faqir
11-03-05, 08:21 AM
http://www.mereislam.info/2005/03/handshake-dilemma.html
The Handshake Dilemma
A lot of you out there, both Muslim men and Muslim women, can probably relate to this article:
Let's not shake on it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050302/FACTS02/TPComment/Features)
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.
by Muhammad Athar Lila
The Globe and Mail - March 2, 2005
Here are some short excerpts followed by some of my own comments :
Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.
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.
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.
From what I've seen, we Muslims usually don't do a very good job of explaining this rather touchy ruling. If we have the opportunity (and we usually do), we should always explain that this rule goes both ways (i.e. Muslim women don't shake hands with members of the opposite sex, except close relatives, either). Thus it has nothing to do with one gender being superior to the other (as some people, with their heads full of Islamophobic misinformation, readily assume), but it has everything to do with modesty and chastity—virtues which are not only all but forgotten in Western society, but often mocked as well. Like many slippery slopes to temptation, Islam nips this one in the bud by only allowing physical contact between spouses and close relatives—full stop (which is how they say "period" in the UK).
For those out there for whom the textual proofs of Islam aren't good enough, we'll also mention that Orthodox Jews have the same belief (i.e. physical contact between non-married men and women is forbidden), based on rulings which they derive from the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament). Not only that, but hand shaking between men and women is something relatively new even in the once Christian West. Take for example this statement from a manual on Victorian etiquette: "An unmarried lady should not shake hands with gentlemen indiscriminately. When introduced to a gentleman, never offer your hand".
More Muslims need to be aware of these things so they realize that we're not the ones who are compromising our Divinely-revealed values, but rather we're preserving the standards that the West used to have. Part of the problem (if not all of the problem) is that most people in the West, even church-going ones, have a very secular world view that is almost totally devoid of the sacred (in spite of occasional lipservice). Indeed, almost any religious requirement meant to prevent sexual immorality is viewed as an aspect of a repressive culture or backward superstition. Even though they might utilize things like conservative dress (i.e. wearing choir robes in church or portraying the Virgin Mary with her head covered) for reasons of religious symbolism or nostalgia, the practical aspects are almost always lost on them.
A recent example of this can be seen in Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ in which Mary Magdalene nonchalantly removes her head covering. The way in which this was done in the movie shows that Mel Gibson apparently believes that women back then covered themselves purely for symbolic reasons. The notion that a modest and chaste woman would not want to be uncovered in public out of her love and fear of God seems completely alien to Mel Gibson. Thus not only is he an unqualified interpreter of a Semitic society that he obviously doesn't understand, but he, like most Westerners, is totally divorced from the moral outlook that only Islam, for the most part, has managed to preserve.
When it comes right down to it, we should find it mind boggling that Christians even ask us about why Muslim women dress the way they do since the answer is right there in their Bible where Jesus, peace be upon him, says: "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that since adultery is a major sin (or at least it used to be according to most denominations), then one should take reasonable measures to prevent it. Historically, that's how most Christians saw it and why it should come as no suprise that up until a couple of decades ago, women in Christian countries covered themselves up rather well when out in public.
Before closing, I just have to mention that when I was looking through Rules of Conduct for All Occasions: A Book of Etiquette for Proper Victorian Gentlemen and Women I also came across this: "An unmarried young woman, up to the age of thirty, must always accompanied by a chaperone when she goes out. This is to ensure that she is innocent, and to compel others to respect her innocence." Needless to say, times sure have changed in the past hundred years or so. Which reminds me...the other day, while visiting a local YMCA (and keep in mind that the "C" stands for "Christian") I happened to notice that they were advertising a dance for teenagers. Although the dance was to be chaperoned and warned of a strictly enforced dress code (Ah, those darn fundamentalists imposing their values on others!) the fact that a "Christian" organization thinks that it makes good moral sense to get teenagers of the opposite sex together so that they can shake and gyrate in front of each other while sensual music is being played just proves once again that quite often we operate in a whole different moral universe than they do. What a blessing to be a Muslim and not to be seeing the world through those old fuzzy goggles anymore! May Almighty God have mercy on us all...
The Handshake Dilemma
A lot of you out there, both Muslim men and Muslim women, can probably relate to this article:
Let's not shake on it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050302/FACTS02/TPComment/Features)
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.
by Muhammad Athar Lila
The Globe and Mail - March 2, 2005
Here are some short excerpts followed by some of my own comments :
Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.
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.
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.
From what I've seen, we Muslims usually don't do a very good job of explaining this rather touchy ruling. If we have the opportunity (and we usually do), we should always explain that this rule goes both ways (i.e. Muslim women don't shake hands with members of the opposite sex, except close relatives, either). Thus it has nothing to do with one gender being superior to the other (as some people, with their heads full of Islamophobic misinformation, readily assume), but it has everything to do with modesty and chastity—virtues which are not only all but forgotten in Western society, but often mocked as well. Like many slippery slopes to temptation, Islam nips this one in the bud by only allowing physical contact between spouses and close relatives—full stop (which is how they say "period" in the UK).
For those out there for whom the textual proofs of Islam aren't good enough, we'll also mention that Orthodox Jews have the same belief (i.e. physical contact between non-married men and women is forbidden), based on rulings which they derive from the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament). Not only that, but hand shaking between men and women is something relatively new even in the once Christian West. Take for example this statement from a manual on Victorian etiquette: "An unmarried lady should not shake hands with gentlemen indiscriminately. When introduced to a gentleman, never offer your hand".
More Muslims need to be aware of these things so they realize that we're not the ones who are compromising our Divinely-revealed values, but rather we're preserving the standards that the West used to have. Part of the problem (if not all of the problem) is that most people in the West, even church-going ones, have a very secular world view that is almost totally devoid of the sacred (in spite of occasional lipservice). Indeed, almost any religious requirement meant to prevent sexual immorality is viewed as an aspect of a repressive culture or backward superstition. Even though they might utilize things like conservative dress (i.e. wearing choir robes in church or portraying the Virgin Mary with her head covered) for reasons of religious symbolism or nostalgia, the practical aspects are almost always lost on them.
A recent example of this can be seen in Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ in which Mary Magdalene nonchalantly removes her head covering. The way in which this was done in the movie shows that Mel Gibson apparently believes that women back then covered themselves purely for symbolic reasons. The notion that a modest and chaste woman would not want to be uncovered in public out of her love and fear of God seems completely alien to Mel Gibson. Thus not only is he an unqualified interpreter of a Semitic society that he obviously doesn't understand, but he, like most Westerners, is totally divorced from the moral outlook that only Islam, for the most part, has managed to preserve.
When it comes right down to it, we should find it mind boggling that Christians even ask us about why Muslim women dress the way they do since the answer is right there in their Bible where Jesus, peace be upon him, says: "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that since adultery is a major sin (or at least it used to be according to most denominations), then one should take reasonable measures to prevent it. Historically, that's how most Christians saw it and why it should come as no suprise that up until a couple of decades ago, women in Christian countries covered themselves up rather well when out in public.
Before closing, I just have to mention that when I was looking through Rules of Conduct for All Occasions: A Book of Etiquette for Proper Victorian Gentlemen and Women I also came across this: "An unmarried young woman, up to the age of thirty, must always accompanied by a chaperone when she goes out. This is to ensure that she is innocent, and to compel others to respect her innocence." Needless to say, times sure have changed in the past hundred years or so. Which reminds me...the other day, while visiting a local YMCA (and keep in mind that the "C" stands for "Christian") I happened to notice that they were advertising a dance for teenagers. Although the dance was to be chaperoned and warned of a strictly enforced dress code (Ah, those darn fundamentalists imposing their values on others!) the fact that a "Christian" organization thinks that it makes good moral sense to get teenagers of the opposite sex together so that they can shake and gyrate in front of each other while sensual music is being played just proves once again that quite often we operate in a whole different moral universe than they do. What a blessing to be a Muslim and not to be seeing the world through those old fuzzy goggles anymore! May Almighty God have mercy on us all...