or anything, but Sh. Qaradawi addresses it in the article:
“Some scholars based their ruling on the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of the Conquest of Makkah. When he wanted to take the pledge of women he said to them, “Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.” But it is known that the Prophet’s leaving a matter does not necessarily indicate its prohibition, as he may leave it because it is haram (forbidden), makruh (reprehensible), or because it is not preferable. He may also leave it just because he is not inclined to it. An example of this last is the Prophet’s refraining from eating the meat of the lizard although it is permissible. Then, the Prophet’s refraining from shaking hands with women (other than his wives) is not evidence of the prohibition, and there should be other evidence to support the opinion of those who make shaking hands absolutely prohibited.”
a dilema – imagine I encounter 2 non muslim women
one is fat and ugly
the other young and pretty
who do i shake hands with if i find the fat and ugly one attractive?
Nice article! And some pretty good arguments & rebuttals.
However ~ at the same time the reader [and, in general, anyone who is studying this topic] ~ must be aware of the fact that Az-Zayla`ee, Ibn Nujaym Al-Hanafi, Muhammad Ibn Ahmad `Ulaysh, An-Nawawi (and the Shaafi`ees), Imaam Al-Hasani Ash-Shaafi’ee, Al-`Iraaqi, Ibn Muflih, Imaam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyyah (etc) have all expressed the fact that this is totally Impermissible (حرام).
And from the contemporary (or recent) Scholars, Shaykh Ahmad Al-Bannaa (father of Imaam Hasan Al-Bannaa), Shaykh Muhammad Sultaan Al-Ma`soomi Al-Khajnadi, Al-`Allaamah Ibn Baaz, the Standing Committee for Academic Research & Issuing Fatwas (al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah), Shaykh Dr. Bakr Abu Zayd, Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymeen, Shaykh Dr. Ibn Jibreen, Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan, the Muhaddith of the era Al-Albaani, the renowned scholar – Dr. Muhammad Sa`eed Ramadaan Al-Bouti, Al-`Allaamah Muhammad Al-Ameen Ash-Shanqeeti, Muhammad Ibn `Ali As-Saabooni, Muhammad Ismaa’eel Al-Muqaddam (a well-known Shaykh from Egypt), `Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Yusuf Mangera [from qa.sunnipath.com] … and on & on … have ALL expressed their view that this is absolutely IMPERMISSIBLE.
It is only Dr. Qaradawi and a maybe 1 other, who issued this Fatwaa that handshaking with non-Mahrams is ‘permissible’.
I loved Sh. Qaradawi’s article on this issue … and he he refuted every single Hadeeth on this issue (about لأن يطعن أحدكم “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than touch…”), and how he even attempted to bring doubt as to whether the Prophet Muhammad touched the hand of a non-Mahram woman or not.
+ It’s also funny that he quoted the verse where Allah says: “Verily in the Messenger of Allah you all have a good example …” (Al-Ahzab: 21)
- and he used that to say that the Prophet held hands with women, so We should too! – whereas the Opposite is the truth!! * I wonder how this authentic Hadeeth of the Prophet escaped him… the Prophet said: إني لا أصافح النسآء “I do NOT shake hands with women.” i.e. non-Mahram women
Clear-cut. + And, FYI, the hadeeth is recorded by An-Nasaa’ee in Al-Bay`ah (no. 4110), and by Ibn Maajah in Al-Jihaad (no. 2865), and by Imaam Ahmad in Baaqi Musnad Al-Ansaar (no. 25765). It was verified to be SAHEEH (authentic) by Al-Haafizh Ibn Katheer in his “Tafseer al-Quraan”, `Abdul-Haqq Al-Ishbeeli, Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaani, Al-Albaani and Al-Waadi`ee who said that this hadeeth على شرط الشيخين “meets the criteria of the 2 Shaykhs (Bukhari & Muslim)”.
And what he said is correct ~ because the great Haafizh, Ad-Daaraqutni said the exact same thing in his الإلزامات والتتبع (Al-Ilzaamaat wat-Tatabbu`), no. 114. After citing this hadeeth, he said: يلزمهما إخراجه
So there is no difference of opinion about the ’saheeh-ness’ of this statement of the Prophet. * Why did the Shaykh miss this vital Hadeeth on this topic?
And this is no place to go into the Hadeeth of the Prophet (واليد زناها اللمس), the Zinaa of the hand is touching. And the Zinaa of the eye is looking, etc. * As An-Nawawi clearly said: “It is PERMISSIBLE for a man to “look” at a non-Mahram woman when he intends to marry her, or during buying/selling and so on, yet it is Not permissible to touch her in any of these cases!” + كل من حرم النظر إليه حرم مس
Abd al-Basit:
Asalamu alaykum,
While your points regarding the ideas of Sh. al-Qaradawi are admirable, your method of critique is not. Let us be easy in addressing the scholars and remember our humble states. Your style brings to mind the statement, “We are in more need of a little adab, then a lot of knowledge.”
Imam al-Shafi noted that one could memorize the Qur’an, but never know all of the Sunna. It is common for scholars, as noted by Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Dehlawi, to miss a hadith or for it to slip their minds. I have never seen the scholars, or people of Allah, react in the fashion displayed by yourself. Immaturity and sticking out one’s chest simply diminish the important points you made above. Consider taking a moment to pause, think about yourself and gain some humility and adab when addressing such issues. It will go along way in helping other listen to you and gain benefit from your knowledge.
Suhaib
But yaa Ustaadh – I am not a scholar & I really don’t think that I am from the people of Allah. I’m just an average Muslim… I am definitely in need of more adab as well as knowledge and much more!
But I was just sooo surprised and shocked and taken-aback… because this is not like a “Lecture” where one could forget something. That is only human, I know. * But when issuing a Legal Verdict (فتوى), from what I know, one has to be very careful and extremely thorough in his examination of all of the evidences on a particular topic.
And the Hadeeth إني لا أصافح النساء is essential on this subject. And I’ve seen all the other Scholars – Ibn Baaz, etc. – cite this hadeeth when issuing Fataawaa on this issue. * So when Al-Qaradaawi (حفظه الله عز وجل وجزاه خير الجزاء) casts tries to cast doubt in the reader’s mind as to whether or not the Prophet shook hands with women — by citing those weak ahaadeeth & the hadeeth of Umm ‘Atiyyah (which does not even mention “the shaking of hands”) & and another hadeeth which no scholar of the past ever interpreted in the way he interpreted it — and he does not quote this Umdah Hadeeth إني لا أصافح النساء … I was (at that moment) just so dumfounded. And I reacted inappropriately, without adab, as you said.