What is the ruling on kissing the hands of one's parents? And an explanation of the rule: "The default in acts of worship is prohibition, and the default in transactions is permissibility."

Eid Abbasi : The following question is among the questions: What is the ruling on kissing the hands of one's parents? And what is the answer to the doubt that claims: Nothing has come in the Shari'ah commanding this or forbidding it; rather, the command came to be humble before them, to be dutiful to them, and to lower the wing of humility to them. Also, it is reported that more than one person kissed the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and others. The methods that achieve this are subject to custom, and people in our society have become accustomed to considering this as part of being dutiful to parents. So what is the answer to this doubt? And what is the ruling on the issue?

The Shaykh : I say—and I seek help from Allah—that this doubt is based on ignorance of Islam, unfortunately. This Islam, one of whose rules is affirmed by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in the most concise phrase when he says: "The default in acts of worship is prohibition unless there is evidence, and the default in customs is permissibility unless there is evidence." And of course, this phrase was not a rule unless the scriptural proofs converged upon it. Therefore, everyone who wants to deem something good on the claim that people have become accustomed to it or agreed upon it, and it was not in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), must keep this rule in mind. Based on it, he should look at whether this newly introduced matter, which is customary among people, is intended only to say that it is permissible because there is no explicit prohibition against it, or is the intention more than that, which is to say that it is recommended? If it is the first, I return now to the question. If the questioner intends to say that kissing the hand of the parents is permissible, a permissibility that is not accompanied by a preference or prioritization over its opposite, which is leaving it; if he means by this statement that this is a permissible matter, and the permissible matter in jurisprudence is equal in its two sides, doing and leaving; meaning: whoever does it is not blamed, and whoever leaves it is not blamed; then first, does the questioner intend this? The answer in my view is: No.
Second: Is kissing, in the Shari'ah, an ordinary matter or is it an act of worship that is done where it came and left where it did not come? As for the fact that the questioner does not intend only to say that this kissing of the hands of the parents is a permissible matter equal in its two sides; that is clear; because he argued with the verse, and the verse at least implies the recommendation of humility to the parents: , This is a matter, this is a matter, and the least that this matter implies by lowering the wing to the parents is recommendation, without doubt or ambiguity. So when he argued with the verse, he means by that to establish that kissing the hand of the father or the mother is a recommended matter and not just a permissible matter. And when that is the case, we say to him: The custom that he argues with to permit it, or even to recommend it, for this habit, is not suitable to be a legislator; especially if this custom is a transient, newly occurred, innovated matter, as is the case in our lives today.
That is because the custom that contradicts the inherited Islamic etiquettes in the books of hadith and the books of the scholars, among them the verifying ones, has no value or weight at all. And I said: Kissing is not just a custom, but rather it is either a prescribed act of worship or it is an act of worship that is not prescribed. When it is a prescribed act of worship, it is recommended or above that. And when it is an act of worship that is not prescribed, it falls under the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . And this universal principle and this Islamic legal rule—unfortunately—many scholars overlook it, let alone students of knowledge, let alone those who have no knowledge except the name; even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) used to repeat this rule every Friday, before the Friday sermon, as you hear us before every lesson following the Messenger (peace be upon him), he says: . He (peace and blessings be upon him) used to repeat this rule every Friday. Why? The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in the book "Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim": "So that this rule is firmly established in the minds of the listeners so that they do not go astray from it." Unfortunately, the majority of Muslims went astray from it, and even many of their elites. So here you hear him say: There is no prohibition against a child kissing the hand of his father or mother. And what is the weight of this hadith for him and those like him at that time, such as his saying (peace be upon him): ?
Ignorance of this rule and its like leads some of the pretenders to knowledge to say in every newly occurred matter: My brother, there is no prohibition against it! My dear, the Messenger (peace be upon him) established for you a rule, he said: . This suffices you from hundreds, indeed thousands, of texts that tell you: Such and such a matter is prohibited, such and such a matter is prohibited; meaning these innovations that occur every day, innovations that cannot be counted. So he comes to you with a rule to relieve you from these texts that cannot be comprehended: .
Neglect of this rule leads these people to deem many innovations acceptable on the claim that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not prohibit them. And we argue with them with many innovations, and we do not lack dozens of their like who admit with us that they are innovations. So we say to each of them: Where is the prohibition? There is no prohibition. But the prohibition understood by the scholars is in this rule and its like, as we mentioned.
The righteous Salaf truly understood the religion deeply, and they understood from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) what he aimed at with such a rule: . Therefore, we find 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) when he performed Hajj during his caliphate and stood before the Black Stone wanting to kiss it, he said: "By Allah, I know that you are a stone that does not harm or benefit, and if I had not seen the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) kissing you, I would not have kissed you."
What does this statement from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab give us, while he is proclaiming it openly to the people, pilgrims and ...? It means that kissing falls under the subject of following where it came, and falls under the subject of innovation where it did not come and was not brought. This is the meaning of the statement of the Rightly Guided Caliph. And glory to Allah! How quick are such people to argue with some statements from the Rightly Guided Caliphs, or some of them, if they have an interest in it, and how strong is their forgetting of such argumentation when it is against them. So this 'Umar ibn al-Khattab is speaking to the Black Stone, of course the Black Stone does not hear, but this is from the category of: "The speech is to you, O daughter-in-law, and listen, O neighbor"; meaning listen, O people, I am saying to the Black Stone: "I know that you are a stone that does not harm or benefit, but know that I do not kiss it except because I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) kissing it."
So this hadith alone gives us that kissing cannot be forced into the category of ordinary matters where if custom has passed, the matter is broad; no, kissing is an act of worship where it was prescribed, and an innovation where it was not prescribed. From here we say: This argumentation has first a deviation from the aforementioned legal rule, which I quoted for you from Ibn Taymiyyah, and I mentioned for you some of its proofs: , . Then there is another neglect of understanding the religion as the Companions understood it, and at their head is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; where he said: "I do not want to kiss the stone because it does not harm or benefit," but he saw the Messenger kissing it, so he submitted; this is the affair of the believer.
So, if we wanted to follow the example of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, we would enter upon our father and mother and say to the honorable father and the honorable mother: "If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had not prescribed for us kissing the hand of the father or the mother, I would have kissed it." This is the opposite of what? 'Umar's position; because the situation here is different from there. There, he knew that the Messenger had kissed, so he kissed. But if he had known that he had not kissed, he would not have kissed. Do we know that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prescribed for the Companions to kiss the hands of their fathers and mothers? The answer is: No. Did a report come, even in a weak hadith? Rather, let us descend and say: even in a fabricated hadith, that one of the Companions, when he entered upon his father or mother, would kiss his hand or her hand? None of that was the case. So how is it permissible for one who has correct knowledge to use the emerging custom, the newly occurring custom, as evidence in such a matter? People have agreed upon this. Do you think if people agreed among themselves to kiss something else? And I give you a sensitive example that these people are afflicted with: they agreed to kiss the Noble Qur'an. What would they say? Without a doubt, they would say the same as they said regarding kissing the hand of the father; because the hand of the father or the mother is not more sacred to them than the Noble Qur'an, which contains the speech of the Everlasting Allah.