Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
While the refusal to shake hands with the opposite gender for religious or cultural reasons has been recognised as a legitimate expression of individual freedom in some contexts, such as the Muslim woman in Sweden who was awarded a hefty amount of compensation after being refused a job due to her refusal to shake hands with the male boss, it is met with incomprehension and criticism in other contexts. (“Sweden Muslim woman who refused handshake at job interview wins case”, www.bbc.com, 16 August 2018)
The most recent example is when the new Syrian ruler Ahmed al-Sharaa declined to shake hands with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock during her visit to Damascus. He did, however, choose to shake hands with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot. (“Handshake-gate in Syria”, www.politico.eu, 4 January 2025)
This has once again raised the question of the extent to which cultural and religious practices are to be tolerated, and the extent to which adaptation to supposedly Western customs can be expected.
A completely justified objection that can, may and – in my opinion – should be raised is the question of what the assumption that the handshake is indispensable is based on.
A brief history of the handshake
It is often said that the handshake is from the common non-verbal greetings and farewell rituals that have been practised for centuries and would take place regardless of social status, gender, or other personal characteristics of the people involved.
In truth, according to studies by Prof Dr Dmitri Zakahrine, a German professor with a teaching qualification in cultural sociology and modern history, very little is known about the spread and function of the handshake greeting in the historical context of Europe. Until the 16th century, this gesture was only used sporadically. Until the 18th century, the handshake was known in Europe as a gesture of contract and promise, and, since the Renaissance, the handshake has been depicted relatively frequently in the West when concluding contracts and reconciliation. Furthermore, even in the 19th century, illustrations much more frequently depicted the handshake being used for contract scenes than greeting scenes. Before the 19th century, hardly any depictions exist in which the handshake appears as a clear gesture of greeting. Even in etiquette manuals from the 16th to 18th century, greeting by shaking hands is barely mentioned. Thus, the handshake up until the 19th century remained primarily a sporadic, emblematic gesture of peace, agreement, or reconciliation, and not a routine technique of greeting. (Dmitri Zakharine, Von Angesicht zu Angesicht. Der Wandel direkter Kommunikation in der ost- und westeuropäischen Neuzeit, pp. 566-568, Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005)
The English writer William Howitt (d. 1879) wrote to his British readers in 1842: “The Germans […] do not shake hands; and we advise all English gentlemen, on first going to Germany, to be careful not to shock the feeling of the ladies […] with offering their hands.” (William Howitt, The Rural and Domestic Life in Germany, p. 213, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1842)
The English studies scholar Prof Thomas Finkenstaedt (d. 2017) writes about Great Britain that it was not until the 19th century that the handshake became the standard greeting there. (Thomas Finkenstaedt, I like kissing people: Handshakes are abhorrent – Zu Gruß und Gebärde in England, in: Aspekte der Kultursoziologie, p.33, Berlin: Reimer, 2005, Justin Stagl [ed.])
Prof Herrman Roodenburg, ethnologist and sociologist, states: “It seems, then, that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and probably for a good deal of the eighteenth century, shaking hands had a very different meaning from the ritual act we know today. It looks as if the gesture was not part of any greeting or parting behaviour at all but that it had quite different connotations which centred around such concepts as friendship, brotherhood, peace, reconciliation, accord, or mutual agreement. […] It seems quite likely, then, that one of our most popular salutations was still unknown before 1800.” (Herman Roodenburg, The ‘Hand of Friendship’ – Shaking Hands and other Gestures in the Dutch Republic, in: A Cultural History of Gesture – From Antiquity to the Present Day, pp. 174-176, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991, Jan N. Bremmer; Herman Roodenburg)
This supposed centuries-old practice of shaking hands is also just one of many practices that are even thousands of years old. It was not so long ago that European society was still a rather traditional one in which there were sometimes strong hierarchies, not only between the classes but also between the sexes, which was also reflected in greeting rituals such as bowing, curtsying, etc., being the order of the day. However, non-hierarchical practices such as bowing the head and hugging have also been around for a long time in Europe. What is often overlooked in such considerations is the fact that the meaning and prevalence of non-verbal gestures in interaction change constantly over time. (Edith Broszinsky-Schwabe, Interkulturelle Kommunikation – Missverständnisse – Verständigung, pp. 164-166, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011)
According to a survey conducted in 2003, 70 per cent of East Germans tended to shake hands with their friends as a greeting, compared to only 40 per cent in the West. In contrast to shaking hands with friends, only 51 per cent in the East and 27 per cent in the West tended to shake hands with their colleagues. (“Der wahre deutsche Gruß”, www.welt.de, 28 February 2020)
Proxemics and distance zones
In this context, the research field of proxemics should be mentioned, which deals with the amount of space people feel necessary to set between themselves and others. For example, a distinction is made between the distance zones: (1) intimate zone, (2) personal zone, (3) social zone, and (4) public zone. For example, it measures what, where and when is perceived as an intimate zone reserved only for the closest confidants. Unauthorised intrusion into the private or even intimate sphere is always perceived as an unauthorised boundary violation. If others fall below this minimum distance without permission, this triggers a release of adrenaline and an increase in heart rate, for example, it can even lead to atmospheric disturbances in the relationship and it is not uncommon for a lack of distance to turn into antipathy. For example, if you take a step back or refuse to shake hands, this does not necessarily signal rejection or disinterest; you may simply have got too close to the person. It is important not to generalise here, as individual characteristics also play a key role in distancing behaviour.
I would like to illustrate something below using the example of the social kiss. Depending on space and time, the view of how high the degree of familiarity must be and who is allowed to kiss whom has been and still is subject to sometimes radical change. Today, in some places, men and women greet each other with a kiss on the cheek, even if they don’t know each other very well. In many places, however, the social kiss between men and women is only customary if they are related or friends, for example. So if a man tries to kiss a woman in greeting, even if it is the kiss on the hand which was customary until the Second World War, is she obliged to endure this just because it goes back to some centuries-old tradition? Not at all!
The same can be said for the shaking of hands. Nobody has to put up with or endure any greeting ritual that they perceive as an invasion of their privacy because of some tradition. It must always, and everywhere, be within the individual’s freedom to decide on such things.
According to a study by the German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, unwanted touching and even unwanted staring in the workplace are recognised by the vast majority of respondents as forms of sexual harassment. (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes, “Leitfaden für Beschäftigte, Arbeitgeber*innen und Betriebsräte”, www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de, April 2024, p. 7)
To the astonishment of many, the idea that rituals of greeting between men and women should be limited to gestures without physical contact can still be found in our time. In particularly distinguished circles, for example at royal courts, a slight bow is still required for boys and men, while girls and women are content with a curtsy.
Equal rights between men and women
One point that is often raised in the public debate about refusing to shake hands is the equality of men and women. But is refusing to shake hands really a sexist act?
The impression that women are not regarded as equal and of equal value by those men who do not shake hands with them for religious or cultural reasons, thereby undermining a supposed basic social behaviour, is erroneous, because this religious commandment transcends gender, as even women who adhere to this belief do not shake hands with other men. Gender equality or the equality of women is therefore the very last of the arguments that could reasonably be put forward against this behaviour.
What many religions and cultures teach is not that men should not shake hands with women because they are women, or that women should not shake hands with men because they are men, but because they are the opposite sex. Men and women are biologically different. In this respect, it can be argued that a distinction and separation according to gender does not constitute discrimination per se. For example, most public toilets are segregated by gender. This is a generally recognised practice. Following this logic, it is unjustified to assume that a person who refuses to shake hands with the opposite sex does so out of dislike for one sex or favouritism towards the other.
The fact that many people do not shake hands with the opposite sex for religious or cultural reasons, i.e., for reasons of chastity, modesty and decency, affects both men and women; it is not just a matter of male attitudes towards women. The reasons why some religious men do not socialise with women outside their immediate family should not be reduced to misogyny. Refusing to have physical contact with women is not in the least equivalent to refusing to recognise that women have professional and intellectual skills.
Fundamentalist and Salafist?
This behaviour has been described as supposedly fundamentalist and even Salafist, especially in the context of Islamism, with reference to the organisation Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham (HTS) to which Ahmed al-Sharaa belongs.
However, labelling someone as fundamentalist simply because they follow religious practices confuses two different things: who a person is, i.e., their identity, and what they do, i.e., their behaviour. It also wrongly assumes that being devoutly religious, i.e., following religious practices carefully, is the same as being a religious fundamentalist, i.e., holding extreme or intolerant religious views.
Firstly, it is necessary to understand what it means to be religiously devout. On an intuitive level, religious piety can most simply be defined as a person’s devotion to the teachings of their religion.
Something like refraining from shaking hands with strangers of the opposite sex, which may be perceived by some non-Muslims as a rather strict interpretation of Islamic sources, does not indicate fundamentalism, but merely piety. The view that religious piety correlates positively with religious fundamentalism, that fundamentalism is caused by religiosity, and that therefore a counterweight to religious orthodoxy must be created to eliminate fundamentalism, is absolutely wrong. There are no correlations between piety and fundamentalism, or at least there is no evidence of a clear link between religious piety and religious fundamentalism.
What does emerge from studies, however, is that fundamentalism does indeed originate from less pious people rather than the more pious ones. There is a clear negative correlation between piety and fundamentalism; fundamentalist tendencies, such as religious intolerance and religiously motivated violence, find greater support among less pious people than among those who are more pious. (“The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society”, www.pewresearch.org, 30 April 2013)
This conclusion confirms the position advocated by French political scientist Prof Olivier Roy, that the current phenomenon of religious radicalism is not caused by the “radicalisation of Islam” but by the “Islamisation of radicalism”. (“Who are the new jihadis?”, www.theguardian.com, 13 April 2017)
This means that the root cause of Islamist fundamentalism does not lie in religious beliefs, but in the intolerant and violent tendencies and behaviours that existed and developed before these religious beliefs. Roy’s research shows that it is a typical characteristic of radicalised religious youths that they do not operate in a particularly religious environment. Their knowledge of Islamic teachings is generally very simplistic and is just enough to legitimise intolerance and violence. Religious piety is therefore anything but the common denominator of all those Muslims who display fundamentalist behaviour.
Understanding all this is important to dispel the stereotype that those who are pious are more prone to fundamentalist behaviour.
Let’s move on to the second attribution: that this behaviour is Salafist. While Muslim scholars often disagree on many religious matters, they are largely united on one point: traditional Islamic theology, across all its major branches (Sunni, Shia, and smaller groups like the Ibadis), agrees that physical contact between unrelated men and women is not allowed.
If the strongly pejorative term Salafist were to stand and be accepted, this attribute would have to be ascribed to the overwhelming majority of all Muslims around the world, lumping them all together and adopting a negative attitude towards them.
Furthermore, a simple scenario refutes the argument and simply exposes it as a one-sided restriction of Muslim religious freedom. If someone of the Jewish faith were to refuse to shake hands for religious reasons, there would certainly be no consequences, especially not in Germany – just think of the circumcision debate and the debate about kosher slaughter.
Religion and culture
It should also be noted that this is not solely an Islamic practice, but that most other established religions also regulate physical contact between the sexes to some degree. For some, this also includes greetings.
For example, religiously conscious Hindu women do not usually shake hands with men. (Mary Murray Bosrock, Asia: A Fearless Guide to International Communication and Behavior, p. 251, Saint Paul: International Education Systems, 1994)
In Sikhism, it is also common practice for men and women to shake hands only with members of their own gender. (“The Sikh Culture”, archives.evergreen.edu, 23 September 1996)
Followers of Daoism, an ancient Chinese religion, use a gesture called zi wu to greet each other. (“How Daoists Say ‘Hi’”, www.daoistgate.com, 29 May 2020)
In Buddhism, the anjali mudra is common – i.e., pressing the palms together. (“Anjali Mudra is a Universal Buddhist Greeting”, www.buddhaweekly.com, 4 September 2016)
In the Jewish equivalent of Islamic Sharia, the Halacha, there is the concept of negia, according to which, just as in Islamic norms, touching strangers of the opposite sex is not permitted. (“Shomer Negiah, the Prohibition on Touching”, www.myjewishlearning.com, 2 April 2009)
These are just a few examples – there are many more examples from various religious, ethnic and cultural groups.
The categorical error that must not be made here is to equate culture on the one hand with religion on the other. There are fundamental differences between a cultural norm and a religious commandment. Cultural practices can be changed easily, but religious beliefs are much harder to modify. When someone changes their cultural behaviour to fit in with a different society, they can do so while keeping their sense of self intact. However, if someone goes against their deeply held religious beliefs, they can do so only by compromising their core identity and personal dignity.
Ideology of cultural hegemony
Tolerance, as one repeatedly gets told, is considered an inalienable good in the West. Can such a great good be outweighed by any cultural peculiarities? Refusing to shake hands, for whatever reason, must at least be tolerated in our societies. This is particularly true in a diplomatic context, where we should be aware of cultural differences.
Instead of admitting and establishing the correct and important concepts of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism, it would be completely wrong to orientate oneself by hook or by crook to a concept such as cultural universalism, which is rather part of the new-right spectrum. Then, using this universalism as a cover to reject and discriminate against specific groups of people.
I am in favour of naming the handshake for what it is, namely just one form of greeting in a series of greetings. It is difficult to explain logically how it should be fundamentally different from the others. The rather strange notion that social coexistence presupposes a prescribed special way of social interaction and co-operation contradicts everything that makes a liberal state liberal.
If the state or even diplomacy forces people to adhere to local customs and traditions and thus imposes a certain lifestyle on them, it is blatantly interfering with the personal rights of the individual. You can either restrict the concrete realisation of coexistence or, in my opinion, the right step would be to enable social coexistence and social participation on a broad front. Civil decency and open-minded gestures towards people you meet in everyday life are essential. However, there must be a variety of ways in which these can be practised.
What is at stake is the freedom of the individual to choose his or her own ideological, cultural and religious values.