Imitating Disbelievers: A Khutbah By Shiekh Saud Ash-Shuraim

[Thinker]

Also - love how you completely ignored this little snippet:

'Anyway, is a Sikh being divisive when he wears a turban and a beard? Is a Jew being divisive when he wears a skullcap, or a hat, a long coat and a beard? Is a nun being divisive when she wears a habit? Is a monk being divisive when he wears a robe and takes a vow of silence? Are the Hare Krishnas by McDonald's being divisive when they dress in their own way and sing their own songs to passersby? Are Goths being divisive when they dress in black and are generally Goth-like?'

Great tactics. If you don't like what the other guy is saying, just accuse him of deliberately missing the point and ignore any points that damage your own. Consider a career in politics.

I don’t know why Sikhs wear turbans or Jews wear skull caps, I do know that Christians wear crosses and I know that some people wear shirts showing their support for football clubs. In the same way I can see know wrong in a Muslim wearing a shirt or piece of jewellery bearing some Islamic symbol. All those groups might wear something showing their support for what they believe but that is a long way from advocating being ‘different’ is a requirement – that is divisive.

Quote from: http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index....ijab_the_veil/
Difference from the Clothing of Unbelievers ‎
‎Her clothing must not resemble the clothing of the unbelievers. This is a general ruling of the ‘Sharia’h which ‎encompasses not only dress but also such things as manners, customs, religious practices and festivities, transactions, ‎etc. Indeed, dissimilarity with unbelievers is a precedent that was established by the first generation of Islam.
‘Abdullah ‎ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-’Aas said, “The Prophet (saw) saw me wearing two saffron coloured garments, so he said: ‎‎“Indeed, these are the clothes of ‘Kuffar’ (unbelievers), so do not wear them.” [Sahih Muslim]‎

 

[Thinker]

and, btw, the Pope doesn't like you interacting with Muslims, so i reckon you'll need to be off to some pron sites! don't worry though, you can confess later.

on Friday, skip the fish too, OK?

:rollseyes

If the Pope advocate segragation he is wrong. But what that's got to do with me I am not sure, perhaps you need to revisit the definition of agnostic!

 

[Muezzin]

I don’t know why Sikhs wear turbans

To hold in their very long hair, which they believe is a gift from God, and to proudly identify themselves as Sikhs.

or Jews wear skull caps,

To show respect before God and to proudly identify themselves as Jews.

I do know that Christians wear crosses and I know that some people wear shirts showing their support for football clubs. In the same way I can see know wrong in a Muslim wearing a shirt or piece of jewellery bearing some Islamic symbol.

But God forbid if a Muslim man grows a beard or a Muslim woman such as my mother wears a headscarf. They're both obviously being divisive and by implication deserve any abuse headed their way.

All those groups might wear something showing their support for what they believe but that is a long way from advocating being ‘different’ is a requirement – that is divisive.

Argh. Again, being different for the sake of being different is not divisive in and of itself. Would you call 'non-conformists' divisive? I wouldn't. I'd call them a little confused because they're still identifying themselves in relation to a norm, as opposed to their own unique identities, but I wouldn't call them divisive.

Quote from: http://www.islamicnetwork.com/index....ijab_the_veil/
Difference from the Clothing of Unbelievers ‎
‎Her clothing must not resemble the clothing of the unbelievers. This is a general ruling of the ‘Sharia’h which ‎encompasses not only dress but also such things as manners, customs, religious practices and festivities, transactions, ‎etc. Indeed, dissimilarity with unbelievers is a precedent that was established by the first generation of Islam.
‘Abdullah ‎ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-’Aas said, “The Prophet (saw) saw me wearing two saffron coloured garments, so he said: ‎‎“Indeed, these are the clothes of ‘Kuffar’ (unbelievers), so do not wear them.” [Sahih Muslim]‎

And there are equal schools of thought that interpret the rules of dress such that as long as the relevant areas of the body are covered, and the person is not attracting undue attention to themselves (e.g. with very tight clothing or extremely garish colours), such clothing is Islamically permissible.

Otherwise, we would be in the silly situation where Muslims do not conform at all to dress codes in workplaces, restaurants etc. Muslims are not supposed to be nuisances. But when people, regardless of their religion, in their own time, dress just the way they like, it is their right so long as they do not break the law in so doing. Calling them divisive because their motives are to differentiate themselves from the norm is an absurd and fruitless folly.

Oh, also, there's something on the very first page of this thread that clarifies matters (bolding mine):

Guidelines concerning imitation of the kuffaar​

Question:
What are the definitions of imitating the west? Does everything that is modern and new and has come to us from the west imply imitation of them? In other words, when can we say that something is haraam because it is an imitation of the kuffaar?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever imitates a people is one of them.’” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, al-Libaas, 3512. Al-Albaani said in Saheeh Abi Dawood, (it is) hasan saheeh. No. 3401).

Al-Munaawi and al-‘Alqami said: i.e., dressing as they dress, following their way of life in clothes and some of the things they do.

Al-Qaari said: i.e., whoever imitates the kuffaar, such as in how one dresses, etc., or imitates the evil and immoral people, or the Sufis or the righteous, is one of the people whom he imitates, whether they are good or bad.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem: Imaam Ahmad and others quoted this hadeeth as evidence. This hadeeth at the very least implies that it is haraam to imitate them, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “... And if any amongst you takes them [Jews and Christians] as Awliyaa’ [friends, helpers]), then surely, he is one of them…”[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

This is similar to the view of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr who said: “Whoever settles in the land of the mushrikeen and celebrates their Nawroz (new year) and Mahrajaan (festival) and imitates them until he dies will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.” This may be interpreted as referring to absolute imitation which implies kufr and as meaning that imitation in part is therefore haraam; or it may be interpreted as meaning that he is one of them to the extent that he imitates them, whether it is in ideas of kufr, sin or partaking in a ritual. It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade imitating the non-Arabs and said, “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” This was also mentioned by al-Qaadi Abu Ya’laa. This was quoted by more than one of the scholars to show that it is makrooh to imitate forms of dress of the non-Muslims which are not known among the Muslims.

See ‘Awn al-Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood.

Imitating the kuffaar falls into two categories:

Imitation that is haraam and imitation that is permitted:

The first type is imitation that is haraam: this means knowingly doing things that are unique characteristics of the religion of the kuffaar and that have not been referred to in our religion. This is haraam and it may be a major sin; in some cases a person may even become a kaafir by doing that, according to the evidence, whether a person does that because he agrees with the kuffaar, or because of his whims and desires, or because of some specious arguments which make him feel that doing it will being him benefit in this world and the next. If it is asked, is the one who does that out of ignorance a sinner, such as one who celebrates Christmas? The answer is that the one who is ignorant is not a sinner because he was unaware, but he has to be told, and if he persists he becomes a sinner.

The second type is imitation that is permissible. This means doing something which is not originally taken from the kuffaar, but the kuffaar do it too. This does not involve a prohibition on resembling them, but one may miss out on the benefits of differing from them.

Imitating or resembling the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and others with regard to worldly matters is permissible only when the following conditions are met:

1 – That should not be any of their traditions or rituals by which they are distinguished.

2 – That should not be part of their religion. A matter can be proven to be part of their religion though a trustworthy source, such as an aayah of the Qur’aan or a hadeeth of His Messenger, or via well-established reports, such as the prostration of greeting which was permitted to the previous nations.

3 – That should not be anything in Islam which refers specifically to that matter. If there is a specific reference in Islam, either approving or disapproving of it, then we must follow what our religion says about it.

4 – This resemblance should not lead to going against any of the commands of sharee’ah.

5 – That should not involve celebrating any of their festivals.

6 – The resemblance should be only according to what is needed, and no more.

See al-Sunan wa’l-Athaar fi’l-Nahy ‘an al-Tashabbuh bi’l-Kuffaar by Suhayl Hasan, p. 58-59

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Source

 

[YusufNoor]

If the Pope advocate segragation he is wrong. But what that's got to do with me I am not sure, perhaps you need to revisit the definition of agnostic!

France is over 80% Roman Catholic, and according to the big brother crap you preach around here, YOU NEED TO CONFORM!

being agnostic in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

being a "thinker" in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

not supporting the rape of youngsters in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

not painting "easter eggs" in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

not bowing and scraping before a priest IN A DRESS in a country with 80% Roman Catholicis divisive!

not cowtowing to the local clergy and the Pope in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

your pretending to be morally superior to the rest of the Pope's little flock in a country with 80% Roman Catholic is divisive!

you only spew that crap so you can feel better than everyone.

WHY AREN'T YOU CONFORMING??

:rollseyes

and don't forget, you need statues, lots of statues!

 

[rpwelton]

Islam does not forbid us from dressing as non-Muslims do. What is prohibited is to imitate the dress particular to other religious groups. So we should not dress like hindu priests (the reference to the hadith about saffron-colored garments that Thinker quoted), nor should we dress like hacidic Jews, or wear crosses like Christians.

Islam does not encourage complete separation from society. I mean, what did Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) wear? He wore the clothes of the Quraysh, who were pagan. But this was the clothing of all Arabs, believers and non-believers; thus the clothes did not denote a particular belief.

If I lived in colonial India back in the 1800's, I would probably have an issue with dressing like the British when the traditional Indian dress was still prominent amongst the Indians, because this would be seen as a way to destroy culture. However, if I lived in India now, I would have no problem wearing Western clothing, because this has become part of their culture and is no longer exclusively British.

Hopefully that all makes sense. I attended a seminar this last weekend which dealt particularly with these issues, and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions people have about how we should dress as Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad actually encouraged us to conform to the culture of the place we are in, as long as what we do does not go against Islam. He did not come to start a new fashion trend or completely destroy culture; he merely came to change that which goes against Islam.

However, that being said, we still need to maintain our Islamic identity. Part of this is the beard we wear as men and the hijab for women. If we like, we can go around in Arab or Pakistani clothing to project our Islamic identity, but we are not required to do so (nor is it any more sunnah to do so).

 

[Muezzin]

Islam does not forbid us from dressing as non-Muslims do. What is prohibited is to imitate the dress particular to other religious groups. So we should not dress like hindu priests (the reference to the hadith about saffron-colored garments that Thinker quoted), nor should we dress like hacidic Jews, or wear crosses like Christians.

Islam does not encourage complete separation from society. I mean, what did Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) wear? He wore the clothes of the Quraysh, who were pagan. But this was the clothing of all Arabs, believers and non-believers; thus the clothes did not denote a particular belief.

If I lived in colonial India back in the 1800's, I would probably have an issue with dressing like the British when the traditional Indian dress was still prominent amongst the Indians, because this would be seen as a way to destroy culture. However, if I lived in India now, I would have no problem wearing Western clothing, because this has become part of their culture and is no longer exclusively British.

Hopefully that all makes sense. I attended a seminar this last weekend which dealt particularly with these issues, and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions people have about how we should dress as Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad actually encouraged us to conform to the culture of the place we are in, as long as what we do does not go against Islam. He did not come to start a new fashion trend or completely destroy culture; he merely came to change that which goes against Islam.

However, that being said, we still need to maintain our Islamic identity. Part of this is the beard we wear as men, or the hijab or women. If we like, we can go around in Arab or Pakistani clothing to project our Islamic identity, but we are not required to do so (nor is it any more sunnah to do so).

Once again calm rationality triumphs over my frantic ramblings.

Very well said.

 

[alcurad]

the bead was what the arabs 'did' too, using the same reasoning, it is not a part of 'Islamic identity' either, good post otherwise

 

[rpwelton]

the bead was what the arabs 'did' too, using the same reasoning, it is not a part of 'Islamic identity' either, good post otherwise

The beard was a custom of the Arabs, however, Muhammad (peace be upon him) specifically instructed the believers to grow their beards. So we see this as being evident of a specific command regardless of cultural traditions. Whereas he did not tell people of different cultures (ie, Romans who became Muslim) to wear thobes or turbans.

 

[Uthman]

Again I'd like to reiterrate, Islam is a full system. Analysing one particular aspect in and of itself and then getting hot and bothered about it is silly. Take it as a complete system and it will make sense.

I have to second that. If you don't believe in Muhammad's (pbuh) prophethood, then you have to admit that the man was a genius. If you look at Islam's teachings as a complete system, you will see that it's teachings put together contains a recipe for a strong Muslim society. Genius.

 

[Yanal]

But not for everything,I remember a forum in which I asked a question about putting my hair as a friend who is a disbeliever,the answer came from a scholar and not a perspective,it is said all haaram things that you do and copy a disbeliever you will get punished but things that are not haaram such as growing hair you can do.

In conclusion most things a disbeliever does is haaram and if you follow you will be imitating them but some are not.

 

[rpwelton]

But not for everything,I remember a forum in which I asked a question about putting my hair as a friend who is a disbeliever,the answer came from a scholar and not a perspective,it is said all haaram things that you do and copy a disbeliever you will get punished but things that are not haaram such as growing hair you can do.

In conclusion most things a disbeliever does is haaram and if you follow you will be imitating them but some are not.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly did you want to style your hair that the scholar said is haraam?

I would also like to add, however, that there are some hairstyles or ways of dressing that while I'm not sure if it would be haraam or not, would make a person identify with a certain group of people. So just from an observational standpoint (and certainly not a scholarly or fatwa-giving standpoint) you could say that we should stay away from looking like certain groups of non-believers, but we can't generalize and say all non-believers. I mean, there's not going to be a way to wear your hair that is different from a non-believer, but you can avoid wearing your hair in a way which associates you with a particular type of person or group that may have negative connotations from an Islamic point of view.