Shaking hands with the opposite sex

There is a fatwa from a respected Shafi'i scholar, may Allah preserve him, that gives a dispensation in the issue of men shaking hands with unrelated women. Here is the exact text of the fatwa:
"Within Islamic jurisprudence, there is some dispute about the [issue of] men shaking hands with women. There is an opinion that holds it to be permissible based on the fact that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, shook women's hands when the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not, and Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, also shook hands with an old woman during his caliphate. This line of reasoning is also based on general hadiths, including the hadith reported by Bukhari that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, may Allah be pleased with him, had a woman from his tribe pick his hair while he was in pilgrim sanctity, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, had [a woman named] Umm Haram pick his hair, and there was no proof that they were unmarriageable kin. Therefore, it is permissible for someone in a difficult situation, such as the questioner, to follow those ulama who have permitted this. However, as far as the issue of kissing is concerned, which is their customary way of greeting people, we see it best that this be avoided by excusing ourselves from them in adherence to the rules of the Sharia. And Allah knows best."

Does this mean that in the Shafi'i school there is a position that permits the sexes to shake hands? If not, then which jurists from the four schools or followers of the mujtahid Imams said this was permissible? May Allah reward you.

[Translated by Ustadha Zaynab Ansari]

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

[Audio translation of answer: : http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004756.aspx]

One must be sure that this fatwa can actually be ascribed to the Shaykh. May Allah preserve him with all goodness; he is an eminent scholar whose lectures I attended once in Cairo during 2001. Nevertheless, the truth is more worthy of being followed whether or not the fatwa can be validly ascribed to him. I will answer this question according to what is evident to me from the sayings of our imams. Allah knows best what is correct and to Him is our final return and recourse.

Firstly, there is no position in the school of our Imam al-Shafi'i, May Allah be pleased with him and have mercy upon him, that permits a man to shake hands with an unrelated woman without a barrier. The established position of the school, over which there is no dispute, is that anything unlawful to look at of a woman is also unlawful to touch [and vice versa]. This is stated in the Minhaj of Imam Nawawi and [the works of] others who have all said [this is the case] because touching is more serious than looking in the pleasure and desire it arouses. I would add, no one has disputed this reasoning.

Secondly, from my research on this subject, I have not found a single stance in the schools of the Hanafi, Maliki, or Hanbali imams that permits a man to shake hands at all with an unrelated woman without a barrier. This much is apparent from the fatwa. At all, or mutlaqan, means there is no difference between a young woman and an elderly woman. The relied-upon texts of the Malikis and Hanbalis are explicit about the unlawfulness of touching what is unlawful to look at of an unrelated woman just like our imams have already explained in the previous [paragraph]. They [the imams of the other three Sunni schools] made no distinction between young women and elderly women. The outward purport of their words is the same as in our school, namely, there is no difference between young women and elderly women; it is unlawful to look at or touch them. Their textual proofs are as follows:
The great Hanbali scholar, al-Buhuti, said in his discussion on looking in the beginning of the Book of Marriage, "Touching is like looking, thus it is unlawful where looking is unlawful, and even more so. In other words, touching is even worthier of being unlawful because it is more serious than looking."
The Malikis have stated something similar.
The Hanafis have stated that it is unlawful [to shake hands] with a young woman, but permissible with an elderly woman who is not sexually attractive. There is a narration from the Hanafis that stipulates that the man also not be sexually attractive. This is their wording. It says in al-Durr al-Mukhtar that "what is permissible to look at is also permissible to touch, except with an unrelated woman; it is impermissible to touch her face and hands, even if there is no fear of desire. This is because [touching] is more grave, and based on this, the unlawfulness of [touching] in-laws is established. This applies to young women. However, regarding an elderly woman who is not sexually attractive, there is no problem with shaking or touching her hand as long as there is no fear of desire."
Ibn Abidin commented further, quoting from Imam Kuhustani from Imam Kermani, that there is a narration that says that the man must also not be sexually attractive. In al-Dhakhira, it says, "If she is elderly and not sexually attractive, then there is no problem with shaking or touching her hand. Moreover, if he is elderly and is secure of his and her reaction, then there is nothing wrong with shaking her hand. If he is not secure of his reaction, or hers, then he should avoid it [shaking hands]. Muhammad permitted the man to touch her provided she was elderly and did not stipulate that the man be of the type who does not have sex [for reasons of age, infirmity, or lack of desire]. Moreover, if the woman is doing the touching, and they are both elderly, and not of those who have sex, then shaking hands is permissible."

Thirdly, from my research in books of jurisprudence and hadith commentary, especially as it relates to this issue, and especially in regards to the commentary on the hadith of Umm Haram, which was cited in the fatwa as evidence for the permissibility of shaking hands with an unrelated woman, I did not find a single indication from any of the mujtahid imams of consequence, nor from any other imams, that this is permissible. I do not know who might have said this was permissible. If this could be established from any of the imams, then it is a weak, aberrant position, because it goes against the clear analogy taken from the words of Allah Most High, "Say to the believing men to lower their gaze," "And say to the believing women to lower their gaze." Allah, glory be to He, commanded both sexes to lower their gaze from each other due to what typically ensues of enjoyment and lust, which, in turn, leads to seclusion [with the opposite sex] and indecency. Thus, Allah prevented the precursors to indecency, in order to cut off all means [to sin]. Touching an unrelated woman more effectively arouses pleasure and lust than [mere] looking, as is completely apparent to anyone with intelligence. Consequently, the jurists have established laws that are more stringent [about looking] rather than mere touching, as we have just seen in the rulings of the Hanafi school. If touching is more grave than looking, then it is obligatory to consider it unlawful, and even more so.

Fourthly, my answer to what was quoted in the fatwa as the reasoning behind the permissibility is the following:
The actions of the Sahaba, as stated in the fatwa, even if they actually occurred, do not go beyond being specific incidents, and, as such, cannot be generalized, according to the experts of Usul (fundamentals of jurisprudence). These experts say that general import relates to words, not actions. Even if we were to concede that these actions actually occurred, then they still remain the actions of individual Companions, and are the matter of a famous dispute among the Usul experts who differ as to whether these actions can be considered [legal] proof. According to the Shafi'i standpoint, these [actions] do not constitute [legal] proof, except if they became widespread amongst the Companions and no one differed.
As far as the hadith of Umm Haram is concerned, it is a rigorously authenticated tradition, related by the two Shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim], and, like the previous reports about the Sahaba, is a specific incident that cannot be generalized due to the possibility of multiple interpretations. It is an established principle of Usul that a proof, if subject to multiple interpretations, cannot be used to establish an argument. This is if we concede that Umm Haram, May Allah be pleased with her, was not an unmarriageable relative of the Prophet, peace be upon him. However, Imam Nawawi has clearly stated in the Sharh Muslim that Umm Haram was a mahram of the Prophet, [an unmarriageable relative]. This is by agreement of the scholars. Imam Nawawi explained, "The scholars are agreed ]that the Umm Haram in the hadith] where "The Prophet, peace be upon him, used to go to Umm Haram daughter of Milhan, who would feed him and pick his hair, and he used to sleep at her house," was an unmarriageable relative of the Prophet, although they differed as to exactly what her relation was. Ibn Abd al-Barr and others said: She was one of his maternal aunts through nursing. Others said: She was a maternal aunt of his father or grandfather because Abd al-Muttalib's mother was from Bani Najjar [and Umm Haram was from the same tribe.]
Ibn Hajar explained further in Fath al-Bari the opinion of Ibn Abd al-Barr and others. It is obviously a mistake to use this hadith as an argument in this issue. Yes, Ibn Hajar did mention in his commentary on this hadith in Fath al-Bari that the master Dimyati, may Allah have mercy on him, refuted the idea that Umm Haram was an unmarriageable relation of the Prophet, peace be upon him; however, Ibn Hajar did not consider this as permission to use this hadith as an argument for the permissibility of touching an unrelated woman. This much is evident from what he says in Fath.
Suppose we consider that there is no proof that Umm Haram was an unmarriageable relative, even then some of the imams, such as the Maliki Ibn al-Arabi, have interpreted this hadith to be an incident specific to the Prophet, peace be upon him. This was the position favored by Ibn Hajar in the Fath, who said, "The best response [if we were to say that Umm Haram was not an unmarriageable relative of the Prophet, peace be upon him] is to say that this is specific to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and this is not refuted by something being specific to the Prophet not being established except with proof because the proof for that is very clear. And Allah knows best."

[Shaykh Faraz Rabbani adds, "Why is it very clear? Because we have explicit hadith that make it clear and we'll take a number of hadiths after this. An explicit hadith that stated that one cannot touch someone of the opposite sex, this is established by clear analogy from the Qur'an. So we have this decisive text that established this ruling, the impermissibility of touching someone of the opposite sex. Its legal reason is clear which is that the Sharia has come very clearly to establish an emotional barrier between unrelated individuals of the opposite sex so they can interact with each other but with that clear emotional barrier and physical contact breaks that emotional barrier very clearly. This is why it is from the sunna to actually shake hands with someone of the same sex when you meet because this breaks the emotional distance between the individuals and promotes closeness. So this is why al-Hafiz said that even if we were to say that Umm Haram was not the mahram of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) even then this hadith would not be proof for permitting touching because one will have to understand this hadih to be specific to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) let alone that this is a specific case and one of the other thing that supports is that it is a specific incident. A specific incident does not have general import in and of itself especially when it goes against what is otherwise generally established by the text of the Qur'an and the sunna as is clear in this case."

The upshot is that the position of the imams of consequence is that it is unlawful for a man to shake hands with an unrelated woman without a barrier and without necessity, such as medical treatment. Corrupt customs cannot be considered proof: any custom that goes against Sacred Law is invalid. And what narrations have come to us [of the Sahaba shaking hands with women] are not strong enough arguments. And the hadith of Umm Haram is not evidence of the permissibility because it is either specific to the Prophet, peace be upon him, supposing that she was not an unmarriageable relative, or she was indeed an unmarriageable relative, according to the agreed upon position related by Imam Nawawi. Thus, there would be no problem [with the Prophet's visiting Umm Haram] because it is permissible to touch one's unmarriageble kin by consensus. If this were the case [that Umm Haram was the Prophet's mahram], then it would be false to use this hadith as an argument for the permissibility of shaking hands with the opposite sex.

Fifthly, another problem with this fatwa is that it gave general permission to shake hands with the opposite sex and did not condition it by stipulating the absence of desire or fitna. Such a condition would be encumbent if one concedes that there is a position permitting shaking hands. And this is not conceded, as you already know.

Sixthly, as to what was stated at the end of the fatwa that, "However, as far as the issue of kissing is concerned, which is their customary way of greeting people, we see it best that this be avoided by excusing ourselves from them in adherence to the rules of the Sharia," if this means a man's kissing an unrelated woman, then the wording used is obviously weak, because the term "avoid" can mean it is obligatory to avoid, or it is recommended to avoid, which is evident from how the ulama use this term. It is crucial that a mufti make his fatwa unambiguous to the largest extent possible so that it will not confuse the questioner and others. He could have expressed the unlawfulness of this if such was the intent, because it is well known that there is no disagreement over the unlawfulness of kissing an unrelated woman.

This is what is evident to me in writing on this question and Allah alone guides to the truth.

[Translated by Umm Salah with reference to the audio translation of Shaykh Faraz Rabbani]


السؤال : لقد فتوى للشيخ [.... ] الشافعي حفظه الله ، وفيه ترخيص في مسألة مصافحة الرجال للنساء الأجنبيات ، وهاهنا أنقل الفتوى بالنص :" مصافحة المرأة للرجال محلُّ خلاف في الفقه الإسلامي ، فيرى رأيٌ جوازَ ذلك واستدلوا بأن عمر رضي الله عنه قد صافح النساء عندما امتنع رسولُ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن مصافحتهن ، وأن أبا بكر الصديق قد صافح عجوزًا في خلافته ، واستدلوا بأحاديثَ عامةٍ أخرى أن أبا موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه جعل امرأة من الأشعريين تفلي رأسه وهو مُحْرِم في الحج أخرجه البخاري ، وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يجعل أم حَرَام تفلي رأسه ، ولم يثبت محرمية بينهما ، فيمكنُ لمن ابتلي بشيء من هذا كحالة السائل أن يقلد من أجاز من العلماء . أما قضيةُ التقبيل الذي هو في عرفهم التحية فنرى التنـزهَ عنه وإخبارَهم بالاعتذار عنه بالتقيد بأحكام شريعتنا ، والله أعلم ". انتهت الفتوى .
هل هذا يعني أن في المذهب الشافعي وجهاً يسمح للمصافحة بين الجنسين ? إذا كان الجواب لا ، فمن من فقهاء المذاهب الأربعة أو غيرهم من أتباع الأئمة المجتهدين قد قال بجواز ذلك ؟ وجزاكم الله خيراً .
الجواب وبالله تعالى التوفيق :
لا بُدَّ من التأكد من نسبة في هذه الفتوى إلى الشيخ [....] حفظه الله بكل خير فهو عالمٌ جليلٌ حضرتُ له مجلس علم واحد بالقاهرة سنة 2001م ، لكن الحق أحق أن يتبع سواءٌ صحت نسبة ذلك إليه أو لم تصح فأنا أجيبُ عن سؤال السائل بما يظهر لي من كلام أئمتنا والله أعلم بالصواب وإليه المرجع والمآب ، فأقول :
أولاً : ليس في مذهب إمامنا الشافعي رضي الله عنه ورحمه قولٌ يجيزُ مصافحة الرجل للمرأة الأجنبية بلا حائل فمنصوصُ المذهب بلا خلاف : أن ما حَرُمَ النظر إليه من المرأة حرم مسُّه كما في "المنهاج" للإمام النووي وغيره . قالوا : لأن المسَّ أبلغ من النظر في اللذة وإثارة الشهوة ، قلتُ : ولا يختلف في هذا التعليل اثنان .
ثانياً : من خلال مطالعاتي في هذه المسألة في مذاهب الفقهاء لم أقف في مذاهب الأئمة الثلاثة الحنفية والمالكية والحنابلة على قولٍ يبيحُ مصافحةَ الرجل للمرأة الأجنبية بلا حائل مطلقاً كما هو ظاهرُ نصّ الفتوى المنقول ، وأعني بقولي ( مطلقاً ) أي دون فصل بين المرأة الشابة والعجوز ، فمعتمداتُ كتب المالكية والحنابلة مصرحةٌ بحرمة لمس ما حرم النظرُ إليه من الأجنبية كما صرح به أئمتُنا وعللوه بما تقدم من التعليل ، ولم أرَ لهم فرقاً بين المرأة الشابة والعجوز فظاهرُ كلامِهم كما هو مذهبُنا أنه لا فرقَ بينهما فيحرمُ فيهما ، وهذه نصوصهم :
قال العلامة البُهُوتي الحنبلي في مباحث النظر أوائل كتاب النكاح ما نصه :" ( ولمسٌ كنظر ) فيحرم حيث يحرم النظر ( وأولى ) أي : بل اللمس أولى ؛ لأنه أبلغ من النظر ". اهـ وبمثله صرح المالكية . أما الحنفيةُ فقد صرحوا بأنه يحرم ذلك في الشابة ويجوز في العجوز التي لا تشتهى ، وفي روايةٍ عندهم أنَّ الجواز مقيدٌ برَجُل غير مشتهى . وهذه عبارتهم ، قال في "الدر المختار" :" ( وما حل نظرُه حل لمسُه إلا من أجنبية ) فلا يحل مسُّ وجهها وكفها وإن أمن الشهوة ; لأنه أغلظ ، ولذا تثبت به حرمةُ المصاهرة ، وهذا في الشابة . أما العجوز التي لا تشتهى فلا بأس بمصافحتها ومس يدها إذا أمن ". اهـ المقصود منه . وكتب عليه العلامة ابن عابدين ما نصه :" ( قوله أما العجوز إلخ ) وفي رواية : يشترط أن يكون الرجلُ أيضاً غير مشتهى . اهـ قهستاني عن الكرماني , قال في "الذخيرة": وإن كانت عجوزاً لا تُشتهى فلا بأس بمصافحتها أو مس يدها , وكذلك إذا كان شيخاً يأمن على نفسه وعليها فلا بأس أن يصافحها ، وإن كان لا يأمن على نفسه أو عليها فليجتنب . ثم إن محمداً أباح المسَّ للرجل إذا كانت المرأةُ عجوزاً ولم يشترط كونَ الرجل بحال لا يجامِعُ مثله ، وفيما إذا كان الماسُّ هي المرأة فإن كانا كبيرين لا يجامِعُ مثلُه ولا يجامِعُ مثلُها فلا بأس بالمصافحة ، فليتأمل عند الفتوى . اهـ ". انتهى
ثالثاً : من خلال مطالعتي في كتب الفقه وبعض شروح الحديث بخصوص المسألة خصوصاً عند شرحهم لحديث أم حَرَام المستدل به على إباحة مصافحة المرأة الأجنبية لم أطلعْ على قول بالإباحة مطلقاً لواحد من الفقهاء المجتهدين المعتبرين ، بل ولا لغيرهم من الأئمة ؛ فلا أدري مَن هو صاحبُ القول بالإباحة ، وإن ثبت ذلك عن بعض العلماء فهو قولٌ ضعيفٌ شاذٌّ لمخالفته القياسَ الجليَّ المأخوذ من قوله تعالى : ( قل للمؤمنين يغضوا من أبصارهم ) وقوله تعالى : ( وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من أبصارهن ) فأمر سبحانه بغضِّ بصر الجنسين عن بعضهما البعض لما يحصل عنده عادةً من اللذة والشهوة الداعية إلى الاختلاء والفاحشة، فمنع سبحانه مقدماتِ الفاحشةِ سداً للذريعة ، ولمسُ الأجنبية أبلغُ في تحصيل اللذة والشهوة غالباً من البصر كما لا يخفى على عاقل ؛ ولذا بنى عليه الفقهاءُ أحكاماً أشدَّ من مجرد النظر كما مرت الإشارةُ إليه في كلام الحنفية ، فإذا كان اللمسُ أبلغَ في ذلك من البصر وجب القولُ بتحريمه بالأولى .
رابعاً : بخصوص ما ذُكر في أثناء الفتوى من الاستدلال للقول بالجواز فالجوابُ عنه كالآتي:
أن فعل كلٍّ من الصحابة المذكورين إن صحَّ عنهم ذلك فلا تعدو هذه الحوادثُ من كونها وقائعَ أعيان وهي لا تعمُّ عند المحقيقين من الأصوليين ؛ إذ العمومُ من عوارض الألفاظ لا الأفعال . ثمَّ إنها على تسليم صحتها لا تعدو كونها فعلَ صحابيٍّ وكونه حجة محلَّ خلافٍ شهيرٍ بين الأصوليين ، والذي حرره أئمتُنا الشافعية أنه ليس بحجة إلا إذا عُلِمَ انتشاره بين الصحابة ولم يخالفْ فيه أحدٌ .
أما حديثُ أم حَرَام فهو حديث صحيح رواه الشيخان وهو كالآثار المذكورة واقعةُ عين لا تعمُّ لتطرق الاحتمال لها والدليل إذا تطرق إليه الاحتمال كُسيَ ثوبَ الإجمال وسقط به الاستدلال كما هو مقررٌ ، هذه على تسليم أن أم حَرَام رضي الله عنها ليست بمحرم له صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لكن الذي صرح به الإمام النووي في "شرح مسلم" أنها كانت محرماً له باتفاق العلماء وهذا نصه :" قوله ( إنَّ النَّبيّ صلَّى اللَّه عليه وسلَّم كان يدخل على أُمّ حرام بنت ملحان فتطعمه وتفلي رأْسه وينام عندها ) اتَّفق العلماء على أَنَّها كانت محرمًا له صلَّى اللَّه عليه وسلَّم , واختلفوا في كيفية ذلك ، فقال ابن عبد البرّ وغيره : كانت إحدى خالاته من الرَّضاعة , وقال آخرون : بل كانت خالةً لأَبيه أو لجدِّه ; لأَنَّ عبد المطَّلب كانت أُمّه من بني النَّجَّار ". انتهى وقد بيَّن الحافظ ابن حجر في "فتح الباري" كلام ابن عبد البر وغيره في هذا ، وبه يظهر خطأُ الاستدلال بهذا الحديث على مسألتنا ، نعم ذكر الحافظُ ابنُ حجر في "فتح الباري" عند هذا شرح الحديث أنَّ الحافظ الدمياطي رحمه الله ردَّ القولَ بأن أمَّ حَرَام كانت محرماً له صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لكن لم يكنْ هذا مجوِّزاً عنده للاستدلال بهذه الواقعة على جواز ملامسة الرجل للأجنبية لمن تأمل كلامه المنقول في "الفتح" بعد ذلك، ثمَّ على فرض عدم ثبوت المحرمية فقد حمل بعض الأئمة كابن العربي المالكي هذا الحديث على الخصوصية وارتضاه الحافظ في "الفتح" فقال :" وأحسنُ الأَجوبة دعوى الخصوصيَّة ، ولا يردها كونها لا تثبت إلا بدليل ; لأَنَّ الدَّليل على ذلك واضح , واللَّه أعلم". اهـ
والحاصلُ أن الذي عليه الأئمةُ المعتبرون أنه يحرم على الرجل مصافحةُ المرأة الأجنبية من غير حائل لغير حاجة كالتطبب ، وليس من الحاجة موافقةُ الأعراف الفاسدة فكلُّ عُرْف خالفَ الشرع فهو باطل ، وأن ما ذكر من الآثار لا يقوى الاستدلالُ بها لما تقدم ، وأن حديثَ أمِّ حرام ليس دليلاً على إباحة ما ذُكر في الجواب لأن ما فيه إما خاصٌّ بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على تقدير عدم المحرمية ، أو أنَّ أمَّ حرام محرمٌ له صلى الله عليه وسلم كما نقل النووي الاتفاق عليه ، فيكون لا إشكال فيه ؛ لأن المحرم يجوز له لمس محرمه بالإجماع ، وبه يبطلُ الاستدلالُ على إباحة المصافحة بين الرجل والمرأة الأجنبيين .
خامساً : وفي الفتوى المنقولة فسادٌ من وجه آخر وهو أنها أطلقت جوازَ المصافحة بين الرجل والمرأة الأجنبية ولم تقيده بعدم الشهوة وخوف الفتنة ومثل هذا التقييد متعينٌ على تسليم أن هناك رأياً يبيح ذلك وهو غيرُ مُسَلَّم كما عرفت .
سادساً : أما ما ذُكر آخر الفتوى وهو قولُ صاحب الفتوى : ( أما قضيةُ التقبيل الذي هو في عُرفهم التحيةُ فنرى التنـزهَ عنه وإخبارَهم بالاعتذار عنه بالتقيد بأحكام شريعتنا ) . فإن كان المرادُ منه تقبيلَ الرجل للمرأة الأجنبية ففيه ضعفٌ واضحٌ في التعبير فقوله ( التنـزه ) يحتمل كونه تنـزهاً واجباً ، ويحتمل التنـزه المندوب وهو المتبادر من تعبيرات الفقهاء ، ومن الأمور المهمة للمفتي أن يجعل فتواه واضحة التعبير قدر الإمكان كي لا تشكل على السائل وغيره ، فكان من السهل أن يعبر بالحرمة لو كانت هي المرادة ؛ لأنه لا خلاف يُعرف في حرمة تقبيل الأجنبية ، هذا ما يظهر لي في الكتابة على هذا السؤال والله الهادي إلى الصواب .