Disturbing Religious Text Book About Hand Kissing

[Whyayeman]

In refusing to Kiss the hand of the Pope, you visibly separate yourself from Catholics.

I have never refused to kiss the hand (technically the Apostle's Ring, but never mind) because the Pope and I have never met - and never will. My attitude to kissing, shaking hands, bowing to the Emperor of Japan or kissing both cheeks twice of any Parisians I come across is irrelevant.

You are quite right that I deprecate the kind of exclusivity that the Malaysian textbook appears to promote. Islam is the majority religion in Malaysia but there are significant minorities of Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. My suspicion is that the writers of the textbook are narrow-minded; they are pushing against the Malaysian tradition for sectarian reasons. I think they are bound to fail; Malaysians will continue to follow their traditions.

 

[HARK!]

Of course it is not true! But I love the bricks you have made without even a wisp of straw.

If one takes seriously the Islamic view of the world that there is a fundamental difference between the Muslim and non Muslim, it shouldn't be all that surprising such attitudes arise.

No doubt some people do. There are Christians and Hindus - and I dare say, Bhuddists and Sikhs and Jews too - who take a similar view of those who are not of the same faith. There are atheists who look down their noses at all of the above. It is bigotry.

So you would be OK with kissing the Ayatollah's hand?

3. I have kissed the hands of beautiful women. What is that a mark of?

Do they have to be beautiful? Do they have to be women? That sounds like a biased statement.

It is just a fact. It does not signify anything.

Please explain the difference between your approach and the approach of some of the religious.

Why do their actions signify anything that yours don't?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have never refused to kiss the hand (technically the Apostle's Ring, but never mind) because the Pope and I have never met - and never will. My attitude to kissing, shaking hands, bowing to the Emperor of Japan or kissing both cheeks twice of any Parisians I come across is irrelevant.

You are quite right that I deprecate the kind of exclusivity that the Malaysian textbook appears to promote. Islam is the majority religion in Malaysia but there are significant minorities of Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. My suspicion is that the writers of the textbook are narrow-minded; they are pushing against the Malaysian tradition for sectarian reasons. I think they are bound to fail; Malaysians will continue to follow their traditions.

Why do you think they are bound to fail? If Muslims actually practiced this, it would reinforce Islamic cohesion within Malaysian society. That's pretty much how Islam has remained fairly solid in the countries it dominates via it's population. Compare that to Christian countries which embraced your attitude and started to leave Christian particularism and exclusivism behind. There has been a steep decline in Christianity in the West.

The more rigid and cohesive a group is, the more successful it will be. The more egalitarian, the less likely it is to maintain itself. See how the progressive Churches in the West are dying the fastest.

 

[Whyayeman]

Please explain the difference between your approach and the approach of some of the religious.

Why do their actions signify anything that yours don't?

I don''t think such actions signify much beyond extending courtesy. HARK, you seem to attach significance to my remark that I have kissed the hands of beautiful women. Wouldn't anybody?

 

[Whyayeman]

There has been a steep decline in Christianity in the West.

True. This, I think, is a good thing. There has been a progressive progress of humane values. This too is, in my opinion, a good thing. These two phenomena may be connected.

 

[HARK!]

I don''t think such actions signify much beyond extending courtesy. HARK, you seem to attach significance to my remark that I have kissed the hands of beautiful women. Wouldn't anybody?

I haven't. It would seem to signify something that my wife would not have approved of. In my culture that sort of hand kissing takes on a different meaning than that of Islam in Malaysia.

You should be able to understand the implications; if you watch Gomez hand kissing in an old TV show called the Adams Family.

So why are you selective with who you would extend that signal of courtesy to in your culture?
Wouldn't you extend the same signal to a unbathed old man, who was begging on the street?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

True. This, I think, is a good thing. There has been a progressive progress of humane values. This too is, in my opinion, a good thing. These two phenomena may be connected.

Whereas I and the Malaysian Muslim who both love and believe our respective faiths see this as a thoroughly negative phenomenon. At any rate, unless the Muslim is willing to abandon his religion for yours, he really shouldn't feel any shame if he engages in this practice.

 

[Whyayeman]

I haven't. It would seem to signify something that my wife would not have approved of. In my culture that sort of hand kissing takes on a different meaning than that of Islam in Malaysia.

You should be able to understand the implications; if you watch Gomez hand kissing in an old TV show called the Adams Family.

So why are you selective with who you would extend that signal of courtesy to in your culture?
Wouldn't you extend the same signal to a unbathed old man, who was begging on the street?

Here is an actual photograph of me in hand-kissing mode:

Not in the least lascivious, I think you will agree. No wife could possibly object. But I think you missed the obvious possibility that the hands I kissed were those of my wives.

As for the unwashed beggar - it is not customary in my culture for men to kiss other men's hands. I am a little surprised at the suggestion.

 

[Whyayeman]

At any rate, unless the Muslim is willing to abandon his religion for yours, he really shouldn't feel any shame if he engages in this practice.

I have no religion and I think abandoning faith is good in general, though I respect the right of people to practise theirs.

I think you must have misread the original post. It is a widespread custom among by Muslims Malaysians in general to show respect for the cultural superiors by hand-kissing. It has never been an exclusively Muslim custom. The school textbook is attempting to subvert this tradition by discouraging Muslims from the hand-kissing of non-Muslims.

As for shame - where does shame come in?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have no religion and I think abandoning faith is good in general, though I respect the right of people to practise theirs.

I think you must have misread the original post. It is a widespread custom among by Muslims Malaysians in general to show respect for the cultural superiors by hand-kissing. It has never been an exclusively Muslim custom. The school textbook is attempting to subvert this tradition by discouraging Muslims from the hand-kissing of non-Muslims.

As for shame - where does shame come in?

I don't believe I said it was an exclusively Muslim practice, though this is a definite Muslim spin on a cultural practice. As to subverting it, who knows? All I know is that it's in line with Islamic teaching and perfectly consistent with an Islamic way of life.

This is perhaps why you don't like it. Because it excludes you and that hurts your feelings.

 

[IceJad]

Why?


2 John 9-10

New King James Version


9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;

I believe that the passages if left by themselves do not convey the actual meaning. The full context can be derived only when you read as a whole. The letter of John talks about being careful of people claiming falsehood about Jesus trying to propagate their message to you. If they come and the message is in contradiction of the teachings of Jesus then do not let them in.

John didn't tell us to shun all non-believers.

2 John 7-11
7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

 

[HARK!]

John didn't tell us to shun all non-believers.

If he told us to shun even one; then my rhetorical question stands.

 

[IceJad]

That is precisely what it is not. The original poster was complaining that refusing to kiss the hand of a non-Muslim was deplorable:

Let me clarify, I'm not so much miffed by refusal to kiss non-muslims' hands. Rather the reason presented by this particular textbook.

I could accept if they merely said do not greet a non-believer with the greeting way of the believers. It is the notion that your believe in your god elevates you to a high position that all others around you. It teaches all the wrong life lessons and builds an hateful view of others.

For context, I always view my salvation in Jesus as underserved gift of grace rather then a privilege into an exclusive elite class. By no means I'm socially above non-Christians. I can still give thanks to the non-Christians around me and not feel that it is their privilege to receive my thanks.

The custom of kissing hands is a Malaysian custom, not restricted to Muslims. Muslims in other countries do not kiss hands as a formal greeting.

This needs clarification as well. Kissing of the hands is not exclusively a Malaysian custom. Many other cultures and religions around the world do this. I only contextualized my OP in case people are unfamiliar with Malaysia (you know being a relatively small and unknown country in South-East Asian).

More details, hand kissing is primarily observe by the Muslims here. It is done in a private setting like parents & children, husband & wife, and superior & subordinate. It is not a hello stranger kind of greeting.

However it is not the only greeting. We are quite western in terms of social interactions such as handshakes and waving of the hands. So if you're visiting Malaysia please don't think you'll see it everywhere.

Catholics here have also been observed to kiss the hand of the cardinals and priests. Protestants not at all. I can't say for Orthodox here for the 2 largest major Christian denominations are Catholics and Protestants.

 

[IceJad]

Isn't Icejad Lutheran?

Yes, yes I'm. Not a very doctrinal one. I don't hold denomination specific interpretation of theological teachings.

 

[FireDragon76]

No doubt some people do. There are Christians and Hindus - and I dare say, Bhuddists and Sikhs and Jews too - who take a similar view of those who are not of the same faith. There are atheists who look down their noses at all of the above. It is bigotry.

Many religions don't take such a view. Buddhism, Shinto, and to a lesser extent, Hinduism, for instance. At least if we are talking about "fundamental" difference.

"Religion=tribe" is much more an Abrahamic phenomenon.

 

[FireDragon76]

If one takes seriously the Islamic view of the world that there is a fundamental difference between the Muslim and non Muslim, it shouldn't be all that surprising such attitudes arise.

I don't think there is one Islamic view on that matter.

I would have thought it obvious that religions as particular groups prefer to be particular and remain distinct. The Churches or religions which refuse to remain distinct but embrace a universal egalitarianism find themselves being diluted. See the Episcopalian Church USA which has had literal non-Christian bishops and allows it's members to deny the historic meaning of the Nicene Creed.

I think remaining distinct is entirely necessary and if it isn't the religion or group ought cease to exist. You for instance are not able to participate in the sacraments of the Orthodox Church and are not considered equal to a believer in order to receive them. This a policy of distinction between outsider and insider. Is it bigotry? Is it based on hate? Nope. Is it unreasonable? Given the example of the Episcopalian Church, it's entirely reasonable.

As to the handshaking or kissing, you might consider it unreasonable because it excludes you. That's entirely the point of the practice to distinguish between the people of God and the people such as yourself. There may be bigoted Muslims who practice it, but it is not inherently a bigoted stance. It's just not an egalitarian stance.

That's a decidedly western, doctrinaire view of religion, and doesn't necessarily apply to all religious institutions or practices. There are plenty of traditional religions that are either universalist or do not have firm religious boundaries.

 

[IceJad]

Many religions don't take such a view. Buddhism, Shinto, and to a lesser extent, Hinduism, for instance. At least if we are talking about "fundamental" difference.

"Religion=tribe" is much more an Abrahamic phenomenon.

It doesn't really matter which religion actually, because it is human nature in play. I know of a Christian friend who converted from Buddhism/Taoism (Malaysian Chinese tend to call themselves Buddhist while also observing Taoist teachings) and attended seminary to be a missionary. His father gather the whole family to have a last dinner together for he had intention to disown my friend thereafter.

Luckily the father finally accepted the conversion and made peace with the son.

 

[FireDragon76]

It doesn't really matter which religion actually, because it is human nature in play. I know of a Christian friend who converted from Buddhism/Taoism (Malaysian Chinese then to call themselves Buddhist while also observing Taoist teachings) and attended seminary to be a missionary. His father gather the whole family to have a last dinner together for he had intention to disown my friend thereafter.

Luckily the father finally accepted the conversion and made peace with the son.

Indeed. People potentially can choose all sorts of things to find division and animus, such as handedness, skin color, etc. Human beings are prone to finding significance and identity is all sorts of mundane things. That's not necessarily related to religious practices or doctrines.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't think there is one Islamic view on that matter.

Oh? There is precedence in Islam for not extending the Salam non-Muslims. I'm not saying this is the definitive Islamic teaching that the OP is commenting on, but it's not like this is unprecedented within Islam.

That's a decidedly western, doctrinaire view of religion, and doesn't necessarily apply to all religious institutions or practices. There are plenty of traditional religions that are either universalist or do not have firm religious boundaries.

It's not just a religious view of religion but also an Eastern view, at least insofar as Islam, Judaism and Christianity are concerned. All three of these religions mark themselves as visibly different and Christianity before it was in the west, it was in the east and it didn't stop practices and customs from arising that separated the Christian from the non-Christian.

Insofar as religions operate and function, in order to remain distinct and not have their members become assimilated into a competing religion I don't see how any religion (or group) avoids markers of distinction.

 

[FireDragon76]

Insofar as religions operate and function, in order to remain distinct and not have their members become assimilated into a competing religion I don't see how any religion (or group) avoids markers of distinction.

Not all religions have that as a goal. Many do not. Many religions aren't tied to identity, but to practice.